AIM: To document unusual findings in appendectomy specimens. METHODS: The clinicopathological data of 5262 patients who underwent appendectomies for presumed acute appendicitis from January 2006 to October 2010 were r...AIM: To document unusual findings in appendectomy specimens. METHODS: The clinicopathological data of 5262 patients who underwent appendectomies for presumed acute appendicitis from January 2006 to October 2010 were reviewed retrospectively. Appendectomies performed as incidental procedures during some other operation were excluded. We focused on 54 patients who had unusual findings in their appendectomy specimens. We conducted a literature review via the PubMed and Google Scholar databases of English language studies published between 2000 and 2010 on unusual findings in appendectomy specimens. RESULTS: Unusual findings were determined in 54 (1%) cases by histopathology. Thirty were male and 24 were female with ages ranging from 15 to 84 years (median, 32.2 ± 15.1 years). Final pathology revealed 37 cases of enterobiasis, five cases of carcinoids, four mucinous cystadenomas, two eosinophilic infiltrations, two mucoceles, two tuberculosis, one goblet-cell carcinoid, and one neurogenic hyperplasia. While 52 patients underwent a standard appendectomy, two patients who were diagnosed with tuberculous appendicitis underwent a right hemicolectomy. All tumors were located at the distal part of the appendix with a mean diameter of 6.8 mm (range, 4-10 mm). All patients with tumors were alive and disease-free during a mean follow-up of 17.8 mo. A review of 1366 cases reported in the English literature is also discussed. CONCLUSION: Although unusual pathological findings are seldom seen during an appendectomy, all appendectomy specimens should be sent for routine histopathological examination.展开更多
文摘AIM: To document unusual findings in appendectomy specimens. METHODS: The clinicopathological data of 5262 patients who underwent appendectomies for presumed acute appendicitis from January 2006 to October 2010 were reviewed retrospectively. Appendectomies performed as incidental procedures during some other operation were excluded. We focused on 54 patients who had unusual findings in their appendectomy specimens. We conducted a literature review via the PubMed and Google Scholar databases of English language studies published between 2000 and 2010 on unusual findings in appendectomy specimens. RESULTS: Unusual findings were determined in 54 (1%) cases by histopathology. Thirty were male and 24 were female with ages ranging from 15 to 84 years (median, 32.2 ± 15.1 years). Final pathology revealed 37 cases of enterobiasis, five cases of carcinoids, four mucinous cystadenomas, two eosinophilic infiltrations, two mucoceles, two tuberculosis, one goblet-cell carcinoid, and one neurogenic hyperplasia. While 52 patients underwent a standard appendectomy, two patients who were diagnosed with tuberculous appendicitis underwent a right hemicolectomy. All tumors were located at the distal part of the appendix with a mean diameter of 6.8 mm (range, 4-10 mm). All patients with tumors were alive and disease-free during a mean follow-up of 17.8 mo. A review of 1366 cases reported in the English literature is also discussed. CONCLUSION: Although unusual pathological findings are seldom seen during an appendectomy, all appendectomy specimens should be sent for routine histopathological examination.
