Skip to main content
Log in

Differentiation of early perforated from nonperforated appendicitis: MDCT findings, MDCT diagnostic performance, and clinical outcome

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To determine the CT findings and assess their diagnostic performance in differentiating early perforated appendicitis from nonperforated appendicitis, and to compare therapeutic approaches and clinical outcomes between two types of appendicitis. Our retrospective study was approved by our institutional review board and informed consent was waived. From July 2012 to July 2013, 339 patients [mean age 40.8 years; age range 19–80 years; 183 male (mean age 40.5 years; age range 19–79 years) and 156 female (mean age 41.2 years; age range 19–80 years)] who underwent appendectomy with preoperative CT examination for suspected acute appendicitis were included, with exclusion of 37 patients with specific CT findings for advanced perforated appendicitis. And they were categorized into nonperforated and early perforated appendicitis groups according to surgical and pathologic reports. The following CT findings were evaluated by two radiologists blinded to pathologic and surgical findings: transverse diameter of the appendix, thickness of the appendiceal wall, the depth of intraluminal appendiceal fluid, appendiceal wall enhancement, presence or absence of focal defect in the appendiceal wall, intraluminal appendiceal air, appendicolith/fecalith, periappendiceal changes, cecal wall thickening, and free fluid. The type of surgical procedures, performance of surgical drainage, and the length of hospital stay were recorded. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to determine the CT findings for differentiating early perforated appendicitis from nonperforated appendicitis, a total of 75 (22%) of the 339 patients was diagnosed with early perforated appendicitis. Focal wall defect [adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 23.40; p < 0.001], circumferential periappendiceal changes (aOR, 5.63; p < 0.001), appendicoliths/fecaliths (aOR, 2.47; p = 0.015), and transverse diameter of the appendix (aOR, 1.22; p = 0.003) were independently differentiating variables for early perforated appendicitis. The transverse diameter of the appendix (≥11 mm) had the highest sensitivity (62.7%) and focal wall defect in the appendiceal wall showed the highest specificity (98.8%). The prevalence of surgical drainage was higher (p = 0.001) and the mean hospital stay was approximately one day longer (p < 0.001) in the early perforated group than nonperforated group. CT can be helpful in differentiating early perforated appendicitis from nonperforated appendicitis, although the sensitivity of the evaluated findings was somewhat limited.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Addiss DG, Shaffer N, Fowler BS, Tauxe RV (1990) The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. Am J Epidemiol 132:910–925

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Al-Omran M, Mamdani M, McLeod RS (2003) Epidemiologic features of acute appendicitis in Ontario, Canada. Can J Surg 46(4):263–268

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Korner H, Sondenaa K, Soreide JA, et al. (1997) Incidence of acute nonperforated and perforated appendicitis: age-specific and sex-specific analysis. World J Surg 21(3):313–317

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Storm-Dickerson TL, Horattas MC (2003) What have we learned over the past 20 years about appendicitis in the elderly? Am J Surg 185(3):198–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fike FB, Mortellaro VE, Juang D, et al. (2011) The impact of postoperative abscess formation in perforated appendicitis. J Surg Res 170(1):24–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. 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(2):527–534

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lane MJ, Katz DS, Ross BA, et al. (1997) Unenhanced helical CT for suspected acute appendicitis. AJR 168(2):405–409

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lane MJ, Liu DM, Huynh MD, et al. (1999) Suspected acute appendicitis: nonenhanced helical CT in 300 consecutive patients. Radiology 213(2):341–346

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA, et al. (1997) Helical CT technique for the diagnosis of appendicitis: prospective evaluation of a focused appendix CT examination. Radiology 202(1):139–144

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA, Mostafavi AA, McCabe CJ (1998) Effect of computed tomography of the appendix on treatment of patients and use of hospital resources. N Engl J Med 338(3):141–146

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rhea JT, Halpern EF, Ptak T, et al. (2005) The status of appendiceal CT in an urban medical center 5 years after its introduction: experience with 753 patients. AJR 184(6):1802–1808

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Horrow MM, White DS, Horrow JC (2003) Differentiation of perforated from nonperforated appendicitis at CT. Radiology 227(1):46–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gale ME, Birnbaum S, Gerzof SG, et al. (1985) CT appearance of appendicitis and its local complications. J Comput Assist Tomogr 9(1):34–37

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Anderson BA, Salem L, Flum DR (2005) A systematic review of whether oral contrast is necessary for the computed tomography diagnosis of appendicitis in adults. Am J Surg 190(3):474–478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Anderson SW, Soto JA, Lucey BC, et al. (2009) Abdominal 64-MDCT for suspected appendicitis: the use of oral and IV contrast material versus IV contrast material only. AJR 193(5):1282–1288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Moteki T, Horikoshi H (2007) New CT criterion for acute appendicitis: maximum depth of intraluminal appendiceal fluid. AJR 188(5):1313–1319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA, et al. (1997) Helical CT combined with contrast material administered only through the colon for imaging of suspected appendicitis. AJR 169(5):1275–1280

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Malone AJ Jr, Wolf CR, Malmed AS, Melliere BF (1993) Diagnosis of acute appendicitis: value of unenhanced CT. AJR 160(4):763–766

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Balthazar EJ, Birnbaum BA, Yee J, et al. (1994) Acute appendicitis: CT and US correlation in 100 patients. Radiology 190(1):31–35

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Balthazar EJ, Megibow AJ, Siegel SE, Birnbaum BA (1991) Appendicitis: prospective evaluation with high-resolution CT. Radiology 180(1):21–24

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bixby SD, Lucey BC, Soto JA, et al. (2006) Perforated versus nonperforated acute appendicitis: accuracy of multidetector CT detection. Radiology 241(3):780–78622

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Sultan MA, Hegazi T, Reinhold C, Stein LA (2013) Improving the role of CT in diagnosing complicated appendicitis: are their occult signs? [abstract] In: 99th Scientific Assembly and Annual Meeting of the Radiological Society of North America; 2013 Dec 1–6 Chicago:RSNA; 2013. P 67. Abstract SSQ05-05

  23. Tsuboi M, Takase K, Kaneda I, et al. (2008) Perforated and nonperforated appendicitis: defect in enhancing appendiceal wall-depiction with multi-detector row CT. Radiology 246(1):142–147

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Foley TA, Ft Earnest, Nathan MA, et al. (2005) Differentiation of nonperforated from perforated appendicitis: accuracy of CT diagnosis and relationship of CT findings to length of hospital stay. Radiology 235(1):89–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Yeung KW, Chang MS, Hsiao CP (2004) Evaluation of perforated and nonperforated appendicitis with CT. Clin Imaging 28:422–427

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Blumfield E, Nayak G, Srinivasan R, et al. (2013) Ultrasound for differentiation between perforated and nonperforated appendicitis in pediatric patients. AJR 200:957–962

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Azok JT, Kim DH, Munoz Del Rio A, et al. (2012) Intraluminal air within an obstructed appendix: a CT sign of perforated or necrotic appendicitis. Acad Radiol 19(10):1175–1180

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Heon-Ju Kwon.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kim, M.S., Park, H.W., Park, J.Y. et al. Differentiation of early perforated from nonperforated appendicitis: MDCT findings, MDCT diagnostic performance, and clinical outcome. Abdom Imaging 39, 459–466 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0117-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0117-x

Key words:

Navigation