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.
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.[15]
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.[15] | |
| 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.
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.[16, 17, 18] Thimsen et al noted that a normal CRP level after 12 hours of symptoms was 100% predictive of benign, self-limited illness.[16]
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.[19] Similarly, Shakhetrah found a CRP sensitivity of 95.5% in 85 of 89 patients with histologically proven appendicitis.[20] Asfar et al reported a CRP sensitivity of 93.6% in 78 patients undergoing appendectomy,[21] 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.[22]
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.[23] 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.[24]
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.[25] 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).[26]
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.[27] 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.[28]
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.[29] 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."[30]
Liver and Pancreatic Function Tests
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.
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.[31] 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.[31]
Urinary Beta-HCG
For women of childbearing age, the level of urinary beta–human chorionic gonadotropin (beta-hCG) is useful in differentiating appendicitis from early ectopic pregnancy.
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.[32] 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.[32] Therefore, such decrease could be an early warning sign of perforation of the appendix.
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.[33, 34, 35, 36] An enlarged appendix is shown in the CT below.
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.[37]
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.[38] 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.
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.[39, 40, 41]
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.[6, 7]
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 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. 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%.[42]
Go to Imaging of Appendicitis for more information on this topic.
Abdominal Radiography
The kidneys-ureters-bladder (KUB) radiographic view is typically used to visualize an appendicolith in a patient with symptoms consistent with appendicitis (see the following image). 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.
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. Go to Imaging of Appendicitis for more information on this topic.
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.
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 images below.
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.
MRI
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plays 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.[43]
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.
Go to Imaging of Appendicitis for more information on this topic.
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.
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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.
Markle GB 4th. Heel-drop jarring test for appendicitis. Arch Surg. Feb 1985;120(2):243. [Medline].
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].
Alvarado A. A practical score for the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med. May 1986;15(5):557-64. [Medline].
[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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography--an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. Nov 29 2007;357(22):2277-84. [Medline].
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].
[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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
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].
[Guideline] Korndorffer JR Jr, Fellinger E, Reed W. SAGES guideline for laparoscopic appendectomy. Surg Endosc. Apr 2010;24(4):757-61. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Liang MK, Lo HG, Marks JL. Stump appendicitis: a comprehensive review of literature. Am Surg. Feb 2006;72(2):162-6. [Medline].
| 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.[10] | |
| RLQ = right lower quadrant; WBCs = white blood cells | |
| 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.[15] | |
| CI = confidence interval; WBC = white blood cell. | |

