Advertisement

European Radiology

, Volume 28, Issue 2, pp 673–682 | Cite as

How to differentiate acute pelvic inflammatory disease from acute appendicitis ? A decision tree based on CT findings

  • Kim El Hentour
  • Ingrid MilletEmail author
  • Emmanuelle Pages-Bouic
  • Fernanda Curros-Doyon
  • Nicolas Molinari
  • Patrice Taourel
Emergency Radiology

Abstract

Purpose

To construct a decision tree based on CT findings to differentiate acute pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) from acute appendicitis (AA) in women with lower abdominal pain and inflammatory syndrome.

Materials and methods

This retrospective study was approved by our institutional review board and informed consent was waived. Contrast-enhanced CT studies of 109 women with acute PID and 218 age-matched women with AA were retrospectively and independently reviewed by two radiologists to identify CT findings predictive of PID or AA. Surgical and laboratory data were used for the PID and AA reference standard. Appropriate tests were performed to compare PID and AA and a CT decision tree using the classification and regression tree (CART) algorithm was generated.

Results

The median patient age was 28 years (interquartile range, 22–39 years). According to the decision tree, an appendiceal diameter ≥ 7 mm was the most discriminating criterion for differentiating acute PID and AA, followed by a left tubal diameter ≥ 10 mm, with a global accuracy of 98.2 % (95 % CI: 96–99.4).

Conclusion

Appendiceal diameter and left tubal thickening are the most discriminating CT criteria for differentiating acute PID from AA.

Key points

• Appendiceal diameter and marked left tubal thickening allow differentiating PID from AA.

• PID should be considered if appendiceal diameter is < 7 mm.

• Marked left tubal diameter indicates PID rather than AA when enlarged appendix.

• No pathological CT findings were identified in 5 % of PID patients.

Keywords

Pelvic inflammatory disease Computed tomography Appendicitis Fallopian tube Salpingitis 

Abbreviations

AA

Acute appendicitis

CART

Classification and regression tree

CRP

C-reactive protein

CT

Computed tomography

ICD

International classification of diseases

IQR

Interquartile range

IUD

Intrauterine device

PID

Pelvic inflammatory disease

TOA

Tubo-ovarian abscess

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Patrice Taourel.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Statistics and biometry

Dr Molinari Nicolas kindly provided statistical advice for this manuscript.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic study

• performed at one institution

References

  1. 1.
    Sellors J, Mahony J, Goldsmith C et al (1991) The accuracy of clinical findings and laparoscopy in pelvic inflammatory disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol 164:113–120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2010) Sexually transmitted diseases treatment guidelines, 2010. MMWR Recomm Rep 59:63–67Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Morcos R, Frost N, Hnat M, Petrunak A, Caldito G (1993) Laparoscopic versus clinical diagnosis of acute pelvic inflammatory disease. J Reprod Med 38:53–56PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maleckiene L, Kajenas S, Nadisauskiene RJ, Railaite DR (2009) Comparison of clinical and laparoscopic diagnoses of pelvic inflammatory disease. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 104:74–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bongard F, Landers DV, Lewis F (1985) Differential diagnosis of appendicitis and pelvic inflammatory disease. A prospective analysis. Am J Surg 150:90–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Webster DP, Schneider CN, Cheche S, Daar AA, Miller G (1993) Differentiating acute appendicitis from pelvic inflammatory disease in women of childbearing age. Am J Emerg Med 11:569–572CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Morishita K, Gushimiyagi M, Hashiguchi M, Stein GH, Tokuda Y (2007) Clinical prediction rule to distinguish pelvic inflammatory disease from acute appendicitis in women of childbearing age. AmJ Emerg Med 25:152–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Weström L, Joesoef R, Reynolds G, Hagdu A, Thompson SE (1992) Pelvic inflammatory disease and fertility. A cohort study of 1,844 women with laparoscopically verified disease and 657 control women with normal laparoscopic results. Sex Transm Dis 19:185–192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Buchan H, Vessey M, Goldacre M, Fairweather J (1993) Morbidity following pelvic inflammatory disease. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 100:558–562CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Van Randen A, Bipat S, Zwinderman AH, Ubbink DT, Stoker J, Boermeester MA (2008) Acute appendicitis: metaanalysis of diagnostic performance of CT and graded compression US related to prevalence of disease. Radiology 249:97–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bhosale PR, Javitt MC, Atri M et al (2016) ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Acute Pelvic Pain in the Reproductive Age Group. Ultrasound Q. 32:108–115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jung SI, Kim YJ, Park HS, Jeon HJ, Jeong K-A (2011) Acute pelvic inflammatory disease: diagnostic performance of CT. J Obstet Gynaecol Res 37:228–235CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee MH, Moon MH, Sung CK, Woo H, Oh S (2014) CT findings of acute pelvic inflammatory disease. Abdom Imaging 39:1350–1355CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA (1997) Sensitivity and specificity of the individual CT signs of appendicitis: experience with 200 helical appendiceal CT examinations. J Comput Assist Tomogr 21:686–692CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Choi D, Park H, Lee YR et al (2003) The most useful findings for diagnosing acute appendicitis on contrast-enhanced helical CT. Acta Radiol 44:574–582CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ives EP, Sung S, McCue P, Durrani H, Halpern EJ (2008) Independent predictors of acute appendicitis on CT with pathologic correlation. Acad Radiol 15:996–1003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van Randen A, Lameris W, van Es HW et al (2010) Profiles of US and CT imaging features with a high probability of appendicitis. Eur Radiol 20:1657–1666CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Godwin BD, Drake FT, Simianu VV et al (2015) A novel reporting system to improve accuracy in appendicitis imaging. Am J Roentgenol 204:1212–1219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eshed I, Halshtok O, Erlich Z et al (2011) Differentiation between right tubo-ovarian abscess and appendicitis using CT-a diagnostic challenge. Clin Radiol 66:1030–1035CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hiller N, Fux T, Finkelstein A, Mezeh H, Simanovsky N (2016) CT differentiation between tubo-ovarian and appendiceal origin of right lower quadrant abscess: CT, clinical, and laboratory correlation. Emerg Radiol 23:133–139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Quentin R, Verdon R (2012) Microbiologic basis of diagnosis and treatment of pelvic inflammatory disease. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod 41:850–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cabarrus M, Sun YL, Courtier JL, Stengel JW, Coakley FV, Webb EM (2013) The prevalence and patterns of intraluminal air in acute appendicitis at CT. Emerg Radiol 20:51–56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hong HS, Cho HS, Woo JY et al (2016) Intra-Appendiceal Air at CT: Is It a Useful or a Confusing Sign for the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis? Korean J Radiol 17:39–46CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rothrock SG, Green SM, Dobson M, Colucciello SA, Simmons CM (1995) Misdiagnosis of appendicitis in nonpregnant women of childbearing age. J Emerg Med 13:1–8CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim MY, Lee YM, Suh CH, Kim JM (2007) Computed tomographic features of appendiceal serositis in pelvic inflammatory disease: comparison with pathological findings. J Comput Assist Tomogr 31:104–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kılınçer A, Akpınar E, Erbil B et al (2017) A new technique for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: abdominal CT with compression to the right lower quadrant. Eur Radiol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4728-1
  27. 27.
    Nikolaidis P, Hwang CM, Miller FH, Papanicolaou N (2004) The nonvisualized appendix: incidence of acute appendicitis when secondary inflammatory changes are absent. AJR 183:889–892CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ganguli S, Raptopoulos V, Komlos F, Siewert B, Kruskal JB (2006) Right lower quadrant pain: value of the nonvisualized appendix in patients at multidetector CT. Radiology 241:175–180CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kim El Hentour
    • 1
  • Ingrid Millet
    • 1
    Email author
  • Emmanuelle Pages-Bouic
    • 1
  • Fernanda Curros-Doyon
    • 1
  • Nicolas Molinari
    • 2
  • Patrice Taourel
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medical ImagingLapeyronie HospitalMontpellierFrance
  2. 2.Department of Medical Information and StatisticsUMR 5149 IMAG, CHUMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations