Clinical Analysis and Laparoscopic Surgical Experience for an Appendiceal Mucocele.
- Author:
Eun Young CHANG
1
;
Jong Hoon PARK
;
Jung Ahn RHEE
;
Hae Chang CHO
;
Mi Jin GU
Author Information
1. Department of Surgery, Daegu Fatima Hospital, Daegu, Korea. thdus@paran.com
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Appendix;
Mucocele;
Laparoscopic surgery
- MeSH:
Abdominal Pain;
Appendectomy;
Appendix;
Colonoscopy;
Cystadenoma, Mucinous;
Follow-Up Studies;
Gastrointestinal Neoplasms;
Humans;
Hyperplasia;
Incidence;
Incidental Findings;
Laparoscopy;
Mucins;
Mucocele;
Pseudomyxoma Peritonei;
Recurrence;
Rupture
- From:Journal of the Korean Society of Endoscopic & Laparoscopic Surgeons
2009;12(1):31-36
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: A mucocele of the appendix is an infrequent entity of appendiceal pathology. A preoperative diagnosis is important to determine for appropriate treatment and to avoid unintended rupture of the mucocele during surgery. The purpose of our study was to identify the clinical features of an appendiceal mucocele (AM) and to describe the experience of the use of the laparoscopic approach for an AM. METHODS: Between July 1998 and July 2008, 32 cases of AM were diagnosed. We reviewed the clinicopathological characteristics and surgical experience for an AM. RESULTS: The incidence of an AM was 0.66% for 4825 performed appendectomies. Most cases manifested with symptoms of abdominal pain (84.4%), but two cases were determined based on CT incidental findings. A preoperative diagnosis of a mucocele was determined for 34.4% of the cases. The use of ultrasonography, CT and colonoscopy helped to achieve a correct diagnosis. Open surgery was performed in 15 cases and laparoscopic surgery was performed in 17 cases. For patients that underwent an appendectomy, the mean operation time and diet-start date were significantly shorter for patients that underwent laparoscopic surgery as compared to patients that underwent open surgery (p=0.030, p=0.007, respectively). Pathology identified mucosal hyperplasia (25%), mucinous cystadenoma (59.4%) and a simple mucocele (15.6%). The mean duration of follow-up was 46 months. Recurrence or development of pseudomyxoma peritonei and complications after laparoscopic surgery were not seen. CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic resection of an AM was feasible when there was no mucinous spillage. Close follow-up is recommended in all patients due to the risk of recurrence in the form of pseudomyxoma peritonei or a gastrointestinal neoplasm.
