The Impact of Pathological Criteria on Pediatric Negative Appendectomy Rate

Abstract Introduction Negative appendectomy rate (NAR) is a quality metric used in the surgical management of appendicitis. The rates of negative appendectomy (NA) in children range anywhere from 1% to 40% in the literature. Many reports do not provide clear pathological definitions for either appendicitis or NA on which they base their calculation of NAR. We reviewed our experience with pediatric appendectomy and the pathological spectrum encompassed within our definition of a NA and examined how the pathologic definition impacts our hospital's NAR. Methods A retrospective review from 2012 to 2016 in a single institution identified 1676 children that underwent appendectomy. Average age was 11.4 (2–18 years). Patient demographics, clinical outcomes and pathological findings were collected. At our institution, appendicitis is defined as the presence of transmural acute inflammation in the appendix and those patients without this finding have been considered to have had a negative appendectomy. Results 1435 patients underwent appendectomy for presumed appendicitis. The rate of pathologically diagnosed appendicitis was 91.1% (1307/1435) and as such, the NAR was 8.9% (128/1435). Review of the pathology of the NA cohort identified 67/128 (52.3%) patients with completely normal pathology. The remaining 61 patients displayed some sort of pathological abnormality including malignancy (n = 2), fecaliths (n = 9), pinworms (n = 3), granuloma (n = 2), fibrous obliteration (n = 4), isolated periappendiceal inflammation (n = 1), and acute inflammation confined to the mucosa (n = 40). Exclusion of these patients with abnormal pathology decreased the NAR to 4.6%. Patients with pathological abnormalities of the appendix other than transmural inflammation had a higher rate of 30-day readmission than patients with acute appendicitis (8.2% versus 4.5% p  Conclusion Pediatric NAR is dependent upon the pathological definition of appendicitis and negative appendectomy. Institutional variation in definition may explain discrepancies in the literature. By example, including only those that show “the absence of inflammation or other appendiceal pathology” would decrease our NAR by 50%. This study calls into question the interpretation of interhospital NAR and the use of NAR as a quality metric in the management of appendicitis. Retrospective comparative study: Level III evidence.