Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2010 Oct;34(10):2278-85.
doi: 10.1007/s00268-010-0694-y.

Routine ultrasound and limited computed tomography for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis

Boudewijn R Toorenvliet  1 , Fraukje Wiersma, Rutger F R Bakker, Jos W S Merkus, Paul J Breslau, Jaap F Hamming
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

Routine ultrasound and limited computed tomography for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis

Boudewijn R Toorenvliet et al. World J Surg. 2010 Oct.

Abstract

Background: Acute appendicitis continues to be a challenging diagnosis. Preoperative radiological imaging using ultrasound (US) or computed tomography (CT) has gained popularity as it may offer a more accurate diagnosis than classic clinical evaluation. The optimal implementation of these diagnostic modalities has yet to be established. The aim of the present study was to investigate a diagnostic pathway that uses routine US, limited CT, and clinical re-evaluation for patients with acute appendicitis.

Methods: A prospective analysis was performed of all patients presenting with acute abdominal pain at the emergency department from June 2005 until July 2006 using a structured diagnosis and management flowchart. Daily practice was mimicked, while ensuring a valid assessment of clinical and radiological diagnostic accuracies and the effect they had on patient management.

Results: A total of 802 patients were included in this analysis. Additional radiological imaging was performed in 96.3% of patients with suspected appendicitis (n = 164). Use of CT was kept to a minimum (17.9%), with a US:CT ratio of approximately 6:1. Positive and negative predictive values for the clinical diagnosis of appendicitis were 63 and 98%, respectively; for US 94 and 97%, respectively; and for CT 100 and 100%, respectively. The negative appendicitis rate was 3.3%, the perforation rate was 23.5%, and the missed perforated appendicitis rate was 3.4%. No (diagnostic) laparoscopies were performed.

Conclusions: A diagnostic pathway using routine US, limited CT, and clinical re-evaluation for patients with acute abdominal pain can provide excellent results for the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study design for patients presenting with abdominal pain at the emergency department for surgical consultation
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Diagnostic changes between the clinical diagnosis at initial evaluation (D1) and the final diagnosis (FD)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Flum DR, Koepsell T. The clinical and economic correlates of misdiagnosed appendicitis: nationwide analysis. Arch Surg. 2002;137:799–804. doi: 10.1001/archsurg.137.7.799. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Velanovich V, Satava R. Balancing the normal appendectomy rate with the perforated appendicitis rate: implications for quality assurance. Am Surg. 1992;58:264–269. - PubMed
    1. Leung TT, Dixon E, Gill M, et al. Bowel obstruction following appendectomy: what is the true incidence? Ann Surg. 2009;250:51–53. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3181ad64a7. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bijnen CL, van den Broek WT, Bijnen AB, et al. Implications of removing a normal appendix. Dig Surg. 2003;20:215–219. doi: 10.1159/000070388. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Rattner DW, et al. Introduction of appendiceal CT: impact on negative appendectomy and appendiceal perforation rates. Ann Surg. 1999;229:344–349. doi: 10.1097/00000658-199903000-00007. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types