eMedicine Specialties > General Surgery > Abdomen

Vermiform Appendix: Workup

Author: Steven L Lee, MD, Chief, Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, Kaiser-Permanente, Los Angeles Medical Center
Coauthor(s): Shant Shekherdimian, MD, Consulting Surgeon, Department of Surgery, Kaiser Foundation Hospital; Jeffrey J DuBois, MD, Consulting Staff, Division of Pediatric Surgery, Kaiser Permanente, North Sacramento Medical Center
Contributor Information and Disclosures

Updated: Nov 24, 2008

Workup

Laboratory Studies

  • Complete blood cell (CBC) count with manual differential
    • The WBC count is often mildly elevated, and a left shift is present. When an extremely elevated WBC count is present, either the patient has a perforated appendix, or another process, such as a viral illness, is responsible.
    • Both pediatric patients and adult patients do not always manifest an elevated WBC count.3 Thus, an increased percentage of bands on manual cellular differential may be just as reliable. Because an accurate history and physical is often more difficult to obtain, a persistently elevated percentage of bands may be the only objective finding of appendicitis in the pediatric patient.
  • Urinalysis (UA): Although not mandatory, a UA is often obtained to rule out urinary tract infections; however, pyuria (WBCs in the urine) is commonly observed in appendicitis because the inflammatory process may lie adjacent to the right ureter.
  • Electrolyte and renal panel: This test is not required but may be useful to help guide electrolyte resuscitation prior to appendectomy.

Imaging Studies

  • No imaging studies are needed in patients with classic appendicitis. This has been confirmed by a retrospective study determining predictive values for appendicitis (Alvarado score) based on history and physical findings. Prospective comparison of the accuracy of the Alvarado score with ultrasound findings was similar.11
  • Additional imaging studies may be required in the workup of atypical appendicitis. Controversy exists as to the most accurate, rapid, and cost-effective method of diagnosing atypical appendicitis while avoiding delays that may increase morbidity.
  • Plain abdominal radiographs - Abdominal series
    • For the most part, abdominal roentgenograms are not helpful in making the diagnosis of appendicitis. Roughly 85% of radiograph findings are normal, and 10% have nonspecific findings.3
    • The 2 most common nonspecific findings associated with appendicitis are ileus and small bowel obstruction. A more specific abnormality is a fecalith in the RLQ, but this is observed in only 4-5% of radiographs.
    • Rarely, free air under the diaphragm may also be present in patients with perforated appendicitis.
  • Abdominal/pelvic ultrasound
    • Ultrasound is an ideal noninvasive means to visualize the abdominal cavity. It is inexpensive and portable, and it can be rapidly performed with little or no patient preparation. Most importantly, it poses no ionizing radiation risk to the patient; therefore, it is particularly safe to use in children and pregnant women. On the other hand, it is operator-dependent, which means that it requires some experience and expertise to produce consistent quality results.
    • The wall elements of the appendix have a typical "target" appearance and can be visualized using graded ultrasonography compressive technique with a high resolution transducer, occasionally with supplement of color Doppler.
    • Appendicitis is suspected when the study demonstrates wall thickening (>8-10 mm), luminal distention, and lack of compressibility. In addition, ultrasound is useful in detecting free intraperitoneal fluid and fluid collections consistent with abscess formation.
    • Prospective studies have shown excellent results, with an average sensitivity of 86% and a specificity of 94% under the conditions of well-controlled clinical trials, namely in the hands of experienced examiners.12 In addition, many reported studies included patients with classic appendicitis instead of patients with equivocal clinical histories and physical findings. Such good results reported in prospective clinical trials were not frequently duplicated in routine clinical conditions. In fact, the accuracy of ultrasonography was no better than that based on clinical evaluation by the surgeons, and low sensitivity and high false-negative rates have been reported.3,13,14
    • Ultrasound is most useful for excluding other diagnoses. In women, pelvic pathology, such as pelvic inflammatory disease, ruptured Graafian follicle, twisted ovarian cyst or tumor, endometriosis, and ruptured ectopic pregnancy, can be readily detected by ultrasonography.
  • Contrast-enhanced CT scans
    • CT scan findings become more prominent with enhanced disease. Specific findings include an edematous, thick-walled appendix, inflammatory streaking of surrounding fat, and the presence of an appendicolith. Abscess formation, a small amount of free air in the RLQ, and a pericecal phlegmon suggest a perforated appendix.
    • In most clinical trials, CT appears superior to ultrasonography in the evaluation of the acute abdomen. Since CT scans have shown to yield precise information, it has increasingly become a screening tool for acute appendicitis in the emergency department. In well-conducted clinical trials, CT scans have excellent sensitivity and specificity, in the range of 87-100% and 91-97%, respectively.15,16,17 Again, such good results reported in prospective clinical trials were not frequently duplicated in routine clinical conditions. Use of CT scans in patients who have acute appendicitis had risen from 25% to 68% over a 5-year period and yet the rate of negative appendectomy remained largely unchanged, suggesting the information obtained from the imaging studies may not have much influence on the clinical decision-making process.18
    • One of the potential clinical dilemmas involves the failure of CT scan to identify a normal appendix. The difficulty in identifying the normal appendix by CT scan ranges from 44-51% in asymptomatic patients.19,20 It is probably unsafe to assume that nonvisualization of the appendix excludes the diagnosis of acute appendicitis unless there is a collaborating history or physical findings. In a patient who has no evidence of inflammation in the ileocecal region and the appendix is not visualized, there is a chance that the patient indeed still has acute appendicitis.
  • Tc-labeled WBC scan: Despite a reported sensitivity of 98% and specificity of 95%, the time required for performing the scan and its lack of around-the-clock availability make this a less-than-ideal diagnostic test for appendicitis.21
  • Barium contrast studies
    • Historically, a single-contrast barium enema was used to diagnose patients with atypical signs and symptoms. The goal was to assess the patency of the appendiceal lumen. In addition, the colonic wall could be examined for extrinsic mass effects caused by appendicitis.
    • Although this remains a simple, inexpensive, and safe study, it has been largely replaced by ultrasound and CT scanning and is rarely used today.

Diagnostic Procedures

  • The only diagnostic procedure for acute appendicitis short of open exploration is diagnostic laparoscopy.

Histologic Findings

A small percentage of normal-appearing appendices have focal appendicitis on microscopic examination. In addition, early appendicitis may be encountered in the form of increased interleukin (IL)-2 and tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha secretion, which may not be detected on gross examination. Approximately 1% of patients have appendicitis from carcinoid or adenocarcinoma.3

Staging

Appendicitis progresses through the following stages: acute or focal appendicitis, suppurative appendicitis, gangrenous appendicitis, and perforated appendicitis.9

More on Vermiform Appendix

Overview: Vermiform Appendix
Workup: Vermiform Appendix
Treatment: Vermiform Appendix
Follow-up: Vermiform Appendix
References

References

  1. Condon RE, Telford GL. Appendicitis. In: Townsend CM, eds. Sabiston Textbook of Surgery: The Biological Basis of Modern Surgical Practice. 14th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders and Co; 1991:884-898.

  2. Fitz RH. Perforating inflammation of the vermiform appendix; with special reference to its early diagnosis and treatment. Am J Med Sci. 1886;92:321-346.

  3. Lee SL, Walsh AJ, Ho HS. Computed tomography and ultrasonography do not improve and may delay the diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis. Arch Surg. May 2001;136(5):556-62. [Medline].

  4. Herrinton JL Jr. The vermiform appendix: its surgical history. Contemp Surg. 1991;39:36-44.

  5. Ho HS. Appendectomy. Scientific American Surgery. 1999;1-18.

  6. Lewis FR, Holcroft JW, Boey J, et al. Appendicitis. A critical review of diagnosis and treatment in 1,000 cases. Arch Surg. May 1975;110(5):677-84. [Medline].

  7. Carr NJ. The pathology of acute appendicitis. Ann Diagn Pathol. Feb 2000;4(1):46-58. [Medline].

  8. Korner H, Sondenaa K, Soreide JA, et al. Incidence of acute nonperforated and perforated appendicitis: age-specific and sex-specific analysis. World J Surg. Mar-Apr 1997;21(3):313-7. [Medline].

  9. Liu CD, McFadden DW. Acute abdomen and appendix. In: Greenfield LJ, Mulholland MW, eds. Surgery: Scientific Principles and Practice. 2nd ed. Baltimore, Md: Williams & Wilkins; 1997:1246-1261.

  10. Kaminski A, Liu IL, Applebaum H, et al. Routine interval appendectomy is not justified after initial nonoperative treatment of acute appendicitis. Arch Surg. Sep 2005;140(9):897-901. [Medline].

  11. Alvarado A. A practical score for the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med. May 1986;15(5):557-64. [Medline].

  12. Franke C, Bohner H, Yang Q, et al. Ultrasonography for diagnosis of acute appendicitis: results of a prospective multicenter trial.Acute Abdominal Pain Study Group. World J Surg. Feb 1999;23(2):141-6. [Medline].

  13. Ford RD, Passinault WJ, Morse ME, et al. Diagnostic ultrasound for suspected appendicitis: does the added cost produce a better outcome?. Am Surg. Nov 1994;60(11):895-8. [Medline].

  14. Douglas CD, Macpherson NE, Davidson PM, et al. Randomised controlled trial of ultrasonography in diagnosis of acute appendicitis, incorporating the Alvarado score. BMJ. Oct 14 2000;321(7266):919-22. [Medline].

  15. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA, et al. Effect of computed tomography of the appendix on treatment of patients and use of hospital resources. N Engl J Med. Jan 15 1998;338(3):141-6. [Medline].

  16. Horton MD, Counter SF, Florence MG, et al. A prospective trial of computed tomography and ultrasonography for diagnosing appendicitis in the atypical patient. Am J Surg. May 2000;179(5):379-81. [Medline].

  17. Malone AJ Jr, Wolf CR, Malmed AS, et al. Diagnosis of acute appendicitis: value of unenhanced CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Apr 1993;160(4):763-6. [Medline].

  18. Weyant MJ, Eachempati SR, Maluccio MA, et al. Interpretation of computed tomography does not correlate with laboratory or pathologic findings in surgically confirmed acute appendicitis. Surgery. Aug 2000;128(2):145-52. [Medline].

  19. Grosskreutz S, Goff WB 2nd, Balsara Z, et al. CT of the normal appendix. J Comput Assist Tomogr. Jul-Aug 1991;15(4):575-7. [Medline].

  20. Scatarige JC, DiSantis DJ, Allen HA 3rd, et al. CT demonstration of the appendix in asymptomatic adults. Gastrointest Radiol. Summer 1989;14(3):271-3. [Medline].

  21. Rypins EB, Evans DG, Hinrichs W, et al. Tc-99m-HMPAO white blood cell scan for diagnosis of acute appendicitis in patients with equivocal clinical presentation. Ann Surg. Jul 1997;226(1):58-65. [Medline].

  22. Corneille MG, Steigelman MB, Myers JG, et al. Laparoscopic appendectomy is superior to open appendectomy in obese patients. Am J Surg. Dec 2007;194(6):877-80; discussion 880-1. [Medline].

  23. Goldin AB, Sawin RS, Garrison MM, et al. Aminoglycoside-based triple-antibiotic therapy versus monotherapy for children with ruptured appendicitis. Pediatrics. May 2007;119(5):905-11. [Medline].

  24. Andersson RE, Petzold MG. Nonsurgical treatment of appendiceal abscess or phlegmon: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. Nov 2007;246(5):741-8. [Medline].

  25. Oliak D, Yamini D, Udani VM, et al. Initial nonoperative management for periappendiceal abscess. Dis Colon Rectum. Jul 2001;44(7):936-41. [Medline].

  26. Puapong D, Lee SL, Haigh PI, et al. Routine interval appendectomy in children is not indicated. J Pediatr Surg. Sep 2007;42(9):1500-3. [Medline].

  27. Hoelzer DJ, Zabel DD, Zern JT. Determining duration of antibiotic use in children with complicated appendicitis. Pediatr Infect Dis J. Nov 1999;18(11):979-82. [Medline].

Further Reading

Keywords

vermiform appendix, acute appendicitis, suppurative appendicitis, gangrenous appendicitis, perforated appendicitis, lymphoid hyperplasia, fecaliths, fecal stasis

Contributor Information and Disclosures

Author

Steven L Lee, MD, Chief, Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, Kaiser-Permanente, Los Angeles Medical Center
Steven L Lee, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Surgeons, American Pediatric Surgical Association, Association for Academic Surgery, Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, and Society of Laparoendoscopic Surgeons
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Coauthor(s)

Shant Shekherdimian, MD, Consulting Surgeon, Department of Surgery, Kaiser Foundation Hospital
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Jeffrey J DuBois, MD, Consulting Staff, Division of Pediatric Surgery, Kaiser Permanente, North Sacramento Medical Center
Jeffrey J DuBois, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Surgeons, American Pediatric Surgical Association, Association for Academic Surgery, California Medical Association, Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract, Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons, and Society of Critical Care Medicine
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Medical Editor

Brian James Daley, MD, MBA, FACS, Associate Program Director, Professor, Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma and Critical Care, University of Tennessee School of Medicine
Brian James Daley, MD, MBA, FACS is a member of the following medical societies: American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, American College of Chest Physicians, American College of Surgeons, American Medical Association, Association for Academic Surgery, Association for Surgical Education, Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma, Shock Society, Society of Critical Care Medicine, Southeastern Surgical Congress, and Tennessee Medical Association
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Pharmacy Editor

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD, Senior Pharmacy Editor, eMedicine
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Managing Editor

David Chelmow, MD, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tufts University School of Medicine; Program Director, Tufts University Affiliated Hospitals OB/GYN Residency Program; Chair, Tufts University Health Sciences Campus Institutional Review Board
David Chelmow, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association, Association of Professors of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Massachusetts Medical Society, Phi Beta Kappa, Sigma Xi, Society for Gynecologic Investigation, and Society for Medical Decision Making
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

CME Editor

Frederick B Gaupp, MD, Consulting Staff, Department of Family Practice, Hancock Medical Center
Frederick B Gaupp, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Family Physicians
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

John Geibel, MD, DSc, MA, Vice Chairman, Professor, Department of Surgery, Section of Gastrointestinal Medicine and Department of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, Yale University School of Medicine; Director of Surgical Research, Department of Surgery, Yale-New Haven Hospital
John Geibel, MD, DSc, MA is a member of the following medical societies: American Gastroenterological Association, American Physiological Society, American Society of Nephrology, Association for Academic Surgery, International Society of Nephrology, New York Academy of Sciences, and Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract
Disclosure: AMGEN Royalty Other; AstraZeneca Grant/research funds Other

 
 
HONcode

We subscribe to the
HONcode principles of the
Health On the Net Foundation

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright© 1994- by Medscape.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

DISCLAIMER: The content of this Website is not influenced by sponsors. The site is designed primarily for use by qualified physicians and other medical professionals. The information contained herein should NOT be used as a substitute for the advice of an appropriately qualified and licensed physician or other health care provider. The information provided here is for educational and informational purposes only. In no way should it be considered as offering medical advice. Please check with a physician if you suspect you are ill.