INTRODUCTIONThe negative appendicectomy rate (NAR) is a quality metric in the management of appendicitis. While computed tomography (CT) has been associated with a low NAR, Alvarado scoring produces an acceptable NAR. The definition of negative appendicectomy may affect the NAR. This study examined the impact of CT, Alvarado score and definition on the NAR.METHODSThe charts of 1,306 emergency appendicectomy patients from 1996 to 2010 were reviewed. Three five-year cohorts were created (Cohort A: 1996–2000, Cohort B: 2001–2005, Cohort C: 2006–2010) and the NAR was calculated for each cohort using two definitions of negative appendicectomy: absence of inflammation (NAR-STD) and absence of intramural neutrophils (NAR-STR). NAR-STD was correlated to the CT rate for Cohorts B and C and also to Alvarado score for Cohort C.RESULTSWhen the definition of negative appendicectomy was changed, the NAR rose from 9.2% to 15.8% (p=0.0097) for Cohort A, from 2.8% to 8.6% (p=0.0180) for Cohort B (CT rate: 80.6%) and from 3.0% to 6.7% (p=0.0255) for Cohort C (CT rate: 92.4%). The introduction of CT lowered NAR-STD from 1996–2000 (9.2%) to 2001–2010 (2.9%) but increasing the CT rate from 2001–2010 had no impact on the NAR. The positive predictive value for Alvarado score (98.60%) and CT (99.03%) were similar.CONCLUSIONSThe definition of a negative appendicectomy determines the NAR. CT reduces the NAR regardless of definition but routine CT is unnecessary for male patients with positive Alvarado scores. Early/mild appendicitis may resolve without surgery and CT may contribute to unnecessary surgery. Alvarado scoring allows selective use of CT in suspected appendicitis.

Introduction Idiopathic granulomatous mastitis (IGM) often mimics breast cancer. Presentation includes pain, palpable mass, suppuration or suspicious imaging. Widely reported in Asia and the Middle East, IGM is diagnosed after excluding specific granulomatous mastitis (SGM). Aetiology remains unknown. Lactation, prolactinaemia, ethnicity, autoimmune disease and Corynebacteria are associated. Treatment is controversial and the prevalence rising. Surgery and non-operative treatments including antibiotics, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), steroids, methotrexate and observation have advocates. Methods A retrospective chart review of 63 patients with IGM from 2008 to 2018 was undertaken focusing on birthplace, age, clinical presentation, wound cultures, imaging, treatments and outcomes. Results Sixty-one of 63 patients were Hispanic; 53 were Mexican-born women aged 23–46. Clinical presentation included pain, painful mass, painless mass, suppuration and abnormal imaging. Some 31/61 ultrasound examinations and 17/33 mammograms were deemed Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) score 4 or 5. Management included antibiotics (43), incision and drainage (24), NSAIDs (29), steroids (8), lumpectomy (18) and observation (12). Some 12/20 patients with painless masses resolved with observation, 3 received NSAIDs, 2 received steroids and 3 underwent lumpectomies. Antibiotics resolved 8/43 cases, 5 needed incision and drainage, 26 received NSAIDs, 6 received steroids and 5 underwent lumpectomies. Nineteen patients had indolent disease or recurrence. Conclusions Excluding malignancy is critical, treatment challenging and recurrence common in IGM. A preponderance of patients were Mexican-born, similar to other reports from the USA. Over 50% of IGM cases had suspicious BI-RADS scores. Best management remains a challenge and ranges from observation to lumpectomy.

No abstract

No abstract