Abstract
The aim of this study was to investigate the value of US and complementary CT in patients with suspected appendicitis, and to detect adverse outcomes of preoperative imaging. We retrospectively reviewed the data of 233 consecutive patients who underwent an appendectomy as an emergency procedure in our hospital, within a 2-year period. Our hospital policy is to perform diagnostic imaging in all patients with clinical suspicion of appendicitis. The US was performed in 227 patients, followed by additional unenhanced helical focused appendiceal CT in 30 patients with equivocal US results. We evaluated the negative appendectomy rate, occurrence of perforation, and our in-hospital delay. Acute appendicitis was pathologically proven in 219 patients, corresponding to a negative appendectomy rate of 6%. The US with optional CT diagnosed appendicitis with a sensitivity of 96.7%. Forty-eight appendices (21.9%) were perforated. The median overall in-hospital delay was 5 h (range 0.5–123.5 h). For the perforated appendices this was 4.5 h (range 0.5–64.5 h), for the non-perforated appendices 6.0 h (range 0.5–123.5 h). In patients with suspected acute appendicitis, US examination with the option of additional CT significantly lowers the negative appendectomy rate as compared with the clinical acumen alone, without adverse effects on the perforation rate or the in-hospital delay.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Birnbaum BA, Wilson SR (2000) Appendicitis at the millennium. Radiology 215:337–348
Velanovic V, Satava R (1992) Balancing the normal appendectomy rate with the perforated appendicitis rate. Am Surg 58:264–269
Jones PF (2001) Suspected acute appendicitis: trends in management over 30 years. Br J Surg 88:1570–1577
Puylaert JBCM, Rutgers PH, Lalisang RI et al. (1987) A prospective study of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of appendicitis. N Engl J Med 317:666–669
Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA et al. (1998) Effect of computed tomography of the appendix on treatment of patients and use of hospital resources. N Engl J Med 338:141–146
Flum DR, Morris A, Koepsel T, Patchen Dellinger E (2001) Has misdiagnosis of appendicitis decreased over time? J Am Med Assoc 286:1748–1753
Ford RD, Passinault WJ, Morse ME (1994) Diagnostic ultrasound for suspected appendicitis: Does the added cost produce a better outcome? Am Surg 60:895–898
Lee SL, Walsh AJ, Ho HS (2001) Computed tomography and ultrasonography do not improve and may delay the diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis. Arch Surg 136:556–561
Flum DR, Koepsel T (2002) The clinical and economic correlates of misdiagnosed appendicitis. Arch Surg 137:799–804
Colson M, Skinner KS, Dunnington G (1997) High negative appendectomy rates are no longer acceptable. Am J Surg 174:723–726
Temple CL, Huchcroft SA, Temple WJ (1995) The natural history of appendicitis in adults. Ann Surg 221:278–281
Eldar S, Nash E, Sabo E et al. (1997) Delay of surgery in acute appendicitis. Am J Surg 173:194–198
Puylaert JBCM (2003) Ultrasonography of the acute abdomen: lost art or future stethoscope? Eur Radiol 13:1203–1206
Rettenbacher T, Hollerweger A, Gritzmann N et al. (2002) Appendicitis: Should diagnostic imaging be performed if the clinical presentation is highly suggestive of the disease? Gastroenterology 123:992–998
Garcia-Aguayo FJ, Gil P (2000) Sonography in acute appendicitis: diagnostic utility and influence upon management and outcome. Eur Radiol 10:1886–1893
Bendeck SE, Nino-Murcia M, Berry GJ, Brook JR (2002) Imaging for suspected appendicitis: negative appendectomy and perforation rates. Radiology 225:131–136
Balthazar EJ, Rofsky NM, Zucker R (1998) Appendicitis: the impact of computed tomography imaging on negative appendectomy and perforation rates. Am J Gastroenterol 96:768–771
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
van Breda Vriesman, A.C., Kole, B.J. & Puylaert, J.B.C.M. Effect of ultrasonography and optional computed tomography on the outcome of appendectomy. Eur Radiol 13, 2278–2282 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-1939-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-1939-z