Is @entity4265 for 2.0-cm appendiceal XXXX justified?

@entity1 @entity2466 @entity5 @entity4303 @entity4265
HYPOTHESIS: We believe @entity4265 ( @entity4265 ) is not necessary in @entity1 with an @entity2466 greater than 2.0 cm. DESIGN: A retrospective review of @entity1 with a histologically confirmed @entity2466 from April 1, 1980, to February 28, 2005, and an analysis of the literature. SETTING: Tertiary care referral center. @entity1 : Forty-eight @entity1 (34 females and 14 males) with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of @entity2466 were included in the study. Appendiceal @entity4303 was diagnosed incidentally in all 48 @entity1 . @entity1 ages ranged from 11 to 86 years (mean age, 41 years). Postoperative follow-up and disease-free survival were confirmed in 33 @entity1 via medical record review. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the relationship between survival, @entity5 size, and the role of @entity4265 vs appendectomy alone. RESULTS: Four @entity1 in our series underwent secondary @entity4265 and lymph node dissection for @entity5 greater than 2.0 cm, and none had positive lymph nodes. Following review of the literature, we were unable to find any recent evidence of distant metastasis from @entity4303 in @entity1 already treated by appendectomy. There seem to be no conclusive data to support the notion that @entity4265 confers a survival benefit over appendectomy for @entity4303 greater than 2.0 cm. CONCLUSION: @entity2466 greater than 2.0 cm can be managed effectively with simple appendectomy, given their low malignant potential and slow growth, obviating the need for @entity4265 in this group of @entity1 without affecting overall survival.
