Skip to main content
Log in

Effect of ultrasonography and optional computed tomography on the outcome of appendectomy

  • Gastrointestinal
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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. 3a, b.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Birnbaum BA, Wilson SR (2000) Appendicitis at the millennium. Radiology 215:337–348

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Velanovic V, Satava R (1992) Balancing the normal appendectomy rate with the perforated appendicitis rate. Am Surg 58:264–269

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jones PF (2001) Suspected acute appendicitis: trends in management over 30 years. Br J Surg 88:1570–1577

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 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

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Flum DR, Morris A, Koepsel T, Patchen Dellinger E (2001) Has misdiagnosis of appendicitis decreased over time? J Am Med Assoc 286:1748–1753

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Flum DR, Koepsel T (2002) The clinical and economic correlates of misdiagnosed appendicitis. Arch Surg 137:799–804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Colson M, Skinner KS, Dunnington G (1997) High negative appendectomy rates are no longer acceptable. Am J Surg 174:723–726

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Temple CL, Huchcroft SA, Temple WJ (1995) The natural history of appendicitis in adults. Ann Surg 221:278–281

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Eldar S, Nash E, Sabo E et al. (1997) Delay of surgery in acute appendicitis. Am J Surg 173:194–198

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Puylaert JBCM (2003) Ultrasonography of the acute abdomen: lost art or future stethoscope? Eur Radiol 13:1203–1206

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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

    Google Scholar 

  15. Garcia-Aguayo FJ, Gil P (2000) Sonography in acute appendicitis: diagnostic utility and influence upon management and outcome. Eur Radiol 10:1886–1893

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bendeck SE, Nino-Murcia M, Berry GJ, Brook JR (2002) Imaging for suspected appendicitis: negative appendectomy and perforation rates. Radiology 225:131–136

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-003-1939-z

Keywords

Navigation