Abstract
INTRODUCTION: At present, the treatment of choice for appendicular masses is unclear. Recent studies claimed that conservative management of appendicular masses was safe in terms of frequency of perforation. However, there is controversy in the existing literature. OBJECTIVE: This research is designed to compare the results of early appendectomy versus conservative management of appendicular masses. MATERIAL AND METHODS: It was a randomized controlled trial performed in the Combined Military Hospital, Lahore. The study lasted six months, from 01/03/2019 to 30/09/2019. It involved 60 patients of both genders aged between 16 and 70 years diagnosed with appendicular masses with an Alvarado score of 4-7. These patients were randomly divided into two treatment groups. In Group A patients, an early appendectomy was performed, while patients in Group B were managed conservatively. Outcome variables were the mean length of hospital stay and frequency of appendicular perforation. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 26.8±11.9 years. There were 33 (55.0%) male and 27 (45.0%) female patients, with a male-to-female ratio of 1.2:1. The mean length of hospital stay was significantly longer in patients managed conservatively as compared to those undergoing early appendectomy (2.80±1.54 vs. 1.83±0.83; p=0.004). However, the frequency of perforation was not significantly higher in the conservative group as compared to the early appendectomy group (16.7% vs. 10.0%; p=0.448). CONCLUSION: Conservative management of patients with appendicular mass was associated with prolonged hospital stays, yet it was found equally safe in terms of frequency of appendicular perforation, which advocates conservative management of patients with appendicular mass, particularly in high-risk patients.