Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnostic prediction of complicated appendicitis by combined clinical and radiological appendicitis severity index (APSI)

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

Abstract

Objectives

To develop a routinely applicable severity index for the management of acute appendicitis in adults using combined clinical and radiological parameters and retroperitoneal space planes (RSP).

Methods

Two hundred consecutive patients with histologically proven acute appendicitis and available presurgical CT scans were analysed retrospectively. Two radiologists assessed all CT scans for morphologic sings of appendicitis and six RSP. Clinical parameters were age, body temperature, C-reactive protein (CRP), white blood cell count, and duration of symptoms. Radiological parameters were appendix diameter and wall thickness, periappendiceal fat stranding and fluid, intraluminal and extraluminal air, thinning of appendiceal wall, caecal wall thickening, appendicolith and abscess formation.

Results

One hundred and three patients (51%) had histologically proven complicated appendicitis. Based on three clinical (age ≥52 years, body temperature ≥37.5°C, duration of symptoms ≥48 h) and four computed tomography (CT) findings (appendix diameter ≥14 mm, presence of periappendiceal fluid, extraluminal air, perityphlitic abscess), the APSI was developed using regression coefficients of multivariate logistic regression analyses with a maximum of 10 points. A score of ≥4 points predicted complicated appendicitis with a positive predictive value of 92% and a negative predictive value of 83%. Substantial to excellent interobserver agreement was found for the four radiological parameters of the APSI [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), 0.78-0.83]. The RSP evaluation presented no added value for the diagnosis of complicated appendicitis.

Conclusions

Using APSI, an accurate and simple prediction of complicated appendicitis in adults was possible. The RSP count was not useful for the diagnosis of complicated appendicitis.

Key points

• Appendicitis severity score provides an accurate and simple prediction of complicated appendicitis

• Appendicitis severity score ≥4 accurately predicted complicated appendicitis (PPV 92%;NPV 83%)

• Evaluation of retroperitoneal space planes was not useful in diagnosing complicated appendicitis

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AA:

Acute appendicitis

APSI:

Appendicitis severity index

ARF:

Anterior renal fascia

BS:

Bridging septa

CFP:

Combined fascial plane

CRP:

C-reactive protein

eGFR:

Estimated glomerular filtration rate

LCP:

Lateroconal plane

RRP:

Retrorenal plane

RSP:

Retroperitoneal space planes

WBC:

White blood cell

References

  1. Petroianu A (2012) Diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Int J Surg 10:115–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jaschinski T, Mosch C, Eikermann M, Neugebauer EAM (2015) Laparoscopic versus open appendectomy in patients with suspected appendicitis: a systematic review of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMC Gastroenterol 15:48

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Hobeika C, Hor T, Chereau N et al (2017) Day surgery for acute appendicitis in adults: a prospective series of 102 patients. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 27:158–162

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Varadhan KK, Neal KR, Lobo DN (2012) Safety and efficacy of antibiotics compared with appendicectomy for treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 344:e2156

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Rollins KE, Varadhan KK, Neal KR, Lobo DN (2016) Antibiotics versus appendicectomy for the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis: an updated meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. World J Surg 40:2305–2318

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hansson J, Körner U, Ludwigs K et al (2012) Antibiotics as first-line therapy for acute appendicitis: evidence for a change in clinical practice. World J Surg 36:2028–2036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Sallinen V, Akl EA, You JJ et al (2016) Meta-analysis of antibiotics versus appendicectomy for non-perforated acute appendicitis. Br J Surg 103:656–667

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Salminen P, Paajanen H, Rautio T et al (2015) Antibiotic therapy vs appendectomy for treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis. The APPAC Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA 313:2340–2348

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Van RA, 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 249:97–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hansen AJ, Young SW, De Petris G, Tessier DJ, Hernandez JL, Johnson DJ (2004) Histologic severity of appendicitis can be predicted by computed tomography. ArchSurg 139:1304–1308

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bixby SD, Lucey BC, Soto JA, Theyson JM, Ozonoff A, Varghese JC (2006) Perforated versus nonperforated acute appendicitis: accuracy of multidetector CT detection. Radiology 241:780–786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim MS, Park HW, Park JY et al (2014) Differentiation of early perforated from nonperforated appendicitis: MDCT findings, MDCT diagnostic performance, and clinical outcome. Abdominal Imaging 39:459–466

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Antonopoulos P, Konstantinidis F, Dalamarinis K et al (2006) Acute gangrenous appendicitis-diagnosis by spiral CT. Ann Gastroenterol 19:72–76

    Google Scholar 

  14. Foley TA, Earnest F IV, Nathan MA, Hough DM, Schiller HJ, Hoskin TL (2005) Differentiation of nonperforated from perforated appendicitis : accuracy of CT diagnosis and relationship of CT findings to length of hospital stay 1. Radiology 235:89–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Lietzén E, Mällinen J, Grönroos MJ et al (2016) Is preoperative distinction between complicated and uncomplicated acute appendicitis feasible without imaging ? Surgery 160:789–795

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Yu CW, Juan LI, Wu MH, Shen CJ, Wu JY, Lee CC (2013) Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin, C-reactive protein and white blood cell count for suspected acute appendicitis. Br J Surg 100:322–329

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Imaoka Y, Itamoto T, Takakura Y, Suzuki T, Ikeda S, Urushihara T (2016) Validity of predictive factors of acute complicated appendicitis. World J Emerg Surg 11:48

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Kitaoka K, Saito K, Tokuuye K (2014) Important CT findings for prediction of severe appendicitis: involvement of retroperitoneal space. World J Emerg Surg 9:62

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Jeon HG, Ju HU, Kim GY et al (2014) Bacteriology and changes in antibiotic susceptibility in adults with community-acquired perforated appendicitis. PLoS One 9:e111144

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Balthazar EJ, Robinson DL, Megibow AJ, Ranson JH (1990) Acute pancreatitis: value of CT in establishing prognosis. Radiology 174:331–336

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Mortele KJ, Wiesner W, Intriere L et al (2004) A modified CT severity index for evaluating acute pancreatitis: improved correlation with patient outcome. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:1261–1265

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. De Waele JJ, Delrue L, Hoste EA, De Vos M, Duyck P, Colardyn FA (2007) Extrapancreatic inflammation on abdominal computed tomography as an early predictor of disease severity in acute pancreatitis: evaluation of a new scoring system. Pancreas 34:185–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Atema JJ, van Rossem CC, Leeuwenburgh MM, Stoker J, Boermeester MA (2015) Scoring system to distinguish uncomplicated from complicated acute appendicitis. Br J Surg 102:979–990

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Andersson REB (2004) Meta-analysis of the clinical and laboratory diagnosis of appendicitis. Br J Surg 91:28–37

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Bröker MEE, Van Lieshout EMM, van der Elst M et al (2012) Discriminating between simple and perforated appendicitis. J Surg Res 83:79–83

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Augustin T, Cagir B, Vandermeer TJ (2011) Characteristics of perforated appendicitis: effect of delay is confounded by age and gender. J Gastrointest Surg 15:1223–1231

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Carr NJ (2000) The pathology of acute appendicitis. Ann Diagn Pathol 4:46–58

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. van Vught LA, Endeman H, Meijvis SC et al (2014) The effect of age on the systemic inflammatory response in patients with community-acquired pneumonia. Clin Microbiol Infect 20:1183–1188

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Miki T, Ogata S, Uto M et al (2005) Enhanced multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT) in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis and its severity. Radiat Med 23:242–255

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany

    Maxim Avanesov, Nis Jesper Wiese, Helena Guerreiro, Sarah Keller, Gerhard Adam & Jin Yamamura

  2. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Marienkrankenhaus Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

    Murat Karul

  3. Department of General, Visceral- and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

    Philip Busch

  4. Department of Pathology, University Medical Centre Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany

    Frank Jacobsen

Authors
  1. Maxim Avanesov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nis Jesper Wiese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Murat Karul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Helena Guerreiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sarah Keller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Philip Busch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Frank Jacobsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Gerhard Adam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Jin Yamamura
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maxim Avanesov.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Dr. Maxim Avanesov.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

One of the authors has significant statistical expertise.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was waived by the Institutional Review Board.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was obtained.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic study

• observational

• performed at one institution

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Avanesov, M., Wiese, N.J., Karul, M. et al. Diagnostic prediction of complicated appendicitis by combined clinical and radiological appendicitis severity index (APSI). Eur Radiol 28, 3601–3610 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5339-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5339-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation