Close
New

Medscape is available in 5 Language Editions – Choose your Edition here.

 

Appendicitis Workup

  • Author: Sandy Craig, MD; Chief Editor: Barry E Brenner, MD, PhD, FACEP  more...
 
Updated: Dec 27, 2015
 

Approach Considerations

Patients with appendicitis may not have the reported classic clinical picture 37-45% of the time, especially when the appendix is located in an unusual place (see Anatomy). In such cases, imaging studies may be important but not always available. However, patients with appendicitis usually have accessory signs that may be helpful for diagnosis (see Physical Examination). For example, the obturator sign is present when the internal rotation of the thigh elicits pain (ie, pelvic appendicitis), and the psoas sign is present when the extension of the right thigh elicits pain (ie, retroperitoneal or retrocecal appendicitis).

Laboratory tests are not specific for appendicitis, but they may be helpful to confirm diagnosis in patients with an atypical presentation.For example, liver and pancreatic function tests (eg, transaminases, bilirubin, alkaline phosphatase, serum lipase, amylase) may be helpful to determine the diagnosis in patients with an unclear presentation. For women of childbearing age, the level of urinary beta–human chorionic gonadotropin (beta-hCG) is useful in differentiating appendicitis from early ectopic pregnancy.

Next

CBC Count

Studies consistently show that 80-85% of adults with appendicitis have a white blood cell (WBC) count greater than 10,500 cells/µL. Neutrophilia greater than 75% occurs in 78% of patients. Less than 4% of patients with appendicitis have a WBC count less than 10,500 cells/µL and neutrophilia less than 75%.

Dueholm et al further delineated the relationship between the WBC count and the likelihood of appendicitis by calculating likelihood ratios for defined intervals of the WBC count.[24]

Table 2. WBC Count and Likelihood of Appendicitis (Open Table in a new window)

WBC (× 10,000) Likelihood Ratio (95% CI)
4-7 0.10 (0-0.39)
7-9 0.52 (0-1.57)
9-11 0.29 (0-0.62)
11-13 2.8 (1.2-4.4)
13-15 1.7 (0-3.6)
15-17 2.8 (0-6.0)
17-19 3.5 (0-10)
19-22
Source: Dueholm et al.[24]
CI = confidence interval; WBC = white blood cell.

CBC tests are inexpensive, rapid, and widely available; however, the findings are nonspecific. In infants and elderly patients, a WBC count is especially unreliable because these patients may not mount a normal response to infection. In pregnant women, the physiologic leukocytosis renders the CBC count useless for the diagnosis of appendicitis.

Previous
Next

C-Reactive Protein

C-reactive protein (CRP) is an acute-phase reactant synthesized by the liver in response to infection or inflammation and rapidly increases within the first 12 hours. CRP has been reported to be useful in the diagnosis of appendicitis; however, it lacks specificity and cannot be used to distinguish between sites of infection.

CRP levels of greater than 1 mg/dL are commonly reported in patients with appendicitis, but very high levels of CRP in patients with appendicitis indicate gangrenous evolution of the disease, especially if it is associated with leukocytosis and neutrophilia. However, CRP normalization occurs 12 hours after onset of symptoms. Several prospective studies have shown that, in adults who have had symptoms for longer than 24 hours, a normal CRP level has a negative predictive value of 97-100% for appendicitis.[5, 6, 7] Thimsen et al noted that a normal CRP level after 12 hours of symptoms was 100% predictive of benign, self-limited illness.[5]

CRP sensitivity

Multiple studies have examined the sensitivity of CRP level alone for the diagnosis of appendicitis in patients selected to undergo appendectomy. Gurleyik et al noted a CRP sensitivity of 96.6% in 87 of 90 patients with histologically proven disease.[25] Similarly, Shakhetrah found a CRP sensitivity of 95.5% in 85 of 89 patients with histologically proven appendicitis.[26] Asfar et al reported a CRP sensitivity of 93.6% in 78 patients undergoing appendectomy,[27] and Erkasap et al found a CRP sensitivity of 96% in a group of 102 adult patients with RLQ pain, 55 of whom proceeded to appendectomy.[28]

Sensitivity of WBC count and CRP level in combination

Investigators have also studied the ability of combinations of WBC count and CRP to reliably rule out the diagnosis of appendicitis. Gronroos and Gronroos found that the WBC count or CRP level was abnormal in all 200 patients with appendicitis in their cohort of 300 patients operated for suspected appendicitis.[29] Ortega-Deballon et al found that a normal WBC count and CRP level had a negative predictive value of 92.3% for the presence of appendicitis in prospectively studied patients referred to a surgeon for RLQ pain.[30]

Some studies have examined the sensitivity of a combined WBC count and CRP level in the subpopulation of patients older than 60 years. Gronroos studied 83 patients older than 60 years who underwent appendectomy (73 found to have appendicitis) and found that no patient with appendicitis had both a normal WBC count and CRP level.[31] Yang et al retrospectively studied 77 patients older than 60 years with histologically proven appendicitis and found that only 2 had a normal "triple screen" (see below).[32]

Several studies also examined the accuracy of the WBC count and CRP level in the subpopulation of pediatric patients with suspected appendicitis. Gronroos evaluated 100 children with pathology-proven appendicitis and found that both the WBC count and CRP level were normal in 7 of 100 patients.[33] Stefanutti et al prospectively studied more than 100 children undergoing surgery for suspected appendicitis and found that either the WBC count or CRP level was elevated in 98% of those with pathology-proven appendicitis.[34]

Triple screen of WBC count, CRP level, and neutrophilia

Mohammed et al prospectively studied 216 children admitted for suspected appendicitis and found a triple screen sensitivity of 86% and a negative predictive value of 81.[35] However, Yang et al found that only 6 of 740 patients with appendicitis had a WBC count less than 10,500 cells/μ L AND neutrophilia that was less than 75%, AND a normal CRP level, yielding a sensitivity of 99.2% for the "triple screen."[36]

Previous
Next

Urinalysis

Urinalysis may be useful in differentiating appendicitis from urinary tract conditions. Mild pyuria may occur in patients with appendicitis because of the relationship of the appendix with the right ureter. Severe pyuria is a more common finding in urinary tract infections (UTIs). Proteinuria and hematuria suggest genitourinary diseases or hemocoagulative disorders.

One study of 500 patients with acute appendicitis revealed that approximately one third reported urinary symptoms, most commonly dysuria or right flank pain.[37] One in 7 patients had pyuria greater than 10 WBCs per high power field (hpf), and 1 in 6 patients had greater than 3 red blood cells (RBCs) per hpf. Thus, the diagnosis of appendicitis should not be dismissed due to the presence of urologic symptoms or abnormal urinalysis.[37]

Previous
Next

Urinary 5-HIAA

According to a report by Bolandparvaz et al, measurement of the urinary 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (U-5-HIAA) levels could be an early marker of appendicitis.[8] The rationale of such measurement is related to the large amount of serotonin-secreting cells in the appendix. The investigators noted that U-5-HIAA levels increased significantly in acute appendicitis, decreasing when the inflammation shifted to necrosis of the appendix.[8] Therefore, such decrease could be an early warning sign of perforation of the appendix.

Previous
Next

CT Scanning

Computed tomography (CT) scanning with oral contrast medium or rectal Gastrografin enema has become the most important imaging study in the evaluation of patients with atypical presentations of appendicitis. Intravenous contrast is usually not necessary.

Studies have found a decrease in negative laparotomy rate and appendiceal perforation rate when pelvic CT imaging was used in selected patients with suspected appendicitis.[38, 39, 40, 41] An enlarged appendix is shown in the CT below.

CT scan reveals an enlarged appendix with thickene CT scan reveals an enlarged appendix with thickened walls, which do not fill with colonic contrast agent, lying adjacent to the right psoas muscle.

The use of CT has dramatically increased since the introduction of multidetector CT (MDCT) scanners. A large, single center study found that MDCT has a high rate of sensitivity and specificity (98.5% and 98%, respectively) for diagnosing acute appendicitis.[42]

In adults with appendicitis, the diagnostic performance of CT scans with intravenous contrast alone is comparable to that of scans with both intravenous and oral contrast, and patients who receive CT scans with intravenous contrast alone are discharged more quickly from the emergency department.[43]

Concerns have grown over the possible adverse effects on patients from exposure to radiation from CT scanning. Low-dose abdominal CT allows for a 78% reduction in radiation exposure compared to traditional abdominopelvic CT and may be preferable for diagnosing children and young adults in whom exposure to CT radiation is of particular concern.[9] Ultrasonography may offer a safer alternative as a primary diagnostic tool for appendicitis, with CT scanning used in those cases in which ultrasonograms are negative or inconclusive.

Go to Imaging of Appendicitis for more information on this topic.

Previous
Next

Ultrasonography

Because of concerns about patient exposure to radiation during CT scans, ultrasonography has been suggested as a safer primary diagnostic modality for appendicitis, with CT scanning used secondarily when ultrasonograms are negative or inconclusive.[44, 45, 46]

A healthy appendix usually cannot be viewed with ultrasonography. When appendicitis occurs, the ultrasonogram typically demonstrates a noncompressible tubular structure of 7-9 mm in diameter (see the images below).

Sagittal graded compression transabdominal sonogra 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 sonog Transverse graded compression transabdominal sonogram of an acutely inflamed appendix. Note the targetlike appearance due to thickened wall and surrounding loculated fluid collection.

In pediatric patients, the ACEP 2010 clinical policy update recommends using ultrasonography for confirmation, but not exclusion, of acute appendicitis. To definitively exclude acute appendicitis, CT is recommended.[10, 11]

Ultrasonography followed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) appears to be an effective combination for accurately diagnosing appendicitis in children.[47, 48] In a retrospective study of 662 patients younger than age 18 years presenting to the emergency department with abdominal pain, ultrasonography/MRI was performed in 397 patients and CT scanning was used in 265. In the ultrasonography/MRI group, ultrasound was positive for appendicitis in 19.7% of patients, and MRI identified an additional 62 cases, of which 7 (11.3%) were complicated. In the CT group, 55.4% of patients positive for appendicitis, of which 19.4% were complicated.[47, 48]

The false-positive rate was similar in the two groups (1.4% in the ultrasonography/MRI group and 2.5% in the CT group), and there were no false-negatives in either group.[47, 48] No significant differences between groups were observed in mean overall length of hospital stay, time to antibiotic administration, time to appendectomy, or perforation rate.[47, 48]

Vaginal ultrasonography alone or in combination with transabdominal scan may be useful to determine the diagnosis in women of childbearing age. One study of 22 pregnant women in the first and second trimesters showed that graded compression ultrasonography had a sensitivity of 66% and specificity of 95%.[12]

Go to Imaging of Appendicitis for more information on this topic.

Previous
Next

Abdominal Radiography

The kidneys-ureters-bladder (KUB) radiographic view is typically used to visualize an appendicolith in a patient with symptoms consistent with appendicitis. This finding is highly suggestive of appendicitis, but appendicoliths also occur in fewer than 10% of cases. The consensus in the literature is that plain radiographs are insensitive, nonspecific, and not cost-effective.

Go to Imaging of Appendicitis for more information on this topic.

Previous
Next

Barium Enema Study

In the past, barium enema examination was used to diagnose appendicitis; in the era of ultrasonography and CT scanning, barium enema study has essentially no role in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

A single-contrast study can be performed on an unprepared bowel. Absent or incomplete filling of the appendix coupled with pressure effect or spasm in the cecum suggests appendicitis. The typical radiologic sign of appendicitis is the "reverse 3," which typically manifests as an indentation of the cecum. However, the appendix cannot be visualized in 50% of healthy individuals; therefore, barium enema lacks reliability.

Go to Imaging of Appendicitis for more information on this topic.

Previous
Next

Radionuclide Scanning

Whole blood is withdrawn for radionuclide scanning. Neutrophils and macrophages are labeled with technetium Tc 99m (99m Tc) albumin and administered intravenously. Then, images of the abdomen and pelvis are obtained serially over 4 hours. Localized uptake of tracer in the RLQ suggests appendiceal inflammation; this is shown in the image below.

Technetium-99m radionuclide scan of the abdomen sh Technetium-99m radionuclide scan of the abdomen shows focal uptake of labeled WBCs in the right lower quadrant consistent with acute appendicitis.

Go to Imaging of Appendicitis for more information on this topic.

Previous
Next

MRI

Traditionally, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has played a relatively limited role in the evaluation of appendicitis because of its high cost, long scan times, and limited availability. However, the lack of ionizing radiation makes it an attractive modality in pregnant patients. In fact, Cobben et al showed that MRI is far superior to transabdominal ultrasonography in evaluating pregnant patients with suspected appendicitis.[49]  Moreover, the sensitivity and specificity of MRI for appendicitis appears to be similar to those of computed tomography (CT) scanning.[50]

Nonetheless, when evaluating pregnant patients with suspected appendicitis, graded compression ultrasonography should be the imaging test of choice. If ultrasonography demonstrates an inflamed appendix, the patient should undergo appendectomy. If graded compression ultrasonography is nondiagnostic, the patient should undergo MRI of the abdomen and pelvis.

When used for evaluating pediatric patients, MRI has a higher sensitivity than ultrasound. In a prospective comparison of ultrasound and MRI in 104 children with suspected appendicitis, researchers found that MRI had a sensitivity of 100% compared to ultrasound which had a sensitivity of 76%. Tolerance of MRI was comparable to that of tolerance for ultrasound.[51]

A retrospective study of 662 patients younger that age 18 years who presented to the emergency department with abdominal pain found that ultrasound followed selectively by MRI accurately diagnosed pediatric appendicitis.[47, 48]

Go to Imaging of Appendicitis for more information on this topic.

Previous
Next

Gross and Microscopic Evaluation

In the early stages of appendicitis, the appendix grossly appears edematous with dilation of the serosal vessels. Microscopy demonstrates neutrophil infiltrate of the mucosal and muscularis layers extending into the lumen. As time passes, the appendiceal wall grossly appears thickened, the lumen appears dilated, and a serosal exudate (fibrinous or fibrinopurulent) may be observed as granular roughening. At this stage, mucosal necrosis may be observed microscopically.

At the later stages of appendicitis, the appendix grossly shows marked signs of mucosal necrosis extending into the external layers of the appendiceal wall that can become gangrenous. Sometimes, the appendix may be found in a collection of pus. At this stage of appendicitis, microscopy may demonstrate multiple microabscesses of the appendiceal wall and severe necrosis of all layers.

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, Society for Academic Emergency 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 Heart Association, American Thoracic Society, Arkansas Medical Society, New York Academy of Medicine, New York Academy of Sciences, Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, American Academy of Emergency Medicine, American College of Chest Physicians, American College of Emergency Physicians, American College of Physicians

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Acknowledgements

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.

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

References
  1. Polites SF, Mohamed MI, Habermann EB, et al. A simple algorithm reduces computed tomography use in the diagnosis of appendicitis in children. Surgery. 2014 Jun 19. [Medline].

  2. Douglas D. Algorithm cuts pediatric CT use in suspected appendicitis. Reuters Health Information. July 10, 2014. [Full Text].

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

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

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

  6. 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. 2003 Jan-Mar. 40(1):25-30. [Medline].

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

  8. 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. 2004 Nov. 37(11):985-9. [Medline].

  9. 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. 2012 Apr 26. 366(17):1596-605. [Medline].

  10. 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. 2010 Jan. 55(1):71-116. [Medline].

  11. [Guideline] 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://guideline.gov/content.aspx?id=15598. Accessed: November 18, 2013.

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

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

  14. 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. 2010 Apr. 20(2):119-24. [Medline].

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

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

  17. 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. 2006 Oct. 187(4):987-90. [Medline].

  18. 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. 2008 Mar. 26(3):359-60. [Medline].

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

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

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

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

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

  24. 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. 1989 Oct. 32(10):855-9. [Medline].

  25. 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. 1995 Dec. 38(12):1270-4. [Medline].

  26. 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].

  27. 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. 2000 Feb. 45(1):21-4. [Medline].

  28. 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].

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

  30. 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. 2008 Jul. 51(7):1093-9. [Medline].

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

  32. 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. 2005 Apr. 71(4):344-7. [Medline].

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

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

  35. 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. 2004 Sep. 25(9):1212-5. [Medline].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  43. Kepner AM, Bacasnot JV, Stahlman BA. Intravenous contrast alone vs intravenous and oral contrast computed tomography for the diagnosis of appendicitis in adult ED patients. Am J Emerg Med. 2012 May 23. [Medline].

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

  45. 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). 2009 Jun. 48(5):499-504. [Medline].

  46. 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. 2006 Oct. 241(1):83-94. [Medline].

  47. Boggs W. Ultrasound/MRI Strategy Diagnoses Appendicitis in Kids Without Radiation. Medscape Medical News. Available at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/821332. Accessed: March 12, 2014.

  48. Aspelund G, Fingeret A, Gross E, Kessler D, Keung C, Thirumoorthi A, et al. Ultrasonography/MRI Versus CT for Diagnosing Appendicitis. Pediatrics. 2014 Mar 3. [Medline].

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

  50. Repplinger MD, Levy JF, Peethumnongsin E, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of MRI to diagnose appendicitis in the general population. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2015 Dec 22. [Medline].

  51. Thieme ME, Leeuwenburgh MM, Valdehueza ZD, Bouman DE, de Bruin IG, Schreurs WH, et al. Diagnostic accuracy and patient acceptance of MRI in children with suspected appendicitis. Eur Radiol. 2013 Oct 19. [Medline].

  52. Singer DD, Thode HC Jr, Singer AJ. Effects of pain severity and CT imaging on analgesia prescription in acute appendicitis. Am J Emerg Med. 2016 Jan. 34 (1):36-9. [Medline].

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

  54. Salminen P, Paajanen H, Rautio T, et al. Antibiotic Therapy vs Appendectomy for Treatment of Uncomplicated Acute Appendicitis: The APPAC Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2015 Jun 16. 313 (23):2340-8. [Medline].

  55. Bonadio W, Rebillot K, Ukwuoma O, Saracino C, Iskhakov A. Management of pediatric perforated appendicitis: comparing outcomes using early appendectomy vs solely medical management. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2015 Dec 14. [Medline].

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

  57. 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. 2006 May. 141(5):504-6; discussion 506-7. [Medline].

  58. Fair BA, Kubasiak JC, Janssen I, et al. The impact of operative timing on outcomes of appendicitis: a National Surgical Quality Improvement Project analysis. Am J Surg. 2015 Mar. 209 (3):498-502. [Medline].

  59. Boomer LA, Cooper JN, Anandalwar S, et al. Delaying appendectomy does not lead to higher rates of surgical site infections: a multi-institutional analysis of children with appendicitis. Ann Surg. 2015 Dec 16. [Medline].

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

  61. Wilasrusmee C, Sukrat B, McEvoy M, Attia J, Thakkinstian A. Systematic review and meta-analysis of safety of laparoscopic versus open appendicectomy for suspected appendicitis in pregnancy. Br J Surg. 2012 Nov. 99(11):1470-8. [Medline].

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

  63. Barclay L. Ultrasound, CT Comparable to Detect Appendicitis in Children. Medscape Medical News. Available at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/817370. Accessed: December 9, 2013.

  64. Le J, Kurian J, Cohen HW, Weinberg G, Scheinfeld MH. Do clinical outcomes suffer during transition to an ultrasound-first paradigm for the evaluation of acute appendicitis in children?. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Dec. 201(6):1348-52. [Medline].

  65. Hurst AL, Olson D, Somme S, et al. Once-daily ceftriaxone plus metronidazole versus ertapenem and/or cefoxitin for pediatric appendicitis. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2015 Dec 24. [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.
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 RLQ 1
A = Anorexia 1
N = Nausea and vomiting 1
T = Tenderness in RLQ 2
R = Rebound pain 1
E = Elevated temperature 1
L = Leukocytosis 2
S = Shift of WBCs to the left 1
Total 10
Source: Alvarado.[19]
RLQ = right lower quadrant; WBCs = white blood cells
Table 2. WBC Count and Likelihood of Appendicitis
WBC (× 10,000) Likelihood Ratio (95% CI)
4-7 0.10 (0-0.39)
7-9 0.52 (0-1.57)
9-11 0.29 (0-0.62)
11-13 2.8 (1.2-4.4)
13-15 1.7 (0-3.6)
15-17 2.8 (0-6.0)
17-19 3.5 (0-10)
19-22
Source: Dueholm et al.[24]
CI = confidence interval; WBC = white blood cell.
Previous
Next
 
 
 
 
 
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2016 by WebMD LLC. This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.