Ultrasonography Versus Computed Tomography: Evidence-Based Imaging

Part of the Medical Radiology book series (MEDRAD)


Multi-detector row CT (MDCT) and graded-compression ultrasonography (US), associated or not with color Doppler US, are highly accurate techniques for diagnosing acute appendicitis in adult patients. The choice between these two techniques is however challenging and only few studies have compared them in the same group of patients. Beyond their performances, the choice between these techniques depends on patient’s characteristics (age, habitus, and gender), available techniques and expertise, practitioner’s preference, concern in radiation issues, economical aspects, and cost-effectiveness ratio. This chapter will discuss and comment the few studies comparing these techniques, discuss the parameters that could influence the choice between them and their cost-effectiveness, and will propose an imaging strategy.


Acute Appendicitis Acute Abdominal Pain Normal Appendix Negative Appendectomy Underweight Patient 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Body mass index


Multi-detector row CT




  1. Balthazar EJ, Birnbaum BA, Yee J, Megibow AJ, Roshkow J, Gray C (1994) Acute appendicitis: CT and US correlation in 100 patients. Radiology 190:31–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechtold RE, Chen MY, Ott DJ et al (1997) Interpretation of abdominal CT: analysis of errors and their causes. J Comput Assist Tomogr 21:681–685PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Birnbaum BA, Wilson SR (2000) Appendicitis at the millennium. Radiology 215:337–348PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Frush DP, Frush KS, Oldham KT (2009) Imaging of acute appendicitis in children: EU versus U.S. or US versus CT? A North American Perspective. Pediatr Radiol 39:500–505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gaitini D, Beck-Razi N, Mor-Yosef D et al (2008) Diagnosing acute appendicitis in adults: accuracy of color Doppler sonography and MDCT compared with surgery and clinical follow-up. Am J Roentgenol 190:1300–1306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hernanz-Schulman M (2010) CT and US in the diagnosis of appendicitis: an argument for CT. Radiology 255:3–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 179:379–381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Keyzer C, Tack D, De Maertelaer V, Bohy P, Gevenois PA, Van Gansbeke D (2004) Acute appendicitis: comparison of low-dose and standard-dose unenhanced multi-detector row CT. Radiology 232:164–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Keyzer C, Zalcman M, De Maertelaer V et al (2005) Comparison of US and unenhanced multi-detector row CT in patients suspected of having acute appendicitis. Radiology 236:527–534PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Keyzer C, Cullus P, Tack D, De Maertelaer V, Bohy P, Gevenois PA (2009) MDCT for suspected acute appendicitis in adults: impact of oral and IV contrast media at standard-dose and simulated low-dose techniques. Am J Roentgenol 193:1272–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lameris W, van Randen A, van Es HW et al (2009) Imaging strategies for detection of urgent conditions in patients with acute abdominal pain: diagnostic accuracy study. BMJ 338:b2431Google Scholar
  12. Lazarus E, Mayo-Smith WW, Mainiero MB, Spencer PK (2007) CT in the evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in pregnant women. Radiology 244:784–790PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. McCollough CH, Guimaraes L, Fletcher JG (2009) In defense of body CT. Am J Roentgenol 193:28–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. No authors (1998) Executive summary of the clinical guidelines on the identification, evaluation, and treatment of overweight and obesity in adults. Arch Intern Med 158:1855–1867Google Scholar
  15. Pickhardt PJ, Lawrence EM, Pooler BD, Bruce RJ (2011) Diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomography for suspected acute appendicitis. Ann Intern Med 154:789–796.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Poortman P, Lohle PN, Schoemaker CM et al (2003) Comparison of CT and sonography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: a blinded prospective study. Am J Roentgenol 181:1355–1359Google Scholar
  17. Puylaert JB (1986) Acute appendicitis: US evaluation using graded compression. Radiology 158:355–360PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Raman SS, Kadell BM, Vodopich DJ, Sayer J, Cryer H, Lu DS (2003) Patient gender-related performance of nonfocused helical computed tomography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 27:583–589PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tack D, Sourtzis S, Delpierre I, De Maertelaer V, Gevenois PA (2003) Low-dose unenhanced multi-detector CT of patients with suspected renal colic. Am J Roentgenol 180:305–311Google Scholar
  20. Tack D, Bohy P, Perlot I et al (2005) Suspected acute colon diverticulitis: imaging with low-dose unenhanced multi-detector row CT. Radiology 237:189–196PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Uppot RN, Sahani DV, Hahn PF, Kalra MK, Saini SS, Mueller PR (2006) Effect of obesity on image quality: fifteen-year longitudinal study for evaluation of dictated radiology reports. Radiology 240:435–439PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. van Randen A, Bipat S, Zwinderman AH, Ubbink DT, Stoker J, Boermeester MA (2008) Acute appendicitis: meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of CT and graded compression US related to prevalence of disease. Radiology 249:97–106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vermeulen B, Morabia A, Unger PF et al (1999) Acute appendicitis: influence of early pain relief on the accuracy of clinical and US findings in the decision to operate—a randomized trial. Radiology 210:639–643PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Wan MJ, Krahn M, Ungar WJ et al (2009) Acute appendicitis in young children: cost-effectiveness of US versus CT in diagnosis—a Markov decision analytic model. Radiology 250:378–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wilson EB, Cole JC, Nipper ML, Cooney DR, Smith RW (2001) Computed tomography and ultrasonography in the diagnosis of appendicitis: when are they indicated? Arch Surg 136:670–675PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Wise SW, Labuski MR, Kasales CJ et al (2001) Comparative assessment of CT and sonographic techniques for appendiceal imaging. Am J Roentgenol 176:933–941Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of RadiologyHôpital Erasme, Université libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations