The Significance of Meckel’s Diverticulum in Appendicitis — A Retrospective Analysis of 233 Cases

Conflicting reports are found in the literature concerning whether to remove an incidentally discovered Meckel’s diverticulum (MD). Between 1.1.1974 and 31.12.2000, at a single center, the perioperative data associated with appendectomy (AE) were recorded consecutively and analyzed retrospectively. All patients in whom an MD was discovered during an AE were included in the study. The clinical presentation, postoperative course, and follow-up in all MDs left in place were analyzed. During the course of 7927 AE, 233 MD (2.9%) were detected. Of these 80.7% (n = 188) were removed and 19.3% (n = 45) were left untouched. In 9% (n = 21) of all detected diverticula pathological changes were found. Ectopic tissue was seen in 12.2% (n = 23) of the MDs removed. The postoperative complication rates did not differ significantly between patients in whom the MD was removed (9.5%; n = l8) and those in whom it was not (17.7%; n = 8); in the latter group the appendicitis was of the more acute type (gangrenous or perforated) (24.4% vs. 4.3%). In 18 patients (40.0%) with non-removed MDs, a follow-up period of 14.1 ± 5.8 years was achieved. Complications associated with a non-removed MD were not observed. If during the course of an AE a MD is detected, the present data, as well as those in the literature, suggest that an individualized approach should be taken. Meckel’s diverticulum with obvious pathology should always be removed. In cases of gangrenous or perforated appendicitis, an incidentally discovered MD should be left in place, whereas in an only mildly inflamed appendix it should be removed.