Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

MRI remains highly accurate in the diagnosis of appendicitis in pregnancy when read by radiologists of mixed specialty training and experience

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Emergency Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To audit the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) abdominal studies performed in the diagnosis of appendicitis in pregnant patients when read by radiologists of mixed experience.

Methods

MRI reports from 45 pregnant women presenting to our emergency department for the investigation of appendicitis between 2009 and 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Where available, these reports were correlated with surgical and pathology reports as well as follow-up clinical information. Following a review of literature, accuracy targets were set. Statistical analyses including sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values were calculated.

Results

A total of 18 radiology consultants read 45 MRI abdominal studies in the assessment of appendicitis during pregnancy with 62% (n = 28) of these read by specialist radiologists and the remainder by general radiologists. This yielded an accuracy in diagnosis of 99.8%, sensitivity of 80% (95% CI: 49–94.3%), and specificity of 100% (95% CI: 90–100%). The calculated negative predictive value was 94.6% (95% CI: 82.3–98.5%), and positive predictive value was 100% (95% CI: 90–100%). The appendix was not identified in 19 patients (42%). A statistically significant relationship between the presence of right iliac fossa stranding of the fat OR free fluid was associated with appendicitis (p = 0.01). Alternate diagnoses were identified in 8% (n = 4) of cases.

Conclusion

MRI is a highly accurate imaging modality for the assessment of appendicitis in pregnancy. Even with variable reader MRI experience, MRI demonstrates an accuracy of 99.8% and a positive predictive value for acute appendicitis of 100%. Double reading and the possible inclusion of DWI may help further improve accuracy and minimise false-negative rates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Moltubak E, Landerholm K, Blomberg M, Redéen S, Andersson RE (2020) Major variation in the incidence of appendicitis before, during and after pregnancy: a population-based cohort study. World J Surg 44(8):2601–2608. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-020-05524-z

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Franca Neto AH, Amorim MM, Nóbrega BM (2015) Acute appendicitis in pregnancy: literature review. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) 61(2):170–7. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9282.61.02.170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mahmoodian S (1992) Appendicitis complicating pregnancy. South Med J 85(1):19–24. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007611-199201000-00006

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Mazze RI, Källén B (1991) Appendectomy during pregnancy: a Swedish registry study of 778 cases. Obstet Gynecol 77(6):835–840

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Patel D, Fingard J, Winters S, Low G (2017) Clinical use of MRI for the evaluation of acute appendicitis during pregnancy. Abdom Radiol (NY) 42(7):1857–1863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1078-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Burke LM, Bashir MR, Miller FH, Siegelman ES, Brown M, Alobaidy M, Jaffe TA, Hussain SM, Palmer SL, Garon BL, Oto A, Reinhold C, Ascher SM, Demulder DK, Thomas S, Best S, Borer J, Zhao K, Pinel-Giroux F, De Oliveira I, Resende D, Semelka RC (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging of acute appendicitis in pregnancy: a 5-year multiinstitutional study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 213(5):693.e1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2015.07.026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Silvestri MT, Pettker CM, Brousseau EC, Dick MA, Ciarleglio MM, Erekson EA (2011) Morbidity of appendectomy and cholecystectomy in pregnant and nonpregnant women. Obstet Gynecol 118(6):1261–1270. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0b013e318234d7bc

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fonseca AL, Schuster KM, Kaplan LJ, Maung AA, Lui FY, Davis KA (2014) The use of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of suspected appendicitis in pregnancy: shortened length of stay without increase in hospital charges. JAMA Surg 149(7):687–693. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2013.4658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. McGory ML, Zingmond DS, Tillou A, Hiatt JR, Ko CY, Cryer HM (2007) Negative appendectomy in pregnant women is associated with a substantial risk of fetal loss. J Am Coll Surg 205(4):534–540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.05.025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Garcia EM, Camacho MA, Karolyi DR, Kim DH, Cash BD, Chang KJ, Feig BW, Fowler KJ, Kambadakone AR, Lambert DL, Levy AD, Marin D, Moreno C, Peterson CM, Scheirey CD, Siegel A, Smith MP, Weinstein S, Carucci LR (2018) ACR appropriateness criteria® right lower quadrant pain-suspected appendicitis. J Am Coll Radiol 15(11S):S373–S387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2018.09.033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Kave M, Parooie F, Salarzaei M (2019) Pregnancy and appendicitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis on the clinical use of MRI in diagnosis of appendicitis in pregnant women. World J Emerg Surg. 14:37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13017-019-0254-1 (Published 2019 Jul 22)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Duke E, Kalb B, Arif-Tiwari H, Daye ZJ, Gilbertson-Dahdal D, Keim SM, Martin DR (2016) A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of MRI for evaluation of acute appendicitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206(3):508–517. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.14544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Masselli G, Brunelli R, Casciani E et al (2011) Acute abdominal and pelvic pain in pregnancy: MR imaging as a valuable adjunct to ultrasound? Abdom Imaging 36:596–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-010-9654-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Birchard KR, Brown MA, Hyslop WB, Firat Z, Semelka RC (2005) MRI of acute abdominal and pelvic pain in pregnant patients. AJR 184:452–458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Dempsey PJ, Delaney F, Geoghegan T, Lawler L, Bolster F (2022) MR imaging of acute abdominal pain in pregnancy. BJR 95:1136. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20211114

  16. Horowitz JM, Hotalen IM, Miller ES, Barber EL, Shahabi S, Miller FH (2020) How can pelvic MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging help my pregnant patient? Am J Perinatol 37(6):577–588. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1685492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Leeuwenburgh MM, Wiarda BM, Bipat S, Nio CY, Bollen TL, Kardux JJ, Jensch S, Bossuyt PM, Boermeester MA, Stoker J (2012) Acute appendicitis on abdominal MR images: training readers to improve diagnostic accuracy. Radiology 264(2):455–463. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12111896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Inci E, Kilickesmez O, Hocaoglu E, Aydin S, Bayramoglu S, Cimilli T (2011) Utility of diffusion-weighted imaging in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Eur Radiol 21(4):768–775. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1981-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Svensson JF, Patkova B, Almström M, Naji H, Hall NJ, Eaton S, Pierro A, Wester T (2015) Nonoperative treatment with antibiotics versus surgery for acute nonperforated appendicitis in children: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Ann Surg 261(1):67–71. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000835

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland

    Bryan Buckley, Francis Delaney, Ivan Welaratne, Tony Geoghegan & Carmel Cronin

  2. National Maternity Hospital, Holles St, Dublin, Ireland

    Catherine Windrim

Authors
  1. Bryan Buckley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Francis Delaney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ivan Welaratne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Catherine Windrim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Tony Geoghegan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Carmel Cronin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bryan Buckley.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests. The case discussed in Fig. 5 was also used as part of a pictorial review article published by the British Journal of Radiology.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Buckley, B., Delaney, F., Welaratne, I. et al. MRI remains highly accurate in the diagnosis of appendicitis in pregnancy when read by radiologists of mixed specialty training and experience. Emerg Radiol 30, 85–91 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-022-02102-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-022-02102-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation