This article has Open Peer Review reports available.
Appendix perforation in appendix duplication in a man: a case report
© Canbay and Akman; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2011
Received: 11 March 2010
Accepted: 22 April 2011
Published: 22 April 2011
Although appendix duplication is diagnosed as a rare congenital anomaly of the alimentary tract in childhood, a few adult cases have also been reported. Here we report a case of appendix duplication with perforated appendicitis co-existing with acute appendicitis in an adult patient.
A 33-year-old Caucasian man was admitted to our Emergency Department with right-sided lower-quadrant pain that we explored for presumed complicated appendicitis. On exploration, a perforated inflamed appendix was found coexisting with a second inflamed appendix which was subserosal and retrocecal. Appendectomies were performed, and the pathological examination confirmed the signs of acute inflammation in both appendixes.
Surgeons in emergency services should be aware of anatomical anomalies such as duplication and malposition of the appendix, even in patients with a history of previous appendectomy, because misdiagnosis of appendix duplication may lead to a poor clinical outcome and medicolegal issues.
Appendix duplication is an extremely rare congenital anomaly that is seen in 0.004% to 0.009% of appendectomy specimens [1, 2]. Even though the abnormality is rare, the complications that might arise from an unidentified duplicate appendix may have serious, life-threatening consequences for the patient. In patients with appendix duplication, it has been reported that acute appendicitis occurred in one  or both  appendixes and as long as six years after the first appendectomy . Pre-operative diagnosis of appendix duplication is often difficult, and it is usually determined during the operation. Here we report a case of appendix duplication with appendix perforation co-existing with acute appendicitis in an adult patient.
A 33-year-old Caucasian man presented with a 48-hour history of abdominal pain that started as diffuse pain and became located in the right lower quadrant. He also experienced loss of appetite, nausea and vomiting. He had undergone no previous abdominal or pelvic surgery. His physical examination revealed tenderness in the right iliac fossa, local guarding and rebound tenderness at the McBurney point, consistent with signs of complicated acute appendicitis. His body temperature was 38°C, his pulse rate was 90 beats/minute and his blood pressure was 90/50 mmHg. The urine examination result was normal. Laboratory investigations, including serum electrolyte levels and complete blood count, were within normal limits, except for a moderately elevated white cell count (14,000/mm3). Plain chest and abdominal radiography showed no abnormal signs.
Modified Cave-Wallbridge classification
Classification of types of appendix duplication
Single cecum with various degrees of incomplete duplication
B1 (bird type) 
Two appendixes symmetrically placed on either side of the ileocecal valve
B2 (tenia coli type) 
One appendix arises from the cecum at the usual site, and the second appendix branches from the cecum along the lines of the tenia at various distances from the first
One appendix arises from the usual site, and the second appendix arises from the hepatic flexura
One appendix arises from the usual site, and the second appendix arises from the splenic flexura
Double cecum, each with an appendix
Horseshoe appendix) 
One appendix has two openings into a common cecum
Triple appendix 
One appendix arises from the cecum at the usual site, and two additional appendixes arise from the colon
In our case, a type B2 appendix anomaly (Cave-Wallbridge classification) was encountered. This duplication is reported as developing from the persistence of the transient cecal protuberance of the sixth embryonic week [6–8]. The diagnosis was evaluated according to the Alvarado Scale on the basis of clinical examination and laboratory findings .
Explorative laparotomy was performed in our patient. Laparotomy has also been performed in patients described in other studies [3, 4]. However, Travis et al.  preferred laparoscopy for the diagnosis in their patient who had undergone a previous appendectomy. Diagnostic laparoscopy as a minimally invasive technique is now the most widely used and preferred technique compared with laparotomy. Advanced radiologic techniques can be useful for the diagnosis of intra-abdominal pathology before surgery. Even though computed tomography scans are not useful  and are not used in all cases , the diagnosis of appendix duplication with inflammation can be made . Misdiagnosis and mismanagement are common occurrences in such cases because of the rarity of the appendix anomalies. As in our case, previously reported appendix duplications have also been diagnosed during surgery in these patients . It has been reported that the second appendix could be histologically normal during the appendectomy [3, 12, 13], which leads to a delay in misdiagnosis. Delays in diagnosis of a second appendix may lead to increased risk of perforation . Duplication of the appendix should be considered in all cases of lower abdominal pain, even if the patient reports a previous appendectomy. An inflammatory mass associated with a solitary cecal diverticulum may have a similar clinical presentation and may be discovered together with appendix duplication during a laparotomy . However, it may not be possible to differentiate them clinically, and the distinction may be made only by histologic examination of the specimen. The wall of a cecal diverticulum lacks lymphoid tissue that is typically present in the vermiform appendix specimen . Appendix duplication may also present as a constricting lesion of the ascending colon and mimic a colonic adenocarcinoma .
Surgeons who deal with cases including a previous appendectomy in emergency services should be aware of the anatomic anomalies such as appendix duplication and malposition of the appendix, because misdiagnosis of appendix duplication may lead to a poor clinical outcome.
Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for publication of this case report and accompanying images. A copy of the written consent is available for review by the Editor-in-Chief of this journal.
- Collins DC: A study of 50,000 specimens of the human vermiform appendix. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1955, 101: 437-445.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kjossev KT, Losanoff JE: Duplicated vermiform appendix. Br J Surg. 1996, 83: 1259-10.1002/bjs.1800830926.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Griffiths EA, Jagadeesana J, Fasiha T, Mercer-Jonesa M: Bifid vermiform appendix: a case report. Curr Surg. 2006, 63: 176-178. 10.1016/j.cursur.2006.02.001.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chew DK, Borromeo JR, Gabriel YA, Holgersen LO: Duplication of the vermiform appendix. J Pediatr Surg. 2000, 35: 617-618. 10.1053/jpsu.2000.0350617.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Travis JR, Weppner JL, Paugh JC: Duplex vermiform appendix: case report of a ruptured second appendix. J Pediatr Surg. 2008, 43: 1726-1728. 10.1016/j.jpedsurg.2008.04.023.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Macpherson RI: Gastrointestinal tract duplications: clinical, pathologic, etiologic, and radiologic considerations. Radiographics. 1993, 13: 1063-1080.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cave AJE: Appendix vermiformis duplex. J Anat. 1936, 70: 283-292.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
- Wallbridge PH: Double appendix. Br J Surg. 1963, 50: 346-347.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Mesko TW, Lugo R, Breitholtz T: Horseshoe anomaly of the appendix: a previously undescribed entity. Surgery. 1989, 106: 563-566.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tinckler LF: Triple appendix vermiformis: a unique case. Br J Surg. 1968, 55: 79-81. 10.1002/bjs.1800550122.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Jaffe BM, Berger DH: The appendix. Schwartz's Principles of Surgery. Edited by: Brunicardi FC, Andersen DK, Billiar TR, Dunn DL, Hunter JG, Matthews JB, Pollock RE. 2010, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1073-1089. 9Google Scholar
- Mitchell IC, Nicholls JC: Duplication of the vermiform appendix: report of a case: review of the classification and medicolegal aspects. Med Sci Law. 1990, 30: 124-126.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pearson RW: The duplicate appendix: report of a case. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1983, 82: 410-411.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bluett MK, Halter SA, Salhany KE, O'Leary JP: Duplication of the appendix mimicking adenocarcinoma of the colon. Arch Surg. 1987, 122: 817-820.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.