“…Three of eight LGMN cases were accompanied by diverticulum in this study. They suggested that diverticula may give a clue about underlying neoplasms [16]. In the study by Lamps et al diverticula were determined in 8 of 19 LGMNs (42%) [20].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, they can easily be overlooked during macroscopic examination [16]. Their prevalence is reported between 0.004% and 2% in the literature, and they are mostly seen in men [9].…”
Prevalences of diverticulum and low-grade mucinous neoplasm (LGMN) were reported as 0.04-2% and less than 1% in the appendix. In this study, the frequency of diverticulum in LGMN cases, the relationship between diverticula and periappendicular mucin, and the possible role of diverticula in pseudomyxoma peritonei pathogenesis were researched. Through systematic review and targeted search, 38 LGMN and 96 diverticula were identified, frequencies and relationship between diverticulum and LGMN were analysed. Diverticulum and LGMN were determined in 4.8% and 1.04%, respectively, of 1922 appendectomy materials specifically grossed by the same pathologist. The prevalence of diverticulum was higher in our study than literature. The difference may be due to detailed macroscopic examination. Diverticulum was detected in 60% of LGMN cases. The rate of diverticulum was found to be significantly higher in LGMNs than non-neoplastic diverticulum (p < 0.001). Periappendicular mucin deposition was significantly more frequent in LGMN cases with diverticulum than in other groups (p < 0.05). Follow-ups were available in 18 patients; none of them had mucin deposition in the peritoneal cavity. We detected that periappendicular mucin was highly associated with diverticula in LGMN cases. Periappendicular acellular mucin deposition may not give rise to pseudomyxoma peritonei. We may think that mucin could move out of the appendix through the diverticulum rather than neoplastic spread in some of these cases.
“…Three of eight LGMN cases were accompanied by diverticulum in this study. They suggested that diverticula may give a clue about underlying neoplasms [16]. In the study by Lamps et al diverticula were determined in 8 of 19 LGMNs (42%) [20].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, they can easily be overlooked during macroscopic examination [16]. Their prevalence is reported between 0.004% and 2% in the literature, and they are mostly seen in men [9].…”
Prevalences of diverticulum and low-grade mucinous neoplasm (LGMN) were reported as 0.04-2% and less than 1% in the appendix. In this study, the frequency of diverticulum in LGMN cases, the relationship between diverticula and periappendicular mucin, and the possible role of diverticula in pseudomyxoma peritonei pathogenesis were researched. Through systematic review and targeted search, 38 LGMN and 96 diverticula were identified, frequencies and relationship between diverticulum and LGMN were analysed. Diverticulum and LGMN were determined in 4.8% and 1.04%, respectively, of 1922 appendectomy materials specifically grossed by the same pathologist. The prevalence of diverticulum was higher in our study than literature. The difference may be due to detailed macroscopic examination. Diverticulum was detected in 60% of LGMN cases. The rate of diverticulum was found to be significantly higher in LGMNs than non-neoplastic diverticulum (p < 0.001). Periappendicular mucin deposition was significantly more frequent in LGMN cases with diverticulum than in other groups (p < 0.05). Follow-ups were available in 18 patients; none of them had mucin deposition in the peritoneal cavity. We detected that periappendicular mucin was highly associated with diverticula in LGMN cases. Periappendicular acellular mucin deposition may not give rise to pseudomyxoma peritonei. We may think that mucin could move out of the appendix through the diverticulum rather than neoplastic spread in some of these cases.
“…The frequency of this disease has been reported to be 0.004 %-2.1 % in surgical extraction surveys and 0.20 %-0.66 % in autopsy surveys, in which a majority of cases are incidentally discovered 3, 4) . The number of cases reported is relatively high from countries outside Japan [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] , al- reported Japanese cases 14) . According to these reports, the rate of perforation was 35.4 %, which was comparatively higher than the 27 % reported by Badr et al in 2009 13) .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Appendiceal diverticulosis is a relatively rare disease that is difficult to diagnose before surgery, and is most often diagnosed via postoperative pathological examination [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] . Appendiceal diverticulosis is reported to cause perforation more often than common acute appendicitis 14) .…”
Purpose : Perforation occurs more often with appendiceal diverticulosis than with acute appendicitis ; thus, confirming a diagnosis of appendiceal diverticulosis is critical. We compared the clinicopathological features of 12 appendiceal diverticulosis cases (3 confirmed preoperatively) and 321 acute appendicitis cases (excluding catarrhal) and investigated the pathological features specific to appendiceal diverticulosis. Methods : Over a 7.5-year period, 12 of 392 patients with appendiceal disease were diagnosed with appendiceal diverticulosis (3 confirmed preoperatively). Findings from physical examination, abdominal ultrasonography and/or computed tomography, surgery, and histopathology were statistically analyzed. Results : Onset age was significantly later for appendiceal diverticulosis than for acute appendicitis (p = 0.0176) (average, 54.3 years). Perforation occurred more frequently with appendiceal diverticulosis (p < 0.001). There were no significant gender differences. Moreover, 11 patients had appendiceal diverticulitis. The average preoperative white blood cell count and C-reactive protein levels were 11929/µL and 7.15 mg/dL, respectively. Appendectomy (6 cases), partial cecal resection (4), and ileocecal resection (2) were performed. Pseudodiverticula were Received : May 29, 2013/Accepted : June 8, 2013 Correspondence to : Takefumi Yoshida Department of Surgery, Social Insurance Tagawa Hospital, 10-18 Kamihonmachi, Tagawa City, Fukuoka 826-8585, Japan confirmed histopathologically in all cases (mesenteric, 10 ; bilatera l, 2). Six patients suffered perforations. The average number of diverticula was 2.5. Conclusions : Excision is recommended when appendiceal diverticulosis is suspected or the presence of acute appendicitis is unclear.
“…Diverticulosis of the vermiform appendix was first described by Kelynack [2]. While diverticulum of the appendix has been frequently reported in Europe and the United States, the incidence of congenital diverticulum of the appendix and acquired diverticulum of the appendix are 0.014% and 0.20 to 1.7%, respectively [3]. Previous authors have suggested that a diverticulum of the vermiform appendix has a higher risk of perforation than acute appendicitis [4][5][6][7][8][9][10].…”
Appendiceal diverticulitis is more likely to perforate over the progression of the clinical course, which would mandate appendectomy when appendiceal diverticulitis is detected by US, even if the patient has no severe abdominal pain.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.