Carcinoid Tumour of the Appendix: An Analysis of 1,485 Consecutive Emergency Appendectomies

Aim: The aim of this study is to conduct a retrospective analysis of the incidence and long-term results of carcinoid tumours of the appendix in emergency appendectomies. Methods: A retrospective review of 1,485 appendectomies was performed in two centres from January 2000 until January 2006. Demographic data, clinical presentation, histopathology, operative reports and survival were scored and compared with the literature. Results: In three women and four men, carcinoid tumours were identified (0.47%). The mean age was 32.7 years (range, 20-59 years). The clinical presentation was resembling the symptoms of acute appendicitis in all cases. Laparoscopic appendectomy was the treatment of choice in five patients; in one of these patients, a conversion to laparotomy was necessary. The other two patients underwent primary open appendectomy. Five patients underwent additional surgery after the pathology report became available. Four patients underwent ileocecal resection; one other patient underwent right hemicolectomy. In none of the re-operation specimens was residual carcinoid tumour detected. After a mean follow-up of 65 months (range, 25-92), all patients were alive and disease- and symptom-free. Conclusion: Carcinoid tumours of the appendix most often present as acute appendicitis. It also emphasises the value of histopathological analysis of every removed appendix. The long-term prognosis of incidentally found carcinoids of the appendix is good

Primary Appendiceal Mucinous Adenocarcinoma

Primary Adenocarcinomas of the appendix are extremely rare tumor. We report a case of primary mucinous adenocarcinoma in a 40 year old lady misdiagnosed as having acute appendicitis. All the routine investigations were within normal limit. USG of abdomen showed dilated appendix with little fluid collection adjacent to it and no other abnormality was seen which suggested acute appendicitis. Appendicectomy was done and excised appendix was sent for histopathological examination. Mucinous Adenocarcinoma of the appendix was confirmed after histopathological examination. Right hemicolectomy was done as a second stage procedure. As some cases are incidentally discovered, this case emphasizes that histological examination of all appendicectomy specimens is mandatory

Validity, reliability and feasibility of tools to identify frail older patients in inpatient hospital care: a systematic review

Background: The objective of this study is to identify and review screening tools for frailty in older adults admitted to inpatient hospital care with respect to their validity, reliability and feasibility. Methods: Studies were identified through systematically searching PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase and PsycINFO and screening reference lists till June 2014. Papers dealing with screening tools aimed at identifying frail older patients in in-hospital care, and including information about validity, reliability or feasibility, were included in the review. The quality of the included studies was critically appraised via the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS). Results: From the originally identified 2001 studies 32 studies met the inclusion criteria, in which 16 screening tools were presented. The screening tools showed different characteristics with respect to the number of items, the method of administration and the domains included. The most frequently studied tools with respect to predictive validity were the Identification Seniors At Risk (ISAR) and Triage Risk Stratification Tool (TRST). Studies retrieved poorer information about reliability and feasibility. Overall sensitivity was fairly good. The ISAR, ISAR-HP (Identification Seniors At Risk Hospitalized Patients) and Multidimensional Prognostic Index (MPI) generally had the best sensitivity. Conclusions: Many screening tools are available for daily practice. These tools to identify frail older patients in inpatient hospital care could be useful. For no tool, however, is clear evidence available yet regarding validity, reliability and feasibility. The overall sensitivity of the included screening tools was fairly good, whereas information on reliability and feasibility was lacking for most tools. In future research more attention should be given to the latter items