Surgical Science, 2011, 2, 39-44
doi:10.4236/ss.2011.22009 Published Online April 2011 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ss)
The Presence but not the Location of an Appendicolith
Affects the Success of Interval Appendectomy in Children
with Ruptured Appendicitis
Iyore A. James, Stephen Druhan, Donna A. Caniano, Gail E. Besner
Nationwide Children’s Hospital and The Ohio State University College of Medicine
Columbus, OH 43205, USA
Received July 20, 2010; revised February 25, 2011; accepted February 28, 2011
Abstract
Purpose: To determine whether the presence and/or location of an appendicolith can predict failure of initial
non-operative management in children with ruptured appendicitis. Methods: A retrospective chart review of
pediatric patients presenting with ruptured appendicitis was performed. Patients in whom the intent to treat
was with initial non-operative management and interval appendectomy (IA) were selected (n = 117). One
patient was excluded due to the presence of both intraluminal and extraluminal appendicoliths. Children who
failed initial non-operative management were assigned to the “failure” group (n = 22). Children that im-
proved and underwent elective IA were assigned to the “success” group (n = 94). Age, gender, duration of
symptoms, presence of an appendicolith, appendicolith location (intraluminal/extraluminal), presence of a
drainable abscess, and complications were reviewed. Results: There was an overall 18.8% failure rate for IA.
Patients with an appendicolith had a 41.7% failure rate, and patients without an appendicolith had a 13%
failure rate (p = 0.003). Patients with intraluminal or extraluminal appendicoliths each had a 41.7% failure
rate. The presence or absence of a drainable intra-abdominal abscess did not affect the failure rate. Children
in the failure group presented to the hospital earlier (6.57 ± 2.59 vs. 10.02 ± 7.21 days; p = 0.030). Conclu-
sions: The presence of an appendicolith increases the likelihood of failure of initial non-operative manage-
ment of ruptured appendicitis in children; however, the location of the appendicolith is not a predictor of
failure.
Keywords: Ruptured Appendicitis, Failure Non-Operative Management, Appendicolith
1. Introduction
The management of ruptured appendicitis in a child that
presents with a relatively indolent course remains a sub-
ject of debate [1]. There is a growing consensus for
treating these patients non-operatively with intravenous
antibiotics and percutaneous drainage of abscess (if
amenable), followed by an interval appendectomy in 6-8
weeks [2-5]. However, the routine performance of inter-
val appendectomy remains controversial [6-8].
Failure rates of initial non-operative approaches for
ruptured appendicitis range from 6%-26% [9-13]. Sev-
eral studies on predictors of failure of non-operative
management have yielded inconsistent results [10-14].
Although some authors report that the presence of an
appendicolith is predictive of failure [10,11] others did
not demonstrate this finding [13,14]. The discrepancy in
these reports may be related to the location of the appen-
dicolith, however, there have been no studies of this re-
ported in the literature. The aim of the current study was
to determine whether the location of an appendicolith
could predict failure of non-operative management in
children with ruptured appendicitis.
2. Methods
The study was approved by the Nationwide Children’s
Hospital Institutional Review Board (Protocol #IRB08-
00317). A search of all pediatric patients presenting to
our institution with ruptured appendicitis between Janu-
ary 1994 and March 2009 was performed on the Nation-
wide Children’s Internal Decision Support Data System.

40 I. A. JAMES ET AL.
A retrospective chart review was conducted for patients
in whom the intent to treat was with initial non-operative
management and subsequent interval appendectomy (IA).
Initial non-operative management consisted of intrave-
nous broad spectrum antibiotic therapy (typically am-
picillin, gentamycin and clindamycin or gentamycin and
clindamycin alone), with or without percutaneous drain-
age of intra-abdominal abscess. When amenable, percu-
taneous drainage of abscess was performed under CT
scan or ultrasound guidance by interventional radiolo-
gists. Patients were typically monitored for 4-5 days to
ensure resolution of symptoms and discharged to home
with intravenous antibiotics through a peripherally in-
serted central venous catheter (PICC). Interval appen-
dectomy was usually performed 4 to 8 weeks later (me-
dian 6 weeks). Patients who had persistent or recurrent
symptoms or who developed frank peritonitis underwent
appendectomy prior to scheduled elective IA, and were
included in the “failure” group (n = 22). Children that
improved upon initiation of therapy and underwent elec-
tive IA were included in the “success” group (n = 94).
Age, gender, duration of symptoms, appendicolith loca-
tion, presence of a drainable abscess on radiographic
imaging (CT scan or ultrasonography), complications,
and pathology reports to confirm the presence of an ap-
pendicolith, were reviewed.
Statistical analysis was performed using the Student t
test and logistic regression with statistical significance
set at p ≤ 0.05.
3. Results
3.1. Patient Selection
A total of 985 patients were admitted with a primary
diagnosis of ruptured appendicitis between January 1994
and March 2009. There were 117 patients in which the
intent to treat was with initial non-operative management
and subsequent interval appendectomy (Figure 1). One
patient in the success group was excluded because both
intraluminal and extraluminal appendicoliths were seen
on CT scan, leaving 116 patients left to study.
3.2. Patient Demographics
The study group consisted of 75 boys and 41 girls with
an age range of 1 to 17 years. The most common pre-
senting symptoms were right lower quadrant pain, fever,
diarrhea, nausea and vomiting. Twenty-two out of 116
patients failed elective IA management giving an overall
failure rate of 18.8%. There was no statistical difference
in the mean age of the success vs. failure groups (10.03 ±
3.90 years vs. 8.59 ± 4.46 years; p-value 0.13). Children
in the failure group were ill (mostly abdominal pain) for
Figure 1. Methodology flowchart. (A review of 985 charts revealed 117 patients in whom the intent was to treat with initial
non-operative management and subsequent interval appendectomy (IA). One patient was excluded from the study because
both intraluminal and extraluminal appendicoliths were identified on radiographic imaging. Twenty-two patients failed con-
ervative management). s

I. A. JAMES ET AL.
41
a shorter period of time prior to admission compared to
children in the success group (6.57 ± 2.59 days vs. 10.02 ±
7.21 days; p-value 0.03) (Table 1).
3.3. Presence/Location of Appendicolith
All radiology studies (CT scans or ultrasonography) of
the 116 patients that met study criteria were retrospec-
tively reviewed by a single certified radiologist. The ra-
diologist identified 8 patients with intraluminal appendi-
colith and 4 patients with extraluminal appendicolith in
the “failure” group, and 12 patients with intraluminal
appendicolith and 20 patients with extraluminal appen-
dicolith in the “success” group, for a total of 44 patients
with an appendicolith identified. Upon review of the pa-
thology and operative reports of these 116 patients, there
were 5 patients with intraluminal appendicolith and 5
patients with extraluminal appendicolith in the “failure”
group, and there were 7 patients with intraluminal ap-
pendicolith and 7 patients with extraluminal appendico-
lith in the “success” group, for a total of 24 patients with
an appendicolith identified (Table 1). The overall accu-
racy rate for the radiologist identifying any appendicolith
was 79.3% (Table 2), and the overall accuracy rate for
the radiologist identifying the location of the appendico-
lith was 90.5% (Table 3).
Of the 24 patients that had an appendicolith confirmed
on pathology and/or operative reports, 10 patients failed
IA (41.7 % failure rate). Of the 92 patients without an
appendicolith on pathology/operative reports, 12 failed
(13% failure rate). Thus, the presence of an appendico-
lith increases the rate of failure of IA {p = 0.003; (1.73,
13.1 95% CI)} (Table 1). Patients with either an in-
traluminal or extraluminal appendicolith had equal fail-
ure rates of 41.7% (Figure 2).
3.4. Presence of abscess
There were a total of 66 intra-abdominal abscesses that
were amenable to percutaneous drainage by interven-
tional radiology. Of the 66 patients with a drainable in-
tra-abdominal abscess, 14 failed IA (21.2% failure rate).
Of the 50 patients without a drainable abscess present, 8
failed IA (16% failure rate). Thus, the presence or ab-
sence of a drainable intra-abdominal abscess did not af-
fect the failure rate of IA (p = 0.48).
3.5. Complications
There were 4 patients in the failure group that had com-
plications including two patients with wound infection,
one patient with Clostridium difficile colitis after initiation
of antibiotic therapy, and one patient with a sub-hepatic
abscess requiring percutaneous drainage by interven-
tional radiology. There were 3 patients with complica-
tions in the success group, including one patient with a
pelvic abscess that developed after initial percutaneous
drainage of an intra-abdominal abscess requiring a sec-
ond percutaneous drainage by interventional radiology, a
second patient with non-life threatening antibiotic allergy,
and a third patient that developed an enterocutaneous
fistula after initial placement of a percutaneous drain by
interventional radiology that resolved with conservative
management.
Table 1. Demographics of 116 patients in whom the intent
to treat was with initial non-operative management and
subsequent elective interval appendectomy (IA).
Success
94/116
(81.2%)
Failure
22/11
(18.8%)
p-value Odds
ratio
Age (years) 10.03 ± 3.90 8.59 ± 4.46 0.13
Duration of
symptoms (days)10.02 ± 7.21 6.57 ± 2.59 0.03
No
Appendicolith
(n = 92)
80/92
(87%)
12/92
(13%) 0.003 4.762
Any
Appendicolith
(n = 24)
14/24
(58.3%)
10/24
(41.7%) - -
Extraluminal
Appendicolith
(n = 12)
7/12
(58.3%)
5/12
(41.7%) 1 1
Intraluminal
Appendicolith
(n = 12)
7/12
(58.3%)
5/12
(41.7%) - -
Drainable
Abscess Present
(n = 66)
52/66
(78.8%)
14/66
(21.2%) 0.480 0.708
No
Drainable Abscess
(n = 50)
42/50
(84%)
8/50
(16%) - -
Complications
(n = 7)
3/7
(42.9%)
4/7
(57.1%) 0.018 0.148
No
Complications
(n = 109)
91/109
(83.5%)
18/109
(16.5%) - -
Twenty-two of the 116 patients who met eligibility criteria failed this ap-
proach, giving an overall failure rate of 18.8%. Values are reported as mean ±
standard deviation. Children in the failure group were ill for a shorter period
of time prior to admission compared to children in the success group (p =
0.03). Logistic regression was used to test whether the presence and/or the
location of an appendicolith affected the success of initial non-operative
management. Note that the presence and location of appendicoliths in this
table were defined by operative notes and pathology reports. Compared to
patients with any appendicolith, patients with no appendicolith had a sig-
nificantly lower failure rate (13%, p = 0.003). There were equal numbers of
patients with extraluminal appendicoliths (n = 12) and intraluminal appen-
dicoliths (n = 12) in the study population. The failure rate of patients with
either extraluminal or intraluminal appendicoliths was the same (41.7%, p =
1). The incidence of a complication was significantly increased in the “fail-
ure” group compared to the “success” group (p = 0.018).

42 I. A. JAMES ET AL.
Table 2. Accuracy of the radiologist’s ability to diagnose the
presence of an appendicolith.
Operative/Pathology Findings
Radiology Findings (+)
Appendicolith
(-)
Appendicolith
Number of
patients
(+) Appendicolith 22 22 44
(-) Appendicolith 2 70 72
Total 24 92 116
The radiologist’s findings regarding the presence of an appendicolith in
patients presenting with ruptured appendicitis in whom the intent was to
treat with initial non-operative management and subsequent IA have been
correlated with the operative notes/pathology reports. The accuracy of the
radiologist’s ability to diagnose the presence of an appendicolith was 79.3%;
positive predictive value equals 50%; negative predictive value equals
97.2%.
Table 3. Accuracy of the radiologist’s ability to diagnose the
location of an appendicolith.
Operative/Pathology Findings
Radiology Findings Intraluminal
Appendicolith
Extraluminal
Appendicolith
Intraluminal Appendicolith 7 1
Extraluminal Appendicolith 1 12
The radiologist’s findings regarding the location of an appendicolith have
been correlated with the operative notes/pathology reports of the 24 patients
noted to have any appendicolith by pathology/operative reports. Three
patients had intraluminal appendicoliths identified on pathology that were
not identified by the radiologist and thus not included in this table. The
accuracy of the radiologist’s diagnosis of the location of an appendicolith
was 90.5%; positive predictive value equals 87.5%; negative predictive
value equals 92.3%.
4. Discussion
In a hemodynamically stable pediatric patient with rup-
tured appendicitis and no signs of diffuse peritonitis,
conservative management with intravenous antibiotics,
percutaneous drainage of abscess (if amenable), and in-
terval appendectomy in 6-8 weeks is the current pre-
ferred treatment by many [1,15]. Several authors have
reported that the presence of an appendicolith is predic-
tive of failure of initial non-operative management with
elective IA, and that in these patients, immediate surgery
is recommended [10,11]. However, others have reported
no correlation between the presence of an appendicolith
and failure of initial non-operative management [13,14].
To clarify this discrepancy, we sought to investigate our
experience and to determine whether the location of an
appendicolith can influence the success of elective IA
management.
Approximately 26% of the 325 (average) cases of
acute appendicitis diagnosed annually at our institution
Figure 2. Success of IA based on the presence and location
of appendicolith. (There were 24 patients with an appendi-
colith and 92 patients without an appendicolith identified
on either operative or pathology reports. Of the 24 patients
with an appendicolith, 10 failed IA (41.7 % failure rate). Of
the 92 patients without an appendicolith, 12 failed (13%
failure rate). Thus, the presence of an appendicolith in-
creases the rate of failure of IA {*p = 0.003; (1.73, 13.1 95%
CI)} Patients with intraluminal or extraluminal appendico-
liths had equal failure rates of 41.7%).
present with ruptured appendicitis. During the study pe-
riod, 116 patients (~12% of patients presenting with
ruptured appendicitis) were treated with attempted IA.
Ninety-four patients were successfully treated with IA
whereas 22 patients failed conservative management,
representing a failure rate of 18.8%, which is consistent
with previous reports [9]. CT scans and ultrasonography
exhibit similar accuracy for detecting acute appendicitis
[16]. Radiology images (either CT scans or ultrasono-
graphy) of all 116 patients were retrospectively reviewed
by a certified pediatric radiologist to evaluate the pres-
ence and location of an appendicolith. Operative and
pathology reports were reviewed to evaluate the accuracy
of the radiologist’s report. The overall accuracy of the
radiologist identifying the presence and location of an
appendicolith were 79.3% and 90.5% respectively.
In our study, a significantly higher proportion of pa-
tients that failed conservative management had an ap-
pendicolith. We anticipated that the presence of an ex-
traluminal appendicolith might be predictive of failure of
IA based on the following: 1) a retained appendicolith
harbors intestinal bacteria and serves as a nidus for in-
fection, 2) studies have shown that a retained appendico-
lith after appendectomy is associated with a high rate of
intra-abdominal abscess formation [17,18], and 3) ex-
traluminal retained post-operative appendicoliths require
surgical removal to prevent recurrent infections. How-
ever, when the failure rate of IA was examined based on
the location of the appendicolith, patients with either an

I. A. JAMES ET AL.
43
intraluminal or extraluminal appendicolith had a similar
failure rate of 41.7%. Since only 20.7% (n = 24) of our
study population presenting with perforated appendicitis
and intent to treat with IA had an appendicolith docu-
mented on pathology or operative reports, it is possible
that the location of an appendicolith was not predictive
of failure due to small sample size. The recorded inci-
dence of appendicolith in children presenting with per-
forated appendicitis has not been definitively established.
In one study by Fraser et al., the incidence of appendico-
lith based on histopathology reports was 26.3% in chil-
dren with perforated appendicitis, and this was signifi-
cantly higher compared to children that had either “un-
complicated appendicitis,” “non-inflamed appendix,” or
“incidental appendectomy” [19].
Nadler et al. reported that the need for abscess drainage
doubles the likelihood of failure of initial non-operative
management due to inadequate source control [13]. We
did not demonstrate this finding in our study. Statistically
significant characteristics of patients that failed conser-
vative treatment were the presence of an appendicolith
and duration of symptoms. The fact that significantly
more patients in the failure group presented to the hospi-
tal earlier in the course of their illness suggests that the
severity of their symptoms may have prompted the care-
giver to bring the child to the emergency department
sooner. We have not verified this assumption in this
study because of the lack of a reliable standardized ob-
jective marker for assessing the severity of presenting
symptoms. In a matched analysis comparing clinical
characteristics of patients treated with initial non-operative
management versus immediate appendectomy for perfo-
rated appendicitis, Henry et al. observed that the only
statistically significant difference between the two groups
was duration of abdominal pain, where patients with pain
less than 5 days in duration were more likely to undergo
immediate appendectomy [2]. These investigators also
demonstrated that patients who failed nonoperative
management had a shorter duration of abdominal pain
(average 4.4 days) compared to patients that were suc-
cessfully treated with nonoperative management (aver-
age 7.3 days). Their findings are consistent with our re-
sults.
Our study demonstrates that the presence of an appen-
dicolith increases the likelihood of failure of initial
non-operative management of ruptured appendicitis in
children, but the location of the appendicolith is not a
predictor of failure of initial non-operative management
in these patients. Furthermore, it is apparent that the ra-
diologist at times identifies appendicoliths that are not
confirmed on operative/radiology reports. Thus, the
presence of an appendicolith on admission CT scan or
ultrasonography should not necessarily dissuade the
practitioner from attempting initial non-operative man-
agement with IA, whether the appendicolith is reported
to be intraluminal or extraluminal. While established
predictors for failure of non-operative management may
be essential for standardizing care of ruptured appendici-
tis in pediatric patients, careful clinical judgment contin-
ues to be imperative in the management of these patients.
5. References
[1] C. Chen, C. Botelho, A. Cooper, P. Hibberd and S. K.
Parsons, “Current Practice Patterns in the Treatment of
Perforated Appendicitis in Children,” Journal of the
American College of Surgeons, Vol. 196, No. 2, February
2003, pp. 212-221. doi:10.1016/S1072-7515(02)01666-6
[2] M. C. W. Henry, G. Gollin, S. Islam, K. Sylvester, A.
Walker, B. L. Silverman and R. Lawrence Moss,
“Matched Analysis of Nonoperative Management Vs
Immediate Appendectomy for Perforated Appendicitis,”
Journal of Pediatric Surgery, Vol. 42, No. 1, January
2007, pp. 19-24. doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2006.09.005
[3] T. R. Weber, M. A. Keller, R. J. Bower, G. Spinner and
K. Vierling, “Is Delayed Operative Treatment Worth the
Trouble with Perforated Appendicitis in Children?” The
American Journal of Surgery, Vol. 186, No. 6, December
2003, pp. 685-689. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2003.08.027
[4] D. W Vane and N. Fernandez, “Role of Interval Appen-
dectomy in the Management of Complicated Appendicitis
in Children,” World Journal of Surgery, Vol. 30, No. 1,
January 2006, pp. 51-54.
doi:10.1007/s00268-005-7946-2
[5] M. Samuel, G. Hosie, and K. Holmes, “Prospective
Evaluation of Nonsurgical Versus Surgical Management
of Appendiceal Mass,” Journal of Pediatric Surgery, Vol.
37, No. 6, June 2002, 882-886.
doi:10.1053/jpsu.2002.32895
[6] D. Puapong, S. L. Lee, P. I. Haigh, A. Kaminski, I. L. Liu
and H. Applebaum, “Routine Interval Appendectomy in
Children Is Not Indicated.” Journal of Pediatric Surgery,
Vol 42, No. 5, May 2007, pp. 1500-1503.
doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2007.04.011
[7] I. Karaca, Z. Altintoprak, A. Karkiner, G. Temir and E.
Mir, “The Management of Appendiceal Mass in Children:
Is Interval Appendectomy Necessary?” Surgery Today,
Vol. 31, No. 8, August 2001, pp. 675-677.
doi:10.1007/s005950170068
[8] S. H. Ein and B. Shandling B, “Is Interval Appendectomy
Necessary after Rupture of an Appendiceal Mass?”
Journal of Pediatric Surgery, Vol. 31, No. 6, June1996,
pp. 849-850. doi:10.1016/S0022-3468(96)90151-7
[9] R. E. Andersson and M. G. Petzold, “Nonsurgical Treat-
ment of Appendiceal Abscess or Phlegmon: A Systemic
Review And Meta-Analysis,” Annals of Surgery, Vol.
246, No. 5, November 2007, pp. 741-s748.
doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e31811f3f9f
[10] S. H. Ein, J. C. Langer and A. Daneman, “Nonoperative
Management of Pediatric Ruptured Appendix with In-

I. A. JAMES ET AL.
44
flammatory Mass or Abscess: Presence of an Appendico-
lith Predicts Recurrent Appendicitis,” Journal of Pediat-
ric Surgery, Vol. 40, No. 10, October 2005, pp. 1612-
1615. doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2005.06.001
[11] C. J. Aprahamian, D. C. Barnhart and S. E. Bledsoe,
“Failure in The Nonoperative Management of Pediatric
Ruptured Appendicitis: Predictors and Consequences,”
Journal of Pediatric Surgery, Vol. 42, No. 6, June 2007,
pp. 934-938. doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2007.01.024.
[12] J. Gillick, M. Velayudham and P. Puri, “Conservative
Management of Appendix Mass in Children” British
Journal of Surgery, Vol. 88, No. 11, November 2001, pp.
539-542.
[13] E. P. Nadler, K. K. Reblock and K. G. Vaughan, “Pre-
dictors of Outcome for Children with Perforated Appen-
dicitis Initially Treated with Non-Operative Manage-
ment,” Surgical Infections, Vol. 5, No. 4, Winter 2004,
pp. 349-356. doi:10.1089/sur.2004.5.349
[14] T. Levin, C. Whyte, R. Borzykowski, B. Han, N. Blitman
and B. Harris, “Nonoperative Management of Perforated
Appendicitis in Children: Can CT Predict Outcome?”
Pediatric Radiology, Vol. 37, No. 3, March 2007, pp.
251-255. doi:10.1007/s00247-006-0384-y
[15] S. G. Muehlstedt, T. Q. Pham and D. J. Schmeling, “The
Management of Pediatric Appendicitis: A Survey of
North American Pediatric Surgeons,” Journal of Pediat-
ric Surgery, Vol. 39, No. 6, June 2004, pp. 875- 859.
doi:10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2004.02.035
[16] P. Poortman P, P. N. M. Lohle, C. M. C Schoemaker, H.
J Oostvogel, H. J. Teepen, K. A. Zwinderman and J. F.
Hamming, “Comparison of CT and Sonography in the
Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis: A Blinded Prospective
Study,” American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 181,
No. 5, November 2003, pp. 1355- 1359.
[17] T. E. Monfore and F. J. Montegut, “The Case of the
Missing Fecalith,” Archives of Surgery, Vol. 86, No. 4,
April 1963, pp. 655- 658.
[18] M. Mulder, “Retained Fecalith as Late Complication of
Appendectomy,” Journal of American Medica Associa-
tion, Vol. 225, No. 6, August 1973, pp. 639.
[19] N. Fraser, C. Gannon and M. D.Stringer, “Appendicular
Colic and the Non-Inflamed Appendix: Fact or Fiction?”
European Journal of Pediatric Surgery, Vol. 14, No. 1,
February 2004, pp. 21-24.