Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery

, Volume 395, Issue 8, pp 1061–1068 | Cite as

An evaluation of the utility of additional tests in the preoperative diagnostics of acute appendicitis

  • Ryszard Anielski
  • Beata Kuśnierz-Cabala
  • Krystyna Szafraniec
Original Article



Determining the optimum algorithm for diagnostic procedure in suspected acute appendicitis (AA) may not only reduce the number of unnecessary operations, but also the frequency of complications, and may contribute measurably to reducing the costs of treating patients with acute abdominal conditions.


The aim of the study was to assess the value of standard diagnostic methods and measurement of selected biochemical and hematological parameters (C-reactive protein, CRP; interleukin-6, IL-6; procalcitonin, PCT; total count of white blood cell, WBC) in the accuracy of preoperative AA diagnosis.

Material and methods

The prospective study included 132 patients (female: 52.3%, male: 47.7%) emergency admitted to the Surgical Department, aged 15 to 74 years (mean 36 years), with a suspicion of appendicitis. Measurement of PCT concentration was carried out by immunoluminometric assay, IL-6 concentration by micro enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and CRP concentration by immunonephelometric assay. Statistical analysis was done by the chi-square test and Fisher's exact test for categorized discrete variables, and the Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis tests for continuous variables. In order to assay the diagnostic utility of tests, the receiver operating characteristic model of curve analysis was used.


AA was confirmed in 89 (67.5%) of the patients operated on (group A). Twenty-six (19.7%) of the patients were not operated on and did not require surgery (group C); in 13 patients (9.8%) operated with a preliminary diagnosis of AA, no changes in the appendix were found during the course of the operation (group B). Four (3%) of the patients treated conservatively for periappendicular infiltration were excluded from the following analysis (group D). The mean count of WBC in AA was 13.22 ± 4.45 × 103/μL, with no statistical significance between groups, which does not allow the patients requiring surgery to be distinguished. The highest elevation of IL-6 concentration was observed in the group with the AA and the periappendicular infiltration: 101.5 ± 355.9 vs. 173.6 ± 228.33 pg/mL, respectively; p < 0.05. No surgery patients of group C showed considerably lower CRP concentrations than those of group D: CRP: 2.05 ± 3.6 vs. 6.36 ± 4.74 mg/L; p < 0.05. In cases of advanced forms of AA, the gangrenous with perforation, higher marker values are obtained than those in the phlegmonose form (186.60 ± 541.2 vs. 40.08 ± 48.3 pg/mL; (p < 0.05) for IL-6 and 8.88 ± 7.45 vs. 2.84 ± 3.83 mg/L; (p < 0.001) for CRP, respectively).


1. AA diagnosis based only on an assessment of clinical status may lead to an increase in the number of people operated with false-positive diagnoses of AA. 2. Applying additional diagnostic methods such as IL-6 determination seems to be useful in reducing the numbers of false-positive diagnoses of AA. 3. Laboratory tests, i.e., CRP, IL-6, and PCT are much more useful in assessing the risk of complications during the course of AA.


Acute appendicitis C-reactive protein Procalcitonin Interleukin 6 


  1. 1.
    Tzanakis NE, Efstathion SP, Danulidis K, Rallis GE, Tsioulos DI, Chatzivasiliou A, Peros G, Nikiteas NI (2005) A new approach to accurate diagnosis of acute appendicitis. World J Surg 29(9):1151–1156, discussion 1157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amalesh T, Shankar M, Shankar R (2004) CRP in acute appendicitis—is it a necessary investigation? Int J Surg 2(2):88–89CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weyant MJ, Eachempati SR, Maluccio MA, Rivadeneira DE, Grobmyer SR, Hydo LJ, Barie PS (2000) Interpretation of computed tomography does not correlate with laboratory or pathologic findings in surgically confirmed acute appendicitis. Surgery 128(2):145–152CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anielski R, Barczyński M, Cichoń S, Kostka A, Hładki W (2001) Acute appendicitis in Cracow population [Ostre zapalenie wyrostka robaczkowego w populacji Krakowa]. Przegl Lek 58(12):1034–1037PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yildirim O, Solak C, Kocer B, Unal B, Karabeyoglu M, Bozkurt B, Aksaray S, Cengiz O (2006) The role of serum inflammatory markers in acute appendicitis and their success in preventing negative laparotomy. J Invest Surg 19(6):345–352CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Khan MN, Davie E, Irshad K (2004) The role of white cell count and C-reactive protein in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 16(3):17–19PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zimmerman MA, Selzman CH, Cothren C, Sorensen AC, Raeburn CD, Harken AH (2003) Diagnostic implications of C-reactive protein. Arch Surg 138(2):220–224CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Andersson M, Andersson RE (2008) The appendicitis inflammatory response score: a tool for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis that outperforms the Alvorado score. World J Surg 32(8):1843–1849CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shakhatreh HS (2000) The accuracy of C-reactive protein in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis compared with that of clinical diagnosis. Med Arch 54(2):109–110Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Asfar S, Safar H, Khoursheed M, Dashti H, al-Bader A (2000) Would measurement of C-reactive protein reduce the rate of negative exploration for acute appendicitis? J R Coll Surg Edinb 45(1):21–24PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Erkasap S, Ates E, Ustuner Z, Sahin A, Yilmaz S, Yasar B, Kiper H (2000) Diagnostic value of interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein in acute appendicitis. Swiss Surg 6(4):169–172CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Groselj-Grenc M, Repse S, Dolenc-Strazar Z, Hojker S, Derganc M (2007) Interleukin-6 and lipopolysaccharide-binding protein in acute appendicitis in children. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 67(2):197–206CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Almagor M, Mintz A, Sibirsky O, Durst A (2005) Preoperative and postoperative levels of interleukin-6 in patients with acute appendicitis. Surg Endosc 19(3):331–333CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sengupta A, Bax G, Paterson-Brown S (2009) White cell count and C-reactive protein measurement in patients with possible appendicitis. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 91(2):113–115CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kafetzis DA, Velissariou IM, Nikolaides P, Sklavos M, Maktabi M, Spyridis G, Kafetzis DD, Androulakakis E (2005) Procalcitonin as a predictor of severe appendicitis in children. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 24(7):484–487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chakhunashvili L, Samkharadze J, Chkhaidze I (2005) Procalcitonin as the biomarker of inflammation in diagnostics of pediatric appendicitis and for prevention of unnecessary appendectomy. Ann Biomedical Res Edu 5(1):6–9 Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kang JY, Hoare J, Majeed A, Williamson RCN, Maxwell JD (2003) Decline in admission rates for acute appendicitis in England. Br J Surg 90(12):1586–1592CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Johansson EP, Rydh A, Riklund KA (2007) Ultrasound, computed tomography, and laboratory findings in the diagnosis of appendicitis. Acta Radiol 48(3):267–273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Birkhahn RH, Briggs M, Datillo PA, Van Deusen SK, Gaeta TJ (2006) Classifying patients suspected of appendicitis with regard to likelihood. Am J Surg 191(4):497–502CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wysocki A, Panek J, Krzywoń J (1999) Causes of acute surgical abdominal diseases and age in a 60-year period [Przyczyny ostrych chirurgicznych chorób jamy brzusznej i wiek chorych w ostatnich 60 latach]. Pol Przegl Chir 71(4):368–376Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yang HR, Wang YC, Chung PK, Chen WK, Jeng LB, Chen RJ (2006) Laboratory tests in patients with acute appendicitis. ANZ J Surg 76(1-2):71–74CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yang HR, Wang YC, Chung PK, Chen WK, Jeng LB, Chen RJ (2005) Role of leukocyte count, neutrophil percentage, and C-reactive in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the elderly. Am Surg 71(4):344–347PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Semm K (1993) Stellenwert der Laparoskopie der Appendizitis: Beantwortung des Fragenkatalogs. Chir Gastroenterologie 9:266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Horton MD, Counter SF, Florence MG, Hart MJ (2000) A prospective trial of computed tomography and ultrasonography for diagnosing appendicitis in the atypical patient. Am J Surg 179(5):379–381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schwerk WB (2000) Ultrasound first in acute appendix? Unnecessary laparotomies can often be avoided. MMW Fortschr Med 142(26–27):29–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Douglas CD, Macpherson NE, Davidson PM, Gani JS (2000) Randomised controlled trial of ultrasonography in diagnosis of acute appendicitis, incorporating the Alvarado score. BMJ 321(7266):919–922CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kessler N, Cyteval C, Gallix B, Lesnik A, Blayac PM, Pujol J, Bruel JM, Taourel P (2004) Appendicitis: evaluation of sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of US, Doppler US, and laboratory findings. Radiology 230(2):472–478CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Josephson T, Styrud J, Eriksson S (2000) Ultrasonography in acute appendicitis. Body mass index as selection factor for US examination. Acta Radiol 41(5):486–488PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Arendt J, Zygmunt J, Heinrich G, Niemiec A, Podwiński A (1999) Evaluation of the validity of laparoscopy in diagnostic management of patients presenting with clinical symptoms of acute appendicitis [Ocena przydatności techniki laparoskopowej w diagnostyce chorych z objawami klinicznymi ostrego zapalenia wyrostka robaczkowego]. Pol Przegl Chir 71(12):1234–1243Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tytgat SH, Bakker XR, Butzelaar RM (1998) Laparoscopic evaluation of patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Surg Endosc 12(9):918–920CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Prabhudesai SG, Gould S, Rekhraj S, Tekkis PP, Glazer G, Ziprin P (2008) Artificial neural network: useful aid in diagnosing acute appendicitis. World J Surg 32(2):305–309; discussion 310-1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Andersson RE (2008) Artificial neural network: useful aid in diagnosing acute appendicitis. World J Surg 32(8):310–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wu HP, Lin CY, Chang CF, Chang YJ, Huang CY (2005) Predictive value of C-reactive protein at different cutoff levels in acute pancreatitis. Am J Emerg Med 23(4):449–453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kim E, Subhas G, Mittal VK, Golladay ES (2009) C-reactive protein estimation does not improve accuracy in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in pediatric patients. Int J Surg 7(1):74–77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kuśnierz-Cabala B, Galicka-Latała D (2004) Diagnostic value of procalcitonin (PCT) determination [Wartość diagnostyczna oznaczeń prokalcytoniny]. Przeg Lek 61(9):978–980Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryszard Anielski
    • 1
    • 4
  • Beata Kuśnierz-Cabala
    • 2
  • Krystyna Szafraniec
    • 3
  1. 1.Third Department of General SurgeryJagiellonian University, Medical CollegeKrakowPoland
  2. 2.Department of Diagnostics, Chair of Clinical BiochemistryJagiellonian University, Medical CollegeKrakowPoland
  3. 3.Department of Epidemiology and Population StudiesJagiellonian University, Medical CollegeKrakowPoland
  4. 4.KrakówPoland

Personalised recommendations