ALL Metrics
-
Views
-
Downloads
Get PDF
Get XML
Cite
Export
Track
Case Report

Case Report: Ischaemic appendicitis post mesenteric biopsy

[version 1; peer review: 2 approved]
PUBLISHED 04 Jan 2016
Author details Author details
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

A common indication for laparoscopic mesenteric lymph node biopsy is to provide a tissue diagnosis in the absence of palpable peripheral nodes via a minimally invasive approach.  There are no reports to date of ischaemia to the appendix as a complication of this procedure.   We report the case of a 34-year-old lady who underwent a mesenteric biopsy for a lesion found incidentally on CT to investigate longstanding abdominal pain, and 2 days later required an appendicectomy for ischaemic appendicitis.

Keywords

Ischaemic appendicitis, biopsy, Carcinoma, mesenteric lymph node

Introduction

Appendicitis is the most common intra-abdominal surgical emergency. The classical pathophysiology of appendicitis is that of obstruction of the lumen and subsequent bacterial overgrowth3,8. Appendicitis arising as a complication of a surgical procedure has not been reported in the literature.

A common indication for mesenteric lymph node biopsy, in the setting of enlarged mesenteric nodes or a mesenteric mass on imaging, is to provide a tissue diagnosis in the absence of palpable peripheral nodes via a minimally invasive approach1,5. Where this cannot by achieved by percutaneous techniques, laparoscopic mesenteric biopsy has been shown to be a safe and effective alternative, when compared with open techniques1,2,5. As laparoscopy is a minimally invasive technique, the reduction in wound healing time decreases the delay to therapeutic interventions such as chemotherapy2. Reasons for conversion to laparotomy include adhesions, poor intra-operative exposure and bleeding1. There are no reports to date of ischaemia to the appendix as a complication of this procedure.

We describe a case of appendicitis in the post operative period in a 34-year-old lady who underwent a mesenteric biopsy of a lesion found incidentally on CT.

Case report

A 34-year-old Caucasian lady, with no significant medical history, presented to her local GP with persistent epigastric pain and nausea. Investigation of the pain included an abdominal CT, which revealed an incidental mass in the right iliac fossa measuring 17mm suspicious for a carcinoid tumour, and no other features of concern or metastatic disease. She underwent a diagnostic laparoscopy and excisional biopsy of this mesenteric mass near the junction of the ileum and caecum, with a Harmonic scalpel. She had an uneventful recovery, and was discharged day 1 postoperatively. She later presented to the emergency department on the same day of discharge, with worsening abdominal pain and fevers. She was taken back to theatre the following day and was found to have a necrotic appendiceal tip, and underwent an appendicectomy.

The histology from the mesenteric biopsy showed a 10×15mm nodule of carcinoid tumour, as well as 2 of 4 lymph nodes containing metastases. The histology from the appendicectomy showed extensive mucosal necrosis, but no evidence of malignancy.

The patient has since undergone an open, uncomplicated right hemicolectomy which showed an 8mm grade 1 neuroendocrine tumour at the region of the ileocaecal valve with clear margins and 11 lymph nodes negative for metastatic disease. She is currently under the care of an oncologist and receiving lanreotide 60–120mg monthly, the duration of which is currently ongoing.

Discussion

Appendicitis due to primary ischaemia, or as a complication of mesenteric biopsy, is not described in the literature. Acute torsion of the appendix and subsequent appendicitis has been described infrequently in the paediatric population4. The appendiceal artery is the terminal branch of the ileocolic artery, and runs in the free edge of the mesoappendix. Varying descriptions of anatomical locations and incidence of accessory appendiceal arteries are described in the literature6.

We hypothesise that this presentation of acute appendicitis on the second post-operative day following mesenteric biopsy was secondary to inadvertent vascular injury, and subsequent ischaemia, given the proximity of the initial operative field to the ileocaecal junction. One possible mechanism is that appendiceal artery, or a possible aberrant course of the appendiceal artery or accessory appendiceal artery, was not identified during initial laparoscopic survey and was divided during dissection. Another possible mechanism is that the appendiceal artery was indirectly affected by secondary thermal injury during harmonic dissection of the mesenteric lesion. Whilst uncommon, unexpected thermal injuries to surrounding structures have been reported during use of Harmonic dissection7.

Conclusion

Laparoscopic mesenteric biopsies are becoming increasingly more common as histological diagnosis is required to confirm disease processes. This case illustrates an unusual complication of a procedure often viewed as straightforward and highlights the diligence required during mesenteric dissection to prevent inadvertent injury to nearby structures, as well as the possibility of unusual circumstances resulting in unexpected injuries when using the Harmonic scalpel as an energy source for dissection.

Consent

Consent for publication of information from this clinical case was sought and obtained from the patient.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 04 Jan 2016
Comment
Author details Author details
Grant information
Copyright
Download
 
Export To
metrics
Views Downloads
F1000Research - -
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
- -
Citations
CITE
how to cite this article
Zukiwskyj M, Tun J and Desai S. Case Report: Ischaemic appendicitis post mesenteric biopsy [version 1; peer review: 2 approved] F1000Research 2016, 5:3 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.7209.1)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?
Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 04 Jan 2016
Views
6
Cite
Reviewer Report 11 Feb 2016
Brian Keith Bednarski, Department of Surgical Oncology, Division of Surgery, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA 
Approved
VIEWS 6
The authors present a case report of a complication from a laparoscopic mesenteric excisional biopsy. Following an excision of an suspected carcinoid node in the mesentery, the patient suffered an ischemic event to the appendix.

My comments/suggestions for the article are ... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Bednarski BK. Reviewer Report For: Case Report: Ischaemic appendicitis post mesenteric biopsy [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2016, 5:3 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.7765.r11815)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Views
10
Cite
Reviewer Report 01 Feb 2016
Heidi K Chua, Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA 
Approved
VIEWS 10
Drs. Zukiwsky, Tun and Desai has described ischemia as a potential complication of mesenteric biopsy.  This certainly highlights the need to be cautious in performing what might be considered a minor procedure. I do have 2 requests:
  1. Can they be more
... Continue reading
CITE
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Chua HK. Reviewer Report For: Case Report: Ischaemic appendicitis post mesenteric biopsy [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Research 2016, 5:3 (https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.7765.r12127)
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 1
VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 04 Jan 2016
Comment
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Sign In
If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password.

The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.

Email address not valid, please try again

You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.

You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.

To sign in, please click here.

If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.

Code not correct, please try again
Email us for further assistance.
Server error, please try again.