Appendiceal duplication is exceedingly rare, with a prevalence of 0.004% to 0.009% in appendectomy specimens. Appendiceal duplications can occur alone or in conjunction with cecal duplication. The persistence of the temporary embryologic second cecal appendix is hypothesized to cause appendiceal duplications. We present a case of appendiceal duplication in a 26-year-old Ethiopian female patient who had been experiencing abdominal pain in the right lower quadrant for 1 week. She developed anorexia, a loss of appetite, and a low-grade fever as a result of this. She reported direct and rebound mild discomfort in the right lower quadrant on abdominal examination. She was then operated on and she had an appendiceal duplication intraoperatively. As a result, an appendectomy was performed, and the patient was discharged with improved health. To avoid unfavorable patient outcomes and medicolegal difficulties, surgeons and surgical trainees who conduct several appendectomies throughout their training should be aware of the likelihood of appendiceal duplication.

Duplex appendix is very rare (incidence 0.004%) but has clinical relevance given the frequency of appendicectomies performed. Failure to recognise duplication can result in failure of treatment and medico-legal consequences. A review of published cases was undertaken to identify factors that may help in managing this rare condition.

All English and non-English publications were identified in PubMed, Embase and Cochrane databases. Patient demographics, intraoperative findings, anatomical details and histopathology were analysed.

A total of 141 cases were identified [male/female ratio 1.4:1, median age 20 years (range foetus to 69 years)]. Duplication of the appendix ranges from branching of the appendix trunk to a fully matured appendix located elsewhere along the colon. Most can be categorised by the Cave-Wallbridge classification. There were 22 Type A, 8 Type B1, 46 Type B2 and 10 Type C cases (Cave-Wallbridge). There were six cases of horseshoe and two cases of triple appendix. Six reports gave anatomical descriptions that could not be classified by Cave-Wallbridge categories and in 11 cases there were no anatomical descriptions.

An anteriorly placed appendix, away from the convergence of the taenia, or a normal appendix in the presence of convincing clinical or radiological signs of appendicitis should instigate a careful examination of the caecal pole and possible exploration of the retrocaecal space for appendiceal duplication. If the patient had previous surgery for congenital abnormalities, Type B1 or Type C duplication should be considered.

Appendix vermiformis duplex is an infrequent malformation. However if it is missed out, there might be some complications and medicolegal troubles. A surgeon must be aware of any other appendix during appendectomy. Therefore, the possible locations and shapes described in the Cave-Wallbridge classification should be considered by the surgeon. In this case report, we present a patient with a horseshoe-type dupplication of appendix in a perforated appendicitis diagnosed during an emergency laparotomy.

Alimentary tract duplications are rare congenital lesions normally diagnosed in newborns and children that can occur anywhere from the mouth to the anus and have a reported incidence of approximately 1 in 4500 life births. Symptoms and clinical presentation vary greatly. The presentation varies according to age and location. The treatment finally is surgical; total resection when possible should be the aim of the intervention. In pediatric surgery minimally invasive surgical procedures became more and more important over the last decades. In consequence the operative procedure on alimentary tract duplications changed in this manner. We review on case reports and clinical reports on minimally invasive surgery in the treatment of alimentary tract duplications, determine the importance of minimally invasive techniques in the treatment of this rare entity and rule out that further studies in the field should be performed.

Our study justified by the frequency of acute appendicitis and the possibility of anatomic variations of the caecoappendicular area attempt to index the topographic variations of the vermiform appendix (v.a.). On 80 fresh native cadavers (62 men and 18 women) without surgical antecedent whose mean age was 36 years (range between 16 and 78 years) we note the morphotype and the height. More over we study the intraperitoneal projection of the Mac Burney point, topography and shape of the cecum and the situation, shape and dimensions of the v.a. We note also the level of implantation of this latter on the cecum, appearance of the mesoappendix and the distance separating the base of the appendix to the ileo-caecal junction. Mac Burney's point permitted to localize appendix in 66%; the cecum has more often than not the form of a bulb (98.7%) and sited in right fossa iliaca. We noted 7 types of topographic disposition; front varieties were more frequent (68.7%) notably the pelvic direction (51.2%) with a medial (72.5%) or a posteromedial (27.5%) establishment on the cecum. The v.a. was more often in the form of worm with a long mesoappendix; his mean length was 106.4 mm (between 65 and 160 mm) and the mean diameter 6.77 mm (range between 4 and 10 mm). The distance which separated the base of the appendix to the ileo-cecal junction varied between 15 to 40 mm with a mean distance of 24.2 mm. Thus in this study, dimensions of the v.a. were very variables. Located in right fossa iliaca he adopted a front topography with pelvic direction and medial establishment on bulbar cecum. In spite of scarcity of ectopic situation of the appendix for which laparoscopic approach is salutary, a similar topographic study during surgical treatment of acute appendicitis will be interesting.

Anomalies of the appendix are rare and are usually found in the adult population as an incidental finding during the course of surgery. We describe the appearances of a Type B duplicated appendix demonstrated on a barium enema for the first time. A review of the literature is presented with a discussion of different forms of duplicated appendices and the clinical significance of this finding.