Search
Close
Search
Advanced Search
Search Menu
AI Discovery Assistant

Abstract

Appendicitis in adults is thought to occur because of luminal obstruction from a fecalith. We present a unique case of a patient who had her entire appendiceal lumen occupied by a fecalith (5.0 cm long) but had no appendicitis. We reviewed the records of 257 veterans who underwent surgical intervention at our institution for the management of acute appendicitis. Fecaliths occurred in 15.6% of patients. At laparotomy, 20.6% had a perforated appendix; pathology showed fecaliths in 20.8% of specimens. A review of the literature inclusive of 25 series showed fecaliths in 33.3% of patients with a normal appendix, 23.5% of patients with acute appendicitis and 24.9% with perforated appendicitis. These data show that appendicitis is not a common cause of fecalith obstruction in adults.

INTRODUCTION

Conventional teaching in the pathophysiology of acute appendicitis in adults dictates luminal obstruction from a fecalith (or less likely from foreign bodies, parasites, and tumors), which leads to stasis, bacterial overgrowth, inflammation, ischemia and perforation [1]. However, this classic concept, first proposed by Fitz and Mattestock [2], has been questioned by investigators demonstrating a wide range of fecaliths in patients with appendicitis (1.4–67.0%) [3].

Further, intraoperative management of appendiceal pressure in patient with appendicitis revealed that the inflammatory process might be the culprit of luminal obstruction rather than obstruction leading to inflammation [3]. Thus, there is a competing theory that obstruction is the result of inflammation and not the other way around [4].

The classical teaching of a fecalith leading to appendicitis has been challenged by several investigators [4–6], but it has not been systematically analyzed. Current strategies in the management of acute appendicitis include non-operative management (NOM), but fecaliths have been shown to be a predictor of failure to NOM [7]. Thus, a re-assessment of its role in acute appendicitis is timely.

CT of the abdomen and pelvis. Serial images (A–D) from cephalad to caudal show a large fecalith (arrows).
Figure 1

CT of the abdomen and pelvis. Serial images (A–D) from cephalad to caudal show a large fecalith (arrows).

Open in new tabDownload slide

In the present report, we present a unique patient with a very large fecalith occupying the entirety of the appendiceal lumen; we reviewed all appendectomies in our institution for the past 12 years to assess the role of fecaliths in appendicitis. We then reviewed the literature.

CASE REPORT

A 50-year-old veteran woman presented to the emergency department (ED) with a 1-day history of abdominal pain, nausea and multiple episodes of vomiting. Her pain was intermittent, severe and poorly localized to the right lower quadrant. She had had similar episodes necessitating ED visits in the past several months, and pain medication had been prescribed, which improved her symptoms. Her past medical history is significant for inflammatory bowel disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, post-traumatic stress disorder and fibromyalgia. She is a current smoker (4–5 cigarettes a day) but denies alcohol consumption or intravenous drug use. Her medications include ondansetron 8 mg by mouth three times a day, sertraline 50 mg by mouth twice a day and tramadol 50 mg per mouth as needed for pain.

On physical examination, her temperature was 97.9°F, her heart rate was 70 beats per minute, blood pressure 148/88 mmHg, respiration rate of 20 breaths per minute, her body mass index was 28.6 kg/m2. She was alert and oriented, but in clear distress from abdominal discomfort, rocking back and forth in bed and moaning from this pain. Her heart and lungs were clear. Her abdominal examination demonstrated no abdominal distension and no rigidity. She was tender to palpation on the right lower quadrant.

Serology analysis showed a white blood cell count of 7.7 K/μL (normal = 4–11 K/μL), Hemoglobin of 12.7 g/dL (normal = 11.5–15.3), hematocrit of 38.5% (normal = 34–45%) and platelets of 334 K/μL (normal = 140–400 K/μL). Electrolytes were all normal, and creatinine was 0.91 mg/dL (normal = 0.50–1.10 mg/dL). Lactic acid levels were 2.1 mmol/L (normal = 0.5–2.2 mmol/L). Her modified Alvarado score was four.

Computed tomography (CT) imaging showed an appendix with an appendicolith with mild dilation (9 mm) and no peri-appendiceal inflammatory changes (Fig. 1). Compared to a CT scan obtained in 2013, this study showed an appendicolith with mild dilation.

Given these findings, she was taken to the operating room for a laparoscopic appendectomy. Exploratory laparoscopy demonstrated no evidence of acute or chronic appendicitis. Pathological examination of the appendix demonstrated an appendix entirely occupied by a fecalith and no evidence of appendicitis (Fig. 2).

Appendiceal specimen received by pathology (A). There is a 5.0 × 0.8-cm tan/dark green fecalith filled within the lumen of the appendix (B).
Figure 2

Appendiceal specimen received by pathology (A). There is a 5.0 × 0.8-cm tan/dark green fecalith filled within the lumen of the appendix (B).

Open in new tabDownload slide

CASE SERIES

Of 257 patients who were operated on for acute appendicitis at the VA North Texas Health Care System from 2005 to 2017 only 40 had fecaliths (15.6%) [Renteria and Huerta, 2018]. Of 257 patients who underwent an appendectomy initially for acute appendicitis, 38 (14.8%) had gangrenous appendicitis. Of patients with gangrenous appendicitis seven (18.4%) had an appendicolith. Fifty-three (20.6%) had a perforated appendix despite carrying an initial diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Of patients with perforated appendicitis, 11 (20.8%) had a fecalith.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Between 1939 and 2019 a total of 25 series, inclusive of 94,592 patients, were reviewed. The average age of patients was reported in 11 studies (38.2 years old ±13.3 standard deviation [SD]). The overall fecalith in appendiceal specimens was 20.7% (range 1.4–67.0%). Fecaliths occurred with a frequency of 20.3% (range 5.3–100%) in 11 reports documenting a normal appendix. Fifteen studies reported an average of 23.5% (range 1.5–65.1%) fecaliths in patients with acute appendicitis. In patients with perforated appendicitis, fecaliths were reported in 24.9% (range 10.2–39.1%) of 10 reported series (Table 1).

Table 1
Open in new tab

Frequency of fecaliths in the appendix, overall, a normal appendix, acute appendicitis and perforated appendicitis

YearNumber of patientsAverage ageOverall fecalith (%)Fecalith in normal appendix (%)Fecalith in acute appendicitis (%)Fecalith in perforated appendicitis (%)Reference (PMID)
1939372NR67.0NRNRNRBowers et al. [12]
194391NR33.0NRNRNRSteinert et al. [13]
196371000NR44.3NRNRNRCollins et al. [14]
1965240NR33.0NRNRNRShaw et al. [15]
197955NRNR40.0NRNRBurkitt et al. [16]
1981276NR16.713.045.739.1Butler et al. [17]
19813003NR3.65.36.3NRChang et al. [18]
1985132523.0NRNRNRJones et al. [9]
1985632352.0NRNRNRJones et al. [9]
1990101NRNR26.7NRNRAndreou et al. [19]
19903124NR3.2NRNRNRAndreou et al. [19]
1990405NR6.3NRNRNRBabekir et al. [20]
2006200NR54.0NR26.028.0Herscu et al. [21]
20062660NR3.76.33.5NRMarudanayagam et al. [22]
200842724.41.4NRNRNRSgourakis et al. [23]
201051830.91.5NR1.5NRMakaju et al. [24]
201272329.336.144.87.311.5Engin et al. [25]
20124670NR3.660.539.5NRChandrasegaram et al. [26]
2013722NR13.731.612.027.5Singh et al. [4]
201413573213.734.665.110.2Ramdass et al. [27]
201433940.823.3NR63.236.7Kim et al. [28]
2015150NR13.3NR11.817.5Iqbal et al. [29]
201722569.45.8NR10.4NRKhan et al. [5]
201711138NR100.0NRNRKhan et al. [5]
201825745.415.6NRNR20.6Renteria et al. [8]
2019100738.411.1NR8.921.7Westfall et al. [30]
201944554.5NRNR18.036.0Kulvatunyou et al. [31]
2019203844.98.06.833.0NRMoskowitz et al. [32]
Total9459238.2 ± 13.3a20.333.623.524.9
YearNumber of patientsAverage ageOverall fecalith (%)Fecalith in normal appendix (%)Fecalith in acute appendicitis (%)Fecalith in perforated appendicitis (%)Reference (PMID)
1939372NR67.0NRNRNRBowers et al. [12]
194391NR33.0NRNRNRSteinert et al. [13]
196371000NR44.3NRNRNRCollins et al. [14]
1965240NR33.0NRNRNRShaw et al. [15]
197955NRNR40.0NRNRBurkitt et al. [16]
1981276NR16.713.045.739.1Butler et al. [17]
19813003NR3.65.36.3NRChang et al. [18]
1985132523.0NRNRNRJones et al. [9]
1985632352.0NRNRNRJones et al. [9]
1990101NRNR26.7NRNRAndreou et al. [19]
19903124NR3.2NRNRNRAndreou et al. [19]
1990405NR6.3NRNRNRBabekir et al. [20]
2006200NR54.0NR26.028.0Herscu et al. [21]
20062660NR3.76.33.5NRMarudanayagam et al. [22]
200842724.41.4NRNRNRSgourakis et al. [23]
201051830.91.5NR1.5NRMakaju et al. [24]
201272329.336.144.87.311.5Engin et al. [25]
20124670NR3.660.539.5NRChandrasegaram et al. [26]
2013722NR13.731.612.027.5Singh et al. [4]
201413573213.734.665.110.2Ramdass et al. [27]
201433940.823.3NR63.236.7Kim et al. [28]
2015150NR13.3NR11.817.5Iqbal et al. [29]
201722569.45.8NR10.4NRKhan et al. [5]
201711138NR100.0NRNRKhan et al. [5]
201825745.415.6NRNR20.6Renteria et al. [8]
2019100738.411.1NR8.921.7Westfall et al. [30]
201944554.5NRNR18.036.0Kulvatunyou et al. [31]
2019203844.98.06.833.0NRMoskowitz et al. [32]
Total9459238.2 ± 13.3a20.333.623.524.9

aAverage age ± SD. NR, not reported.

Table 1
Open in new tab

Frequency of fecaliths in the appendix, overall, a normal appendix, acute appendicitis and perforated appendicitis

YearNumber of patientsAverage ageOverall fecalith (%)Fecalith in normal appendix (%)Fecalith in acute appendicitis (%)Fecalith in perforated appendicitis (%)Reference (PMID)
1939372NR67.0NRNRNRBowers et al. [12]
194391NR33.0NRNRNRSteinert et al. [13]
196371000NR44.3NRNRNRCollins et al. [14]
1965240NR33.0NRNRNRShaw et al. [15]
197955NRNR40.0NRNRBurkitt et al. [16]
1981276NR16.713.045.739.1Butler et al. [17]
19813003NR3.65.36.3NRChang et al. [18]
1985132523.0NRNRNRJones et al. [9]
1985632352.0NRNRNRJones et al. [9]
1990101NRNR26.7NRNRAndreou et al. [19]
19903124NR3.2NRNRNRAndreou et al. [19]
1990405NR6.3NRNRNRBabekir et al. [20]
2006200NR54.0NR26.028.0Herscu et al. [21]
20062660NR3.76.33.5NRMarudanayagam et al. [22]
200842724.41.4NRNRNRSgourakis et al. [23]
201051830.91.5NR1.5NRMakaju et al. [24]
201272329.336.144.87.311.5Engin et al. [25]
20124670NR3.660.539.5NRChandrasegaram et al. [26]
2013722NR13.731.612.027.5Singh et al. [4]
201413573213.734.665.110.2Ramdass et al. [27]
201433940.823.3NR63.236.7Kim et al. [28]
2015150NR13.3NR11.817.5Iqbal et al. [29]
201722569.45.8NR10.4NRKhan et al. [5]
201711138NR100.0NRNRKhan et al. [5]
201825745.415.6NRNR20.6Renteria et al. [8]
2019100738.411.1NR8.921.7Westfall et al. [30]
201944554.5NRNR18.036.0Kulvatunyou et al. [31]
2019203844.98.06.833.0NRMoskowitz et al. [32]
Total9459238.2 ± 13.3a20.333.623.524.9
YearNumber of patientsAverage ageOverall fecalith (%)Fecalith in normal appendix (%)Fecalith in acute appendicitis (%)Fecalith in perforated appendicitis (%)Reference (PMID)
1939372NR67.0NRNRNRBowers et al. [12]
194391NR33.0NRNRNRSteinert et al. [13]
196371000NR44.3NRNRNRCollins et al. [14]
1965240NR33.0NRNRNRShaw et al. [15]
197955NRNR40.0NRNRBurkitt et al. [16]
1981276NR16.713.045.739.1Butler et al. [17]
19813003NR3.65.36.3NRChang et al. [18]
1985132523.0NRNRNRJones et al. [9]
1985632352.0NRNRNRJones et al. [9]
1990101NRNR26.7NRNRAndreou et al. [19]
19903124NR3.2NRNRNRAndreou et al. [19]
1990405NR6.3NRNRNRBabekir et al. [20]
2006200NR54.0NR26.028.0Herscu et al. [21]
20062660NR3.76.33.5NRMarudanayagam et al. [22]
200842724.41.4NRNRNRSgourakis et al. [23]
201051830.91.5NR1.5NRMakaju et al. [24]
201272329.336.144.87.311.5Engin et al. [25]
20124670NR3.660.539.5NRChandrasegaram et al. [26]
2013722NR13.731.612.027.5Singh et al. [4]
201413573213.734.665.110.2Ramdass et al. [27]
201433940.823.3NR63.236.7Kim et al. [28]
2015150NR13.3NR11.817.5Iqbal et al. [29]
201722569.45.8NR10.4NRKhan et al. [5]
201711138NR100.0NRNRKhan et al. [5]
201825745.415.6NRNR20.6Renteria et al. [8]
2019100738.411.1NR8.921.7Westfall et al. [30]
201944554.5NRNR18.036.0Kulvatunyou et al. [31]
2019203844.98.06.833.0NRMoskowitz et al. [32]
Total9459238.2 ± 13.3a20.333.623.524.9

aAverage age ± SD. NR, not reported.

DISCUSSION

A fecalith (also known as stercolith, coprolith, appendicolith or concretion) is a fecal concretion or pellet occupying the appendiceal lumen and is thought to be the result of a low fiber diet that accompanies a Western society lifestyle [11]. Popularized by early findings of giant surgeons [2] and propagated by animal studies showing appendicitis after appendiceal obstruction in rabbits [12], current surgical textbooks support the role of a fecalith as a major cause of appendicitis in adults [1].

The present analysis was stimulated by an unusual case in which a patient presented with a history of abdominal pain and had a large fecalith within the entire lumen of the appendix but did not cause appendicitis. A review of 257 veteran patients who had undergone an appendectomy for acute appendicitis at our institution, only 15.6% had fecaliths on the pathological specimen. A review of the literature showed that less than a quarter of patients presenting with appendicitis demonstrated a fecalith either radiographically, in the operating room, or on final pathology examination (Table 1).

The present case negates the role of the fecalith in the infectious process of appendicitis, even if it is very large. Our case series consists of veteran patients presenting with acute appendicitis and shows that fecaliths are found rarely in this patient population. The literature review demonstrated the following findings: (i) There is a wide range in the incidence of fecaliths leading to appendicitis; (ii) more cases of a normal appendix have been documented that have incidental fecaliths within the lumen compared to the frequency of a fecalith causing appendicitis; (iii) A temporal variation in the incidence of fecaliths as a cause of acute appendicitis has been proposed by Sigh et al. that divides this era prior to the 1970s and after that to current studies [4] and (iv) overall, there is an association between fecaliths and a risk of perforated appendicitis.

A fecalith is, therefore, an infrequent cause of appendicitis as suggested by textbooks. Other causes of appendicitis have been proposed and reviewed by Norman J Carr [13] and include appendiceal ulceration leading to infection, hygiene (enteric infection as a result of exposure of environmental factors), diet (appendicitis is less common in developing countries), ischemia, trauma, genetics, foreign bodies and type I hypersensitivity, and increased contractability of the appendix [13].

Thus, the current literature argues against a fecalith leading to acute appendicitis, but when present it is more likely to lead to perforation. This should be considered when assessing a patient for NOM of early appendicitis.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to disclose.

FUNDING

None.

References

1.

Cameron  

JL
, Cameron  
AM
 Current Surgial Therapy.
10th edn
. Philadelphia: Mosby, 2011:219.

Google Scholar

OpenURL Placeholder Text

 
2.

Fitz  

RH
. Perforating inflammation of the vermiform appendix.
Am J Med Sci
 1886;92:321–46.

Google Scholar

OpenURL Placeholder Text

 
3.

Arnbjornsson  

E
, Bengmark  
S
. Obstruction of the appendix lumen in relation to pathogenesis of acute appendicitis.
Acta Chir Scand
 1983;149:789–91.

Google Scholar

PubMed
OpenURL Placeholder Text

 
4.

Singh  

JP
, Mariadason  
JG
. Role of the faecolith in modern-day appendicitis.
Ann R Coll Surg Engl
 2013;95:48–51.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
5.

Khan  

MS
, Chaudhry  
MBH
, Shahzad  
N
, Tariq  
M
, Memon  
WA
, Alvi  
AR
. Risk of appendicitis in patients with incidentally discovered appendicoliths.
J Surg Res
 2018;221:84–87.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
6.

Maenza  

RL
, Smith  
L
, Wolfson  
AB
. The myth of the fecalith.
Am J Emerg Med
 1996;14:394–97.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
7.

Shindoh  

J
, Niwa  
H
, Kawai  
K
 et al.  Predictive factors for negative outcomes in initial non-operative management of suspected appendicitis.
J Gastrointest Surg
 2010;14:309–14.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
8.

Renteria  

O
, Shahid  
Z
, Huerta  
S
. Outcomes of appendectomy in elderly veteran patients.
Surgery
 2018;164:460–65.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
9.

Jones  

BA
, Demetriades  
D
, Segal  
I
, Burkitt  
DP
. The prevalence of appendiceal fecaliths in patients with and without appendicitis. A comparative study from Canada and South Africa.
Ann Surg
 1985;202:80–82.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
10.

Pieper  

R
, Kager  
L
, Tidefeldt  
U
. Obstruction of appendix vermiformis causing acute appendicitis. An experimental study in the rabbit.
Acta Chir Scand
 1982;148:63–72.

Google Scholar

PubMed
OpenURL Placeholder Text

 
11.

Carr  

NJ
. The pathology of acute appendicitis.
Ann Diagn Pathol
 2000;4:46–58.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
12.

Bowers  

WF
. Appendicitis with especial reference to pathogenesis, bacteriology and healing.
Arch Surg
 1939;39:362–22.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 
13.

Steinert  

R
, Hareide  
I
, Christiansen  
T
. Roentgenologic examination of acute appendicitis.
Acta Radiol
 1943;24:13–37.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 
14.

Collins  

DC
. 71,000 human appendix specimens. A final report, summarizing forty Years' study.
Am J Proctol
 1963;14:265–81.

Google Scholar

PubMed
OpenURL Placeholder Text

 
15.

Shaw  

RE
. Appendix calculi and acute appendicitis.
Br J Surg
 1965;52:451–59.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
16.

Burkitt  

DP
, Moolgaokar  
AS
, Tovey  
FI
. Aetiology of appendicitis.
Br Med J
 1979;1:620.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
17.

Butler  

C
. Surgical pathology of acute appendicitis.
Hum Pathol
 1981;12:870–78.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
18.

Chang  

AR
. An analysis of the pathology of 3003 appendices.
Aust N Z J Surg
 1981;51:169–78.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
19.

Andreou  

P
, Blain  
S
, Du Boulay  
CE
. A histopathological study of the appendix at autopsy and after surgical resection.
Histopathology
 1990;17:427–31.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
20.

Babekir  

AR
, Devi  
N
. Analysis of the pathology of 405 appendices.
East Afr Med J
 1990;67:599–602.

Google Scholar

PubMed
OpenURL Placeholder Text

 
21.

Herscu  

G
, Kong  
A
, Russell  
D
 et al.  Retrocecal appendix location and perforation at presentation.
Am Surg
 2006;72:890–93.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
22.

Marudanayagam  

R
, Williams  
GT
, Rees  
BI
. Review of the pathological results of 2660 appendicectomy specimens.
J Gastroenterol
 2006;41:745–49.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
23.

Sgourakis  

G
, Sotiropoulos  
GC
, Molmenti  
EP
 et al.  Are acute exacerbations of chronic inflammatory appendicitis triggered by coprostasis and/or coproliths?  
World J Gastroenterol
 2008;14:3179–82.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
24.

Makaju  

R
, Mohammad  
A
, Shakya  
A
. Acute appendicitis: analysis of 518 histopathologically diagnosed cases at the Kathmandu University Hospital, Nepal.
Kathmandu Univ Med J (KUMJ)
 2010;8:227–30.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
25.

Engin  

O
, Muratli  
A
, Ucar  
AD
, Tekin  
V
, Calik  
B
, Tosun  
A
. The importance of fecaliths in the aetiology of acute appendicitis.
Chirurgia (Bucur)
 2012;107:756–60.

Google Scholar

PubMed
OpenURL Placeholder Text

 
26.

Chandrasegaram  

MD
, Rothwell  
LA
, An  
EI
, Miller  
RJ
. Pathologies of the appendix: a 10-year review of 4670 appendicectomy specimens.
ANZ J Surg
 2012;82:844–47.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
27.

Ramdass  

MJ
, Young Sing  
Q
, Milne  
D
, Mooteeram  
J
, Barrow  
S
. Association between the appendix and the fecalith in adults.
Can J Surg
 2015;58:10–14.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
28.

Kim  

MS
, Park  
HW
, Park  
JY
 et al.  Differentiation of early perforated from nonperforated appendicitis: MDCT findings, MDCT diagnostic performance, and clinical outcome.
Abdom Imaging
 2014;39:459–66.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
29.

Iqbal  

Z
, Uddin  
MT
, Gulsharif  
F
, Ahmad  
ZS
, Jan  
Y
, Azisulah  
F
. Determination of frequency of fecolith in perforated appendicitis.
Ophthalmology Update
 2015;13:308–10.

Google Scholar

OpenURL Placeholder Text

 
30.

Westfall  

KM
, Charles  
AG
. Risk of perforation in the era of nonemergent management for acute appendicitis.
Am Surg
 2019;85:1209–12.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
31.

Kulvatunyou  

N
, Zimmerman  
SA
, Joseph  
B
 et al.  Risk factors for perforated appendicitis in the acute care surgery era-minimizing the Patient's delayed presentation factor.
J Surg Res
 2019;238:113–18.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
32.

Moskowitz  

E
, Khan  
AD
, Cribari  
C
, Schroeppel  
TJ
. Size matters: Computed tomographic measurements of the appendix in emergency department scans.
Am J Surg
 2019;218:271–74.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 
Published by Oxford University Press and JSCR Publishing Ltd. © The Author(s) 2021.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Topic:
Subject
Colorectal Surgery
Issue Section:
Case Series
Download all slides