Appendicitis Clinical Presentation

  • Author: Sandy Craig, MD; Chief Editor: Barry E Brenner, MD, PhD, FACEP   more...
 
Updated: May 16, 2012
 

History

Variations in the position of the appendix, age of the patient, and degree of inflammation make the clinical presentation of appendicitis notoriously inconsistent. Statistics report that 1 of 5 cases of appendicitis is misdiagnosed; however, a normal appendix is found in 15-40% of patients who have an emergency appendectomy.

Niwa et al reported an interesting case of a young woman with recurrent pain in who was referred for appendicitis, treated with antibiotics, and was found to have an appendiceal diverticulitis associated with a rare pelvic pseudocyst at laparotomy after 12 months.[2] Her condition was probably due to diverticular perforation of the pseudocyst.

Symptoms

The classic history of anorexia and periumbilical pain followed by nausea, right lower quadrant (RLQ) pain, and vomiting occurs in only 50% of cases. Nausea is present in 61-92% of patients; anorexia is present in 74-78% of patients. Neither finding is statistically different from findings in patients who present to the emergency department with other etiologies of abdominal pain. In addition, when vomiting occurs, it nearly always follows the onset of pain. Vomiting that precedes pain is suggestive of intestinal obstruction, and the diagnosis of appendicitis should be reconsidered. Diarrhea or constipation is noted in as many as 18% of patients and should not be used to discard the possibility of appendicitis.

The most common symptom of appendicitis is abdominal pain. Typically, symptoms begin as periumbilical or epigastric pain migrating to the right lower quadrant (RLQ) of the abdomen. This pain migration is the most discriminating feature of the patient's history, with a sensitivity and specificity of approximately 80%, a positive likelihood ratio of 3.18, and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.5.[3] Patients usually lie down, flex their hips, and draw their knees up to reduce movements and to avoid worsening their pain. Later, a worsening progressive pain along with vomiting, nausea, and anorexia are described by the patient. Usually, a fever is not present at this stage.

The duration of symptoms is less than 48 hours in approximately 80% of adults but tends to be longer in elderly persons and in those with perforation. Approximately 2% of patients report duration of pain in excess of 2 weeks. A history of similar pain is reported in as many as 23% of cases, but this history of similar pain, in and of itself, should not be used to rule out the possibility of appendicitis.

In addition to recording the history of the abdominal pain, obtain a complete summary of the recent personal history surrounding gastroenterologic, genitourinary, and pneumologic conditions, as well as consider gynecologic history in female patients. An inflamed appendix near the urinary bladder or ureter can cause irritative voiding symptoms and hematuria or pyuria. Cystitis in male patients is rare in the absence of instrumentation. Consider the possibility of an inflamed pelvic appendix in male patients with apparent cystitis. Also consider the possibility of appendicitis in pediatric or adult patients who present with acute urinary retention.[4]

Next

Physical Examination

It is important to remember that the position of the appendix is variable. Of 100 patients undergoing 3-dimensional (3-D) multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) scanning, the base of the appendix was located at the McBurney point in only 4% of patients; in 36%, the base was within 3 cm of the point; in 28%, it was 3-5 cm from that point; and, in 36% of patients, the base of the appendix was more than 5 cm from the McBurney point.[5]

The most specific physical findings in appendicitis are rebound tenderness, pain on percussion, rigidity, and guarding. Although RLQ tenderness is present in 96% of patients, this is a nonspecific finding. Rarely, left lower quadrant (LLQ) tenderness has been the major manifestation in patients with situs inversus or in patients with a lengthy appendix that extends into the LLQ. Tenderness on palpation in the RLQ over the McBurney point is the most important sign in these patients.

A careful physical examination, not limited to the abdomen, must be performed in any patient with suspected appendicitis. Gastrointestinal (GI), genitourinary, and pulmonary systems must be studied. Male infants and children occasionally present with an inflamed hemiscrotum due to migration of an inflamed appendix or pus through a patent processus vaginalis. This is often initially misdiagnosed as acute testicular torsion. In addition, perform a rectal examination in any patient with an unclear clinical picture, and perform a pelvic examination in all women with abdominal pain.

According to the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) 2010 clinical policy update, clinical signs and symptoms should be used to stratify patient risk and to choose next steps for testing and management.[6, 7]

Accessory signs

In a minority of patients with acute appendicitis, some other signs may be noted. However, their absence never should be used to rule out appendiceal inflammation. The Rovsing sign (RLQ pain with palpation of the LLQ) suggests peritoneal irritation in the RLQ precipitated by palpation at a remote location. The obturator sign (RLQ pain with internal and external rotation of the flexed right hip) suggests that the inflamed appendix is located deep in the right hemipelvis. The psoas sign (RLQ pain with extension of the right hip or with flexion of the right hip against resistance) suggests that an inflamed appendix is located along the course of the right psoas muscle.

The Dunphy sign (sharp pain in the RLQ elicited by a voluntary cough) may be helpful in making the clinical diagnosis of localized peritonitis. Similarly, RLQ pain in response to percussion of a remote quadrant of the abdomen, or to firm percussion of the patient's heel, suggests peritoneal inflammation.

The Markle sign, pain elicited in a certain area of the abdomen when the standing patient drops from standing on toes to the heels with a jarring landing, was studied in 190 patients undergoing appendectomy and found to have a sensitivity of 74%.[8]

Rectal examination

There is no evidence in the medical literature that the digital rectal examination (DRE) provides useful information in the evaluation of patients with suspected appendicitis; however, failure to perform a rectal examination is frequently cited in successful malpractice claims. In 2008, Sedlak et al studied 577 patients who underwent DRE as part of an evaluation for suspected appendicitis and found no value as a means of distinguishing patients with and without appendicitis.[9]

Previous
Next

Appendicitis and Pregnancy

The incidence of appendicitis is unchanged in pregnancy relative to the general population, but the clinical presentation is more variable than at other times.

During pregnancy, the appendix migrates in a counterclockwise direction toward the right kidney, rising above the iliac crest at about 4.5 months' gestation. RLQ pain and tenderness dominate in the first trimester, but in the latter half of pregnancy, right upper quadrant (RUQ) or right flank pain must be considered a possible sign of appendiceal inflammation.

Nausea, vomiting, and anorexia are common in uncomplicated first trimester pregnancies, but their reappearance later in gestation should be viewed with suspicion.

Previous
Next

Diagnostic Scoring

Several investigators have created diagnostic scoring systems to predict the likelihood of acute appendicitis. In these systems, a finite number of clinical variables is elicited from the patient and each is given a numeric value; then, the sum of these values is used.

The best known of these scoring systems is the MANTRELS score, which tabulates migration of pain, anorexia, nausea and/or vomiting, tenderness in the RLQ, rebound tenderness, elevated temperature, leukocytosis, and shift to the left (see Table 1).[10]

Table 1. MANTRELS Score (Open Table in a new window)

Characteristic Score
M = Migration of pain to the RLQ1
A = Anorexia1
N = Nausea and vomiting1
T = Tenderness in RLQ2
R = Rebound pain1
E = Elevated temperature1
L = Leukocytosis2
S = Shift of WBCs to the left1
Total10
Source: Alvarado.[10]
RLQ = right lower quadrant; WBCs = white blood cells

Clinical scoring systems are attractive because of their simplicity; however, none has been shown prospectively to improve on the clinician's judgment in the subset of patients evaluated in the emergency department (ED) for abdominal pain suggestive of appendicitis. The MANTRELS score, in fact, was based on a population of patients hospitalized for suspected appendicitis, which differs markedly from the population seen in the ED.

In reviewing the records of 150 ED patients who underwent abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) scanning to rule out appendicitis, McKay and Shepherd suggested that patients with an MANTRELS score of 0-3 could be discharged without imaging, that those with scores of 7 or above receive surgical consultation, and those with scores of 4-6 undergo CT evaluation.[11] The investigators found that patients with a MANTRELS score of 3 or lower had a 3.6% incidence of appendicitis, patients with scores of 4-6 had a 32% incidence of appendicitis, and patients with scores of 7-10 had a 78% incidence of appendicitis.[11]

In another study, Schneider et al concluded that the MANTRELS score was not sufficiently accurate to be used as the sole method for determining the need for appendectomy in the pediatric population.[12] These investigators, studied 588 patients aged 3-21 years and found that a MANTRELS score of 7 or greater had a positive predictive value of 65% and a negative predictive value of 85%.

Scoring systems and computer-aided diagnosis

Computer-aided diagnosis consists of using retrospective data of clinical features of patients with appendicitis and other causes of abdominal pain and then prospectively assessing the risk of appendicitis. Computer-aided diagnosis can achieve a sensitivity greater than 90% while reducing rates of perforation and negative laparotomy by as much as 50%.

However, the principle disadvantages to this method are that each institution must generate its own database to reflect characteristics of its local population, and specialized equipment and significant initiation time are required. In addition, computer-aided diagnosis is not widely available in US EDs.

Previous
Next

Stages of Appendicitis

The stages of appendicitis can be divided into early, suppurative, gangrenous, perforated, phlegmonous, spontaneous resolving, recurrent, and chronic.

Early stage appendicitis

In the early stage of appendicitis, obstruction of the appendiceal lumen leads to mucosal edema, mucosal ulceration, bacterial diapedesis, appendiceal distention due to accumulated fluid, and increasing intraluminal pressure. The visceral afferent nerve fibers are stimulated, and the patient perceives mild visceral periumbilical or epigastric pain, which usually lasts 4-6 hours.

Suppurative appendicitis

Increasing intraluminal pressures eventually exceed capillary perfusion pressure, which is associated with obstructed lymphatic and venous drainage and allows bacterial and inflammatory fluid invasion of the tense appendiceal wall. Transmural spread of bacteria causes acute suppurative appendicitis. When the inflamed serosa of the appendix comes in contact with the parietal peritoneum, patients typically experience the classic shift of pain from the periumbilicus to the right lower abdominal quadrant (RLQ), which is continuous and more severe than the early visceral pain.

Gangrenous appendicitis

Intramural venous and arterial thromboses ensue, resulting in gangrenous appendicitis.

Perforated appendicitis

Persisting tissue ischemia results in appendiceal infarction and perforation. Perforation can cause localized or generalized peritonitis.

Phlegmonous appendicitis or abscess

An inflamed or perforated appendix can be walled off by the adjacent greater omentum or small-bowel loops, resulting in phlegmonous appendicitis or focal abscess.

Spontaneously resolving appendicitis

If the obstruction of the appendiceal lumen is relieved, acute appendicitis may resolve spontaneously.[13, 14] This occurs if the cause of the symptoms is lymphoid hyperplasia or when a fecalith is expelled from the lumen.

Recurrent appendicitis

The incidence of recurrent appendicitis is 10%. The diagnosis is accepted as such if the patient underwent similar occurrences of RLQ pain at different times that, after appendectomy, were histopathologically proven to be the result of an inflamed appendix.

Chronic appendicitis

Chronic appendicitis occurs with an incidence of 1% and is defined by the following: (1) the patient has a history of RLQ pain of at least 3 weeks’ duration without an alternative diagnosis; (2) after appendectomy, the patient experiences complete relief of symptoms; (3) histopathologically, the symptoms were proven to be the result of chronic active inflammation of the appendiceal wall or fibrosis of the appendix.

Previous
 
 
Contributor Information and Disclosures
Author

Sandy Craig, MD  Residency Program Director, Carolinas Medical Center; Associate Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine

Sandy Craig, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Coauthor(s)

Lutfi Incesu, MD  Professor, Department of Radiology, Ondokuz Mayis University School of Medicine; Chief, Neuroradiology, Department of Radiology, Ondokuz Mayis University Hospital, Turkey

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Caroline R Taylor, MD  Associate Professor, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Yale University School of Medicine; Chief, Diagnostic Imaging Service, Veterans Affairs Connecticut Health Care System

Caroline R Taylor, MD is a member of the following medical societies: Radiological Society of North America

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editor Board

William Lober, MD, MS  Associate Professor, Health Informatics and Global Health, Schools of Medicine, Nursing, and Public Health, University of Washington

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD  Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Medscape Salary Employment

Eugene Hardin, MD, FAAEM, FACEP  Former Chair and Associate Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, Charles Drew University of Medicine and Science; Former Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine, Martin Luther King Jr/Drew Medical Center

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Eugene C Lin, MD  Attending Radiologist, Teaching Coordinator for Cardiac Imaging, Radiology Residency Program, Virginia Mason Medical Center; Clinical Assistant Professor of Radiology, University of Washington School of Medicine

Eugene C Lin, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Nuclear Medicine, American College of Radiology, Radiological Society of North America, and Society of Nuclear Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

Barry E Brenner, MD, PhD, FACEP  Professor of Emergency Medicine, Professor of Internal Medicine, Program Director for Emergency Medicine, Case Medical Center, University Hospitals, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine

Barry E Brenner, MD, PhD, FACEP is a member of the following medical societies: Alpha Omega Alpha, American Academy of Emergency Medicine, American College of Chest Physicians, American College of Emergency Physicians, American College of Physicians, American Heart Association, American Thoracic Society, Arkansas Medical Society, New York Academy of Medicine, New York Academy of Sciences, and Society for Academic Emergency Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

References
  1. Karamanakos SN, Sdralis E, Panagiotopoulos S, Kehagias I. Laparoscopy in the emergency setting: a retrospective review of 540 patients with acute abdominal pain. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. Apr 2010;20(2):119-24. [Medline].

  2. Niwa H, Hiramatsu T. A rare presentation of appendiceal diverticulitis associated with pelvic pseudocyst. World J Gastroenterol. Feb 28 2008;14(8):1293-5. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  3. Yeh B. Evidence-based emergency medicine/rational clinical examination abstract. Does this adult patient have appendicitis?. Ann Emerg Med. Sep 2008;52(3):301-3. [Medline].

  4. Place RC. Acute urinary retention in a 9-year-old child: an atypical presentation of acute appendicitis. J Emerg Med. Aug 2006;31(2):173-5. [Medline].

  5. Oto A, Ernst RD, Mileski WJ, Nishino TK, Le O, Wolfe GC, et al. Localization of appendix with MDCT and influence of findings on choice of appendectomy incision. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Oct 2006;187(4):987-90. [Medline].

  6. Howell JM, Eddy OL, Lukens TW, Thiessen ME, Weingart SD, Decker WW. Clinical policy: Critical issues in the evaluation and management of emergency department patients with suspected appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med. Jan 2010;55(1):71-116. [Medline].

  7. National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC). Guideline summary: Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of emergency department patients with suspected appendicitis. National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), Rockville (MD). Available at http://www.guideline.gov. Accessed 2011 Feb 24.

  8. Markle GB 4th. Heel-drop jarring test for appendicitis. Arch Surg. Feb 1985;120(2):243. [Medline].

  9. Sedlak M, Wagner OJ, Wild B, Papagrigoriades S, Exadaktylos AK. Is there still a role for rectal examination in suspected appendicitis in adults?. Am J Emerg Med. Mar 2008;26(3):359-60. [Medline].

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

  11. [Best Evidence] Schneider C, Kharbanda A, Bachur R. Evaluating appendicitis scoring systems using a prospective pediatric cohort. Ann Emerg Med. Jun 2007;49(6):778-84, 784.e1. [Medline].

  12. Schneider C, Kharbanda A, Bachur R. Evaluating appendicitis scoring systems using a prospective pediatric cohort. Ann Emerg Med. Jun 2007;49(6):778-84, 784.e1. [Medline].

  13. Migraine S, Atri M, Bret PM, Lough JO, Hinchey JE. Spontaneously resolving acute appendicitis: clinical and sonographic documentation. Radiology. Oct 1997;205(1):55-8. [Medline].

  14. Cobben LP, de Van Otterloo AM, Puylaert JB. Spontaneously resolving appendicitis: frequency and natural history in 60 patients. Radiology. May 2000;215(2):349-52. [Medline].

  15. Dueholm S, Bagi P, Bud M. Laboratory aid in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. A blinded, prospective trial concerning diagnostic value of leukocyte count, neutrophil differential count, and C-reactive protein. Dis Colon Rectum. Oct 1989;32(10):855-9. [Medline].

  16. Thimsen DA, Tong GK, Gruenberg JC. Prospective evaluation of C-reactive protein in patients suspected to have acute appendicitis. Am Surg. Jul 1989;55(7):466-8. [Medline].

  17. de Carvalho BR, Diogo-Filho A, Fernandes C, Barra CB. [Leukocyte count, C reactive protein, alpha-1 acid glycoprotein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate in acute appendicitis]. Arq Gastroenterol. Jan-Mar 2003;40(1):25-30. [Medline].

  18. Albu E, Miller BM, Choi Y, et al. Diagnostic value of C-reactive protein in acute appendicitis. Dis Colon Rectum. Jan 1994;37(1):49-51. [Medline].

  19. Gurleyik E, Gurleyik G, Unalmiser S. Accuracy of serum C-reactive protein measurements in diagnosis of acute appendicitis compared with surgeon's clinical impression. Dis Colon Rectum. Dec 1995;38(12):1270-4. [Medline].

  20. Shakhatreh HS. The accuracy of C-reactive protein in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis compared with that of clinical diagnosis. Med Arh. 2000;54(2):109-10. [Medline].

  21. Asfar S, Safar H, Khoursheed M, Dashti H, al-Bader A. Would measurement of C-reactive protein reduce the rate of negative exploration for acute appendicitis?. J R Coll Surg Edinb. Feb 2000;45(1):21-4. [Medline].

  22. Erkasap S, Ates E, Ustuner Z, Sahin A, Yilmaz S, Yasar B, et al. Diagnostic value of interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein in acute appendicitis. Swiss Surg. 2000;6(4):169-72. [Medline].

  23. Gronroos JM, Gronroos P. Leucocyte count and C-reactive protein in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Br J Surg. Apr 1999;86(4):501-4. [Medline].

  24. Ortega-Deballon P, Ruiz de Adana-Belbel JC, Hernandez-Matias A, Garcia-Septiem J, Moreno-Azcoita M. Usefulness of laboratory data in the management of right iliac fossa pain in adults. Dis Colon Rectum. Jul 2008;51(7):1093-9. [Medline].

  25. Gronroos JM. Is there a role for leukocyte and CRP measurements in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the elderly?. Maturitas. Mar 15 1999;31(3):255-8. [Medline].

  26. Yang HR, Wang YC, Chung PK, et al. Role of leukocyte count, neutrophil percentage, and C-reactive protein in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the elderly. Am Surg. Apr 2005;71(4):344-7. [Medline].

  27. Gronroos JM. Do normal leucocyte count and C-reactive protein value exclude acute appendicitis in children?. Acta Paediatr. Jun 2001;90(6):649-51. [Medline].

  28. Stefanutti G, Ghirardo V, Gamba P. Inflammatory markers for acute appendicitis in children: are they helpful?. J Pediatr Surg. May 2007;42(5):773-6. [Medline].

  29. Mohammed AA, Daghman NA, Aboud SM, Oshibi HO. The diagnostic value of C-reactive protein, white blood cell count and neutrophil percentage in childhood appendicitis. Saudi Med J. Sep 2004;25(9):1212-5. [Medline].

  30. Yang HR, Wang YC, Chung PK, Chen WK, Jeng LB, Chen RJ. Laboratory tests in patients with acute appendicitis. ANZ J Surg. Jan-Feb 2006;76(1-2):71-4. [Medline].

  31. Tundidor Bermudez AM, Amado Dieguez JA, Montes de Oca Mastrapa JL. [Urological manifestations of acute appendicitis]. Arch Esp Urol. Apr 2005;58(3):207-12. [Medline].

  32. Bolandparvaz S, Vasei M, Owji AA, Ata-Ee N, Amin A, Daneshbod Y, et al. Urinary 5-hydroxy indole acetic acid as a test for early diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Clin Biochem. Nov 2004;37(11):985-9. [Medline].

  33. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Rattner DW, et al. Introduction of appendiceal CT: impact on negative appendectomy and appendiceal perforation rates. Ann Surg. Mar 1999;229(3):344-9. [Medline].

  34. McGory ML, Zingmond DS, Nanayakkara D, Maggard MA, Ko CY. Negative appendectomy rate: influence of CT scans. Am Surg. Oct 2005;71(10):803-8. [Medline].

  35. Harswick C, Uyenishi AA, Kordick MF, Chan SB. Clinical guidelines, computed tomography scan, and negative appendectomies: a case series. Am J Emerg Med. Jan 2006;24(1):68-72. [Medline].

  36. Frei SP, Bond WF, Bazuro RK, Richardson DM, Sierzega GM, Reed JF. Appendicitis outcomes with increasing computed tomographic scanning. Am J Emerg Med. Jan 2008;26(1):39-44. [Medline].

  37. Pickhardt PJ, Lawrence EM, Pooler BD, Bruce RJ. Diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomography for suspected acute appendicitis. Ann Intern Med. Jun 21 2011;154(12):789-96. [Medline].

  38. Kim K, Kim YH, Kim SY, Kim S, Lee YJ, Kim KP, et al. Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med. Apr 26 2012;366(17):1596-605. [Medline].

  39. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. Nov 29 2007;357(22):2277-84. [Medline].

  40. Zilbert NR, Stamell EF, Ezon I, Schlager A, Ginsburg HB, Nadler EP. Management and outcomes for children with acute appendicitis differ by hospital type: areas for improvement at public hospitals. Clin Pediatr (Phila). Jun 2009;48(5):499-504. [Medline].

  41. [Best Evidence] Doria AS, Moineddin R, Kellenberger CJ, Epelman M, Beyene J, Schuh S, et al. US or CT for Diagnosis of Appendicitis in Children and Adults? A Meta-Analysis. Radiology. Oct 2006;241(1):83-94. [Medline].

  42. Barloon TJ, Brown BP, Abu-Yousef MM, Warnock N, Berbaum KS. Sonography of acute appendicitis in pregnancy. Abdom Imaging. Mar-Apr 1995;20(2):149-51. [Medline].

  43. Cobben LP, Groot I, Haans L, Blickman JG, Puylaert J. MRI for clinically suspected appendicitis during pregnancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. Sep 2004;183(3):671-5. [Medline].

  44. Manterola C, Vial M, Moraga J, Astudillo P. Analgesia in patients with acute abdominal pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Jan 19 2011;1:CD005660. [Medline].

  45. Eriksson S, Granström L. Randomized controlled trial of appendicectomy versus antibiotic therapy for acute appendicitis. Br J Surg. Feb 1995;82(2):166-9. [Medline].

  46. Bickell NA, Aufses AH Jr, Rojas M, Bodian C. How time affects the risk of rupture in appendicitis. J Am Coll Surg. Mar 2006;202(3):401-6. [Medline].

  47. Abou-Nukta F, Bakhos C, Arroyo K, Koo Y, Martin J, Reinhold R, et al. Effects of delaying appendectomy for acute appendicitis for 12 to 24 hours. Arch Surg. May 2006;141(5):504-6; discussion 506-7. [Medline].

  48. [Guideline] Korndorffer JR Jr, Fellinger E, Reed W. SAGES guideline for laparoscopic appendectomy. Surg Endosc. Apr 2010;24(4):757-61. [Medline]. [Full Text].

  49. Liang MK, Lo HG, Marks JL. Stump appendicitis: a comprehensive review of literature. Am Surg. Feb 2006;72(2):162-6. [Medline].

Previous
Next
 
CT scan reveals an enlarged appendix with thickened walls, which do not fill with colonic contrast agent, lying adjacent to the right psoas muscle.
Sagittal graded compression transabdominal sonogram shows an acutely inflamed appendix. The tubular structure is noncompressible, lacks peristalsis, and measures greater than 6 mm in diameter. A thin rim of periappendiceal fluid is present.
Transverse graded compression transabdominal sonogram of an acutely inflamed appendix. Note the targetlike appearance due to thickened wall and surrounding loculated fluid collection.
Kidneys-ureters-bladder (KUB) radiograph shows an appendicolith in the right lower quadrant. An appendicolith is seen in fewer than 10% of patients with appendicitis, but, when present, it is essentially pathognomonic.
Technetium-99m radionuclide scan of the abdomen shows focal uptake of labeled WBCs in the right lower quadrant consistent with acute appendicitis.
Perforated appendicitis.
Normal appendix; barium enema radiographic examination. A complete contrast-filled appendix is observed (arrows), which effectively excludes the diagnosis of appendicitis.
Table 1. MANTRELS Score
Characteristic Score
M = Migration of pain to the RLQ1
A = Anorexia1
N = Nausea and vomiting1
T = Tenderness in RLQ2
R = Rebound pain1
E = Elevated temperature1
L = Leukocytosis2
S = Shift of WBCs to the left1
Total10
Source: Alvarado.[10]
RLQ = right lower quadrant; WBCs = white blood cells
Table 2. WBC Count and Likelihood of Appendicitis
WBC (× 10,000)Likelihood Ratio (95% CI)
4-70.10 (0-0.39)
7-90.52 (0-1.57)
9-110.29 (0-0.62)
11-132.8 (1.2-4.4)
13-151.7 (0-3.6)
15-172.8 (0-6.0)
17-193.5 (0-10)
19-22
Source: Dueholm et al.[15]
CI = confidence interval; WBC = white blood cell.
Previous
Next
 
 
 
 
 
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2012 by WebMD LLC.
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.