Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Acute appendicitis: diagnostic value of nonenhanced CT with selective use of contrast in routine clinical settings

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

Abstract

The purposes of this study were to determine the (1) frequency with which nonenhanced computed tomography (CT) (NECT) permits conclusive diagnosis of acute appendicitis, (2) accuracy of NECT when findings are conclusive, and (3) overall accuracy of a CT protocol consisting of NECT with selective use of contrast. Five hundred and thirty-six patients underwent a NECT protocol with selective use of contrast. Diagnostic accuracy was then determined separately for (1) patients with conclusive initial NECT, (2) patients with inconclusive initial NECT, and (3) all patients. NECT was conclusive on initial interpretation in 404/536 patients and inconclusive in 132/536. Of 132 inconclusive studies, 126 were repeated with contrast (intravenous, oral or rectal). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value for diagnosis of acute appendicitis were (1) 90%, 96.0%, 84.8%, and 97.4% in patients with conclusive NECT (n = 404); (2) 95.6%, 92.3%, 73%, and 99% in patients with inconclusive NECT followed by repeat CT with contrast; and (3) 91.3%, 95%, 82%, and 98% in all patients. The initial diagnosis of appendicitis may be made by NECT in 75% of patients, with contrast administration reserved for inconclusive NECT studies.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Flum DR, Koepsell T (2002) The clinical and economic correlates of misdiagnosed appendicitis: nationwide analysis. Arch Surg 137(7):799–804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hale DA et al (1997) Appendectomy: a contemporary appraisal. Ann Surg 225(3):252–261

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Flum DR et al (2001) Has misdiagnosis of appendicitis decreased over time? A population-based analysis. JAMA 286(14):1748–1753

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Schmidt T et al (2005) Phase-inversion tissue harmonic imaging compared to fundamental B-mode ultrasound in the evaluation of the pathology of large and small bowel. Eur Radiol 15(9):2021–2030

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee SY et al (2006) Prospective comparison of helical CT of the abdomen and pelvis without and with oral contrast in assessing acute abdominal pain in adult Emergency Department patients. Emerg Radiol 12(4):150–157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Tsushima Y et al (2002) Effect of contrast-enhanced computed tomography on diagnosis and management of acute abdomen in adults. Clin Radiol 57(6):507–513

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Basak S et al (2002) Is unenhanced CT sufficient for evaluation of acute abdominal pain? Clin Imaging 26(6):405–417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Christopher FL et al (2002) Unenhanced helical CT scanning of the abdomen and pelvis changes disposition of patients presenting to the emergency department with possible acute appendicitis. J Emerg Med 23(1):1–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tamburrini S et al (2005) CT appearance of the normal appendix in adults. Eur Radiol 15(10):2096–2103

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Funaki B (2000) Nonenhanced CT for suspected appendicitis. Radiology 216(3):916–918

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Ege G et al (2002) Diagnostic value of unenhanced helical CT in adult patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Br J Radiol 75(897):721–725

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Lowe LH et al (2000) Appendicolith revealed on CT in children with suspected appendicitis: how specific is it in the diagnosis of appendicitis? AJR Am J Roentgenol 175(4):981–984

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Benjaminov O et al (2002) Frequency of visualization and thickness of normal appendix at nonenhanced helical CT. Radiology 225(2):400–406

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Balthazar EJ, Gordon RB (1989) CT of appendicitis. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 10(4):326–340

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lane MJ et al (1997) Unenhanced helical CT for suspected acute appendicitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168(2):405409

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA (1997) Sensitivity and specificity of the individual CT signs of appendicitis: experience with 200 helical appendiceal CT examinations. J Comput Assist Tomogr 21(5):686692

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Pereira JM et al (2004) Disproportionate fat stranding: a helpful CT sign in patients with acute abdominal pain. Radiographics 24(3):703715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Balthazar EJ et al (1988) Computed tomography of the abnormal appendix. J Comput Assist Tomogr 12(4):595601

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Malone AJ (1999) Unenhanced CT in the evaluation of the acute abdomen: the community hospital experience. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 20(2):68–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Mindelzun RE, Jeffrey RB (1997) Unenhanced helical CT for evaluating acute abdominal pain: a little more cost, a lot more information. Radiology 205(1):43–45

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Rao PM (2000) Nonenhanced CT for suspected appendicitis. Radiology 216(3):916

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Rao PM et al (1997) Helical CT combined with contrast material administered only through the colon for imaging of suspected appendicitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 169(5):1275–1280

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA (1997) Distal appendicitis: CT appearance and diagnosis. Radiology 204(3):709–712

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Funaki B, Grosskreutz SR, Funaki CN (1998) Using unenhanced helical CT with enteric contrast material for suspected appendicitis in patients treated at a community hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171(4):997–1001

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Cobben LP, de Van Otterloo AM, Puylaert JB (2000) Spontaneously resolving appendicitis: frequency and natural history in 60 patients. Radiology 215(2):349–352

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Oliak D et al (2000) Nonoperative management of perforated appendicitis without periappendiceal mass. Am J Surg 179(3):177–181

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Urban BA, Fishman EK (2000) Targeted helical CT of the acute abdomen: appendicitis, diverticulitis, and small bowel obstruction. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 21(1):20–39

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Smith RC et al (1996) Diagnosis of acute flank pain: value of unenhanced helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166(1):97–101

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Rosen MP et al (2003) Value of abdominal CT in the emergency department for patients with abdominal pain. Eur Radiol 13(2):418–424

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Brown DF et al (2002) The role of abdominal computed tomography scanning in patients with nontraumatic abdominal symptoms. Eur J Emerg Med 9(4):330–333

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Golding SJ, Shrimpton PC (2002) Commentary. Radiation dose in CT: are we meeting the challenge? Br J Radiol 75(889):1–4

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Dixon AK, Goldstone KE (2002) Abdominal CT and the Euratom Directive. Eur Radiol 12(6):1567–1570

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dip. Sc. Biomorfologiche e Funzionali, Universita’ di Napoli “Federico II”, IBB-CNR, Via Pansini 5, 80131, Naples, Italy

    Stefania Tamburrini & Arturo Brunetti

  2. Department of Radiology, UCSD Medical Center, San Diego, CA, United States

    Stefania Tamburrini, Michèle Brown, Claude Sirlin & Giovanna Casola

  3. Via Pacuvio 25, 80122, Naples, Italy

    Stefania Tamburrini

Authors
  1. Stefania Tamburrini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Arturo Brunetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michèle Brown
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Claude Sirlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Giovanna Casola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefania Tamburrini.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tamburrini, S., Brunetti, A., Brown, M. et al. Acute appendicitis: diagnostic value of nonenhanced CT with selective use of contrast in routine clinical settings. Eur Radiol 17, 2055–2061 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0527-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-006-0527-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation