Clinical, Radiological and Pathological Appraisal of Acute Appendicitis in Al Qassim, Saudi Arabia: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis.

Background Acute appendicitis can occur at any age but is rare among people of extreme age; it is more common in teenagers and young adults. Traditionally diagnosis is made on clinical grounds. In recent times imaging techniques have been deployed to improve diagnosis and reduce negative appendicectomy rates. The aim of the study was to describe the common clinical features of acute appendicitis among our patients, highlight the role of medical imaging, and compare all these with the histological report of the excised appendix. Methods A 24-months retrospective review of all patients who underwent appendicectomy (July 1, 2019-June 30, 2021) for suspected acute appendicitis was performed. Medical records numbers of patients who had appendicectomies were retrieved from the operating room register. These numbers were used to access the hospital's electronic medical records database for the patients' records. These records were reviewed for biodata, clinical features, laboratory, medical imaging findings, and histological reports. Result In this hospital, 354 appendicectomies were performed. Only 336 had complete data set suitable for further review. There were more males (N=257; 76.5%) than females (N=79, 23.5%), yielding a male to female ratio of 4:1. There were also more Saudi citizens (n=266, 79.2%), with the predominant age group being 11-30 years. Abdominal pain was the predominant symptom (100%) and was localized to the right iliac region in 331 (98.7%) of patients. Other symptoms recorded were anorexia (n=247, 73.5%), vomiting (n=190, 56.5%), and nausea (n=93, 27.7%). Atypical symptoms included diarrhoea (n=27, 8%) and constipation (n=12, 3.6%). Acute appendicitis, complicated appendicitis, and no appendicitis were the reported histological disposition in 174 (51.8%), 124 (36.9%), and 38 (11.3%) cases respectively. Abdominal CT scan had a higher sensitivity (98.6% vs 70.5%), higher diagnostic odd ratio (2.5 vs 1.4) and a lower miss (false negative) rate (1.4% vs 29.5%) compared to ultrasonography. However, the CT scan, from this study, has a rather low specificity (3.4%) and high false positive rates (96.5%). Open (n=205; 61%) and laparoscopic (n=131;39%) approaches were used for the appendicectomies. In our study, 44 patients were diagnosed with the decision to operate based on clinical grounds; and of this, 42 (95.4%; n=44) had confirmatory histology reports of appendicitis. Also, 38 patients had negative appendicectomy; giving a negative appendicectomy rate of 11.3%. This high rate may be due to the lower specificity and high false positive rate observed in this study. The post-operative complication rate was 21.4%, and this was solely due to surgical site infection, and this was more common with the open approach (p=0.001). Conclusion Suspected acute appendicitis was the sole indication for our appendicectomies. A computerized tomography scan was a more reliable diagnostic tool than ultrasonography. Despite the fact that acute appendicitis is majorly a clinical diagnosis, and good clinical acumen is an excellent skill in the management of patients, we observed an overreliance on medical imaging for diagnosis. Open appendicectomies were more common, and surgical site infection was the sole complication of surgery. There was a relatively high negative appendicectomy rate for an image-assisted diagnosis.