International Journal of Surgery

International Journal of Surgery 7 (2009) 451 455 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Surgery journal homepage: www.theijs.com Evaluating routine diagnostic imaging in acute appendicitis Ç. Ünlü *, S.M.M. de Castro, J.B. Tuynman, A.F. Wüst, E.Ph. Steller, B.A. van Wagensveld Department of Surgery and Radiology, Sint Lucas Andreas Hospital, Jan Tooropstraat 164, 1061 AE Amsterdam, The Netherlands article info abstract Article history: Received 13 May 2009 Received in revised form 14 June 2009 Accepted 16 June 2009 Available online 24 June 2009 Keywords: Imaging Aim: To evaluate the impact of selective imaging on clinical management of patients who present with symptoms suggesting acute appendicitis. Materials and methods: During a two-and-half year period, 941 consecutive patients with right lower quadrant pain were analyzed. Patients who underwent selective imaging were compared to those treated without further imaging. Results: In 650 (69%) patients with right lower quadrant pain, diagnosis was based on medical history, physical and laboratory examination only. The diagnostic accuracy was 84%. Another 291 patients (31%) underwent selective imaging reaching a diagnostic accuracy of 71%. Ultrasound was conducted in 277 patients (sensitivity: 59%; specificity: 91%). CT scan was conducted in 43 patients (sensitivity: 100%; specificity: 95%). Conclusion: The present study shows that, in the majority of patients, appendicitis acuta can be diagnosed without the aid of imaging studies. In all these cases, high diagnostic accuracy rates and low morbidity rates were achieved. In all the other cases when clinical diagnosis is uncertain, further evaluation should include imaging. In our series ultrasound is of limited value; CT scan or diagnostic laparoscopy seems superior. Ó 2009 Surgical Associates Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Acute appendicitis is a common disease in the western world with a prevalence of 7 8%. 1 The diagnosis of acute appendicitis is based on medical history and physical examination. The accuracy of diagnosing acute appendicitis on clinical grounds ranges from 70 to 87%. 2 The chances of undergoing an appendectomy during a lifetime are high, up to 23% in females and 12% in males. 1 The outcome of an appendectomy is influenced by the presence of perforation. Perforation, when compared to no perforation, is associated with a doubled increase in mortality rate and a rise in morbidity rate of up to 20%. 3 This has been used as justification for high rates of negative appendectomy ranging from 10 to 25%. 3 Perforation rates have remained at constant level, approximately 20% over the last decade. 1 4 Imaging modalities such as ultrasound (US) and computed tomography (CT) have been advocated in order to reduce the negative appendectomy rate. 4 14 However, the rates of both perforated appendicitis and negative appendectomy have not declined despite the use of US and CT scan. 7 Moreover, false * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ32 020 5108911. E-mail address: c.unlu@slaz.nl (Ç. Ünlü). negative results may delay surgery and subsequently increase morbidity. 13 The objective of this study is to analyze the role of selective imaging in patients with symptoms of acute appendicitis in a nonacademic teaching hospital. 2. Patients and methods In the present study 941 consecutive patients with right lower quadrant pain who were analyzed between 2005 and 2008 were included. A senior surgical resident initially examined all patients. The decision to operate was subsequently made by a consultant surgeon. Patients with a previous appendectomy were excluded from the study. Clinical details recorded for the study include nausea or vomiting, diarrhea, duration of symptoms, fever defined as temperature higher than 38.5 C, location of pain, right lower quadrant guarding, rebound tenderness, Rovsing sign, psoas sign, elevated WBC count defined as more than 12.000 leucocytes per mm 3 and elevated CRP defined as CRP higher than 10 mg/l/. Imaging consisted of Ultrasonography (US) (Siemens Elegra, Erlangen, Germany) or Computed Tomography (CT) (Toshiba Aquilion, Zoetermeer, the Netherlands). An US was performed by 1743-9191/$ see front matter Ó 2009 Surgical Associates Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2009.06.007

452 Table 1 Patient characteristics. Ç. Ünlü et al. / International Journal of Surgery 7 (2009) 451 455 Table 2 Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound and computed tomography. Patients Total 941 Male 410 (44%) Female 531 (56%) Age (mean) yrs 31.7 Imaging 291 (31%) Ultrasound 277 (29%) CT scan 43 (5%) a senior consultant radiologist. The outcome of US was considered positive for appendicitis if the appendix was non-compressible and measured greater than or equal to 6 mm in transverse diameter. The outcome was considered negative if the appendix measured less than 6 mm in size (compressible or not) or was not identified. CT findings were considered positive for acute appendicitis when an enlarged appendix of at least 6 mm in outer diameter was found. Findings were interpreted as negative if the appendix was visualized with intraluminal air. An appendix less than 6 mm in outer diameter was also diagnosed as normal. CT scan was done only with iv contrast. No oral or rectal contrast was administrated. 23 The surgical procedures consisted of either a laparotomy or diagnostic laparoscopy followed by laparotomic or laparoscopic appendectomy. The diagnosis of acute appendicitis during laparoscopy was established on the basis of macroscopic findings. A macroscopically normal appendix at laparoscopy was left in situ. 15 The diagnosis of appendicitis was confirmed histologically in all resected specimens, on the basis of infiltration of the muscularis propria by neutrophil granulocytes. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS statistical software (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL). A p value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. The Mann Whitney or Students t-test were used accordingly to analyze differences between continuous data. Pearson s chi-square test was used to test if differences between dichotomous groups were significant. Fisher s exact test was used when a table had a cell with an expected frequency of less than 5. Sensitivity Specificity LRþ LR Ultrasound 59% 91% 6.6 0.46 Computed tomography 100% 95% 21 0.0 Only variables found to be significant where used. 3. Results A total of 941 consecutive patients were included in the period between January 2005 and august 2008. There were 410 male (44%) and 531 female (56%) patients ranging from 2 to 96 years with a mean age of 31.7 SD (standard deviation) 17 years (Table 1). In 650 patients with right lower quadrant pain no additional imaging was needed after medical history, physical and laboratory examination. A total of 351 (54%) patients underwent surgery because of a high suspicion of appendicitis. In these 351 patients, 294 (84%) had histologically confirmed diagnosis appendicitis; 25 (7%) had an alternative diagnosis and in 32 (9%) there was a negative appendectomy. In 299 (46%) patients the diagnosis acute appendicitis was ruled out based on clinical evaluation without additional imaging. All patients were observed at our surgical department, our outpatient clinic and information was obtained from their general practitioner until 1 year after admission (Fig. 1). After medical history, clinical examination and laboratory results, 291 patients (31%) underwent selective diagnostic imaging. Of the imaging group 105 patients (36%) were operated; 38 patients (36%) by diagnostic laparoscopy first. was found in 74 patients (70%), 8 (8%) had a negative appendectomy and 23 patients (22%) had an alternative diagnosis which was not seen by the imaging modalities pre-operatively. Diagnostic imaging consisted of US in 277 patients and CT in 43 patients. (Table 1) There were 14 primary CT scans and 29 patients had a secondary CT scan after US. The overall sensitivity of the ultrasound was 59% and the specificity was 91%. In 43 patients CT scan was conducted with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 95%. (Table 2) In total 48 patients (Table 4) had an alternative diagnosis, which is 5% of the complete group. One hundred and ninety four (194) Presentation acute appendicitis (n=941) No imaging: (n=650) 69% Imaging: (n=291) 31% No Surgery Follow-up (n=299) 66 % Surgery (n=351) 54% Surgery (n=105) 36% No appendicitis Follow-up (n=186) 64% (n=294) 83% Negative Appendectomy (n=32) 9% Alternative diagnosis (n=25) 7% (n=74) 71% Negative Appendectomy (n=8) 8% Alternative diagnosis (n=23) 22% Fig. 1. Flowchart for patients with acute appendicitis.

Ç. Ünlü et al. / International Journal of Surgery 7 (2009) 451 455 453 Table 3 Predictive factors associated with patients with suspicion of having appendicitis (n ¼ 941). General No. of patients Univariate Multivariate P n n (%) P Odds ratio (95% CI) Age Median (30 years) 471 166 35 0.926 <Median (30 years) 470 167 36 Gender Male 410 196 48 0.001 Female 531 137 26 Symptoms Duration 24 h (median) 829 280 34 0.005 >24 h (median) 112 53 47 Nausea Yes 144 65 45 0.008 No 797 268 34 Vomitus Yes 77 38 49 0.007 No 864 295 34 Diarrhea Yes 38 19 50 0.054 No 903 314 34 Pain aggravation Yes 56 23 41 0.359 No 885 310 35 Physical examination Fever Median (38.5) 51 29 57 0.001 2.6 (1.1 6.4) 0.032 <Median (38.5) 890 304 34 Tenderness RLQ Yes 914 329 36 0.023 No 27 4 15 Rebound tenderness RLQ Yes 321 263 82 <0.001 14.3 (8.9 23.1) <0.001 No 620 70 11 Positive rovsing Yes 198 171 86 <0.001 2.3 (1.2 4.1) 0.008 No 743 162 22 Rigidity Yes 103 95 92 <0.001 3.2 (1.2 8.5) 0.021 No 838 238 28 Psoas sign Yes 103 96 93 <0.001 No 838 237 28 Pain at rectal exam Yes 18 8 44 0.417 No 923 328 35 Pain at vaginal exam a Yes 107 18 17 0.018 No 424 119 28 Laboratory CRP >7 610 279 46 <0.001 8.8 (2.3 33.2) 0.001 7 331 54 16 WBC 10 603 296 49 <0.001 13.5 (3.7 50.0) <0.001 <10 338 37 11 CRP 7 and WBC < 10 Yes 178 4 2 <0.001 0.23 (0.05 0.9) 0.042 No 763 329 43 a Percentage of total number of female patients. b Fisher s exact test.

454 Ç. Ünlü et al. / International Journal of Surgery 7 (2009) 451 455 Table 4 Alternative diagnosis. Total of 48 patients (5%). Diagnosis Patients PID 24 IBD 8 Tubal/ovarian abscess 7 Diverticulitis 5 Familiar Mediterranean fever 2 Perforated Meckel s diverticulum 1 Omental Infarction 1 patients were under the age of seventeen. Of these 59 had ultrasound examination with sensitivity of 63% and a specificity of 96% and none had CT scan examination. Seventy-one patients were older than 60. Of these, 33 had an ultrasound examination with sensitivity of 33% and a specificity of 92% and 13 patients had CT scan with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 100%. Diagnostic laparoscopy was performed in 127 patients of whom 115 (91%) were female. Of the 127 patients, 85 patients (67%) had appendicitis and 42 (33%) patients had an alternative diagnosis. Preoperative imaging was done on 38 patients (30%), of which was 27 ultrasound and 11 CT scan. None of the alternative diagnosis was found with pre-operative diagnostic imaging. Alternative diagnosis had the following results, 20 patients with pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), 6 inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), 4 Ovarian abscess, 1 diverticulitis, 1 Meckel s diverticulum, 1 with Familiar Mediterranean Fever, 1 omental infarction and 8 patients with abdominal pain of unknown origin. Overall, the negative appendectomy rate was 8% in the US group and 9% in the non-imaging group. Multivariate analyses found several independent factors significantly associated with appendicitis, including a temperature higher than 38.5 (p ¼ 0.032), rebound tenderness in the right lower quadrant (p < 0.001), a positive Rovsing sign (p ¼ 0.008) and rigidity (p ¼ 0.021) (Table 3). Predictive laboratory results are high CRP (p ¼ 0.001) and high WBC (p < 0.001). A weighted scoring system is composed from these independent factors, from which we defined two groups. One group with low clinical suspicion en one group with high clinical suspicion. The low clinical suspicion group we defined as zero to three factors and high suspicion group four to seven factors. In the low suspicion group 140 times US imaging was conducted versus 137 in the high suspicion group. In the low suspicion group the US was negative in 125 patients, of which 10 patients (8%) had PA proven appendicitis after all. In the same group 15 patients had a positive result of which 4 patients (27%) had no appendicitis. In the high suspicion group the US was negative in 94 patients, of which 17 patients (18%) was operated and had appendicitis. In the high suspicion group the ultrasound was positive in 43 patients of which 4 patients (9%) had a negative appendectomy after all. A correlation exists between the request for US and absence of rebound tenderness, Rovsing sign and low WBC (Table 5). Table 5 Factors associated with the decision to perform an ultrasonography. Ultrasonography performed (n ¼ 277) No Ultrasonography performed (n ¼ 644) Symptoms 24 h 62 (43%) 73 (22%) <0.001 Rebound 70 (50%) 251 (78%) <0.001 Rovsing s sign 38 (27%) 160 (50%) <0.001 Leucocytes 12 84 (57%) 243 (73%) <0.001 Only variables found to be significant where used. p 4. Discussion Acute appendicitis is a common and challenging diagnosis in daily surgical practice. It is a clinical diagnosis and many patients present with a typical history and findings on examination. In the present study we analyzed nine hundred and forty one consecutive patients referred to the department of surgery with the right lower quadrant abdominal pain. As reported by others, the present study showed similar independent factors associated with appendicitis including absence of high fever, presence of rebound tenderness in the right lower quadrant, a positive Rovsing sign, abdominal guarding and an elevated CRP and WBC. 2 This study also shows that routine imaging is of limited value. A meta-analysis of studies that applied routine imaging showed excellent results with an overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of 83% and 93%, respectively for US 94% and for CT 94%. 16 Ultrasonography has the limitation of variable reliability and its wellknown operator dependency. Although non-invasive, the tests ads expense, burdens hospital resources and can delay surgical consultation. 17,18 Ultrasonography is also of limited value in obese patients. In the present study, the value of selective US was associated with a lower sensitivity compared to other studies that routinely use US. Obviously, a higher sensitivity and specificity is found in the studies used for the meta-analysis, because many of these patients included would have been diagnosed appendicitis on clinical grounds only. There are two prospective trials, which analyze the role of selective imaging. 9,24 Both conclude that routine imaging is not beneficial, but still there is a tendency to apply routine imaging. The major reason is the absence of clearly defined or standardized criteria for performing selective imaging in this population. A population-based cohort study of 63707 patients concluded that the frequency of misdiagnosis leading to unnecessary appendectomy has not changed with the introduction of US and CT, nor has the frequency of perforation decreased. 19 In a prospective survey of 625 patients who underwent surgery for suspected appendicitis, surgeons requested helical contrastenhanced CT for 261 patients (42%). The negative appendectomy rate, however, remained largely unchanged. 6 In our study only 43 of the patients a CT scan was conducted, which is 5% of the total population. This is partly due to the high radiation dose of a CT scan, the availability and the costs. Although the results are very good the total group is too small to draw any significant conclusions. In the present study we devided the population in high and low clinical suspicion group. In both groups the total number of US was almost equal, 140 in the low suspicion group versus 137 in the high suspicion group. This is explained due to more routine use of ultrasound. In the low suspicion group however the result of these routine use resulted in 27% falsely operated patients. In the high suspicion group the ultrasound predicted in 18% falsely a not appendicitis. This resulted in surgical delay leading to a perforation rate as high as 25% in this group. The additive value of US can therefore be questioned. Diagnostic laparoscopy may play a role in the atypical presentation, especially in female and obese patients. In the present series, 10% of the patients underwent laparoscopic appendectomy of which 93% was female. Given its excellent diagnostic yield, zero mortality and low morbidity (0.5% in our study; according to literature the rate is 0-3%, 20 22 one should consider more liberal use of diagnostic laparoscopy. The present study shows that the diagnosis of acute appendicitis can be made without additional imaging studies in the majority of patients, associated with high diagnostic accuracy and low morbidity. Patients in whom the clinical diagnosis is uncertain

Ç. Ünlü et al. / International Journal of Surgery 7 (2009) 451 455 455 could undergo further evaluation. In our series ultrasound is of limited value; CT scan or diagnostic laparoscopy seems excellent. Conflict of interest Funding Ethical approval References 1. Addiss DG, Shaffer N, Fowler BS, Tauxe RV. The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. Am J Epidemiol 1990;132:910 25. 2. Andersson R. Meta-analysis of the clinical and laboratory diagnosis of appendicitis. Br J Surg 2004;91:28 37. 3. Blomqvist PG, Andersson RE, Granath F, Lambe MP, Ekbom AR. Mortality after appendectomy in Sweden, 1987 1996. Ann Surg 2001;233:455 60. 4. Weyent MJ, Eachempati SR, Maluccio MA, et al. The use of computed tomography for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in children does not influence the overall rate of negative appendectomy or perforation. Surg Infect 2001;2:19 23. 5. Franke C, Bohner H, Ying Q, et al. Ultrasonography for diagnosis of acute appendicitis: results of a prospecptive multicenter trial. World J Surg 1999;23:141 6. 6. Horton MD, Counter SF, Florence MG, et al. A prospective trial of computed tomography and ultrasonography for diagnosing appendicitis in the atypical patient. Am J Surg 2000;179:379 81. 7. Weyant MJ, Eachempati SR, Maluccio MA, et al. Interpretation of computed tomoraphy does not correlate with laboratory or pathologic findings in surgically confirmed acute appendicitis. Surgery 2000;128:145 52. 8. Wilson EB, Cole JC, Nipper ML, et al. Computed tomography and ultrasonography in the diagnosis of appendicitis. Arch Surg 2001;136:670 5. 9. Hong JJ, Cohn SM, Ekeh AP, et al. A prospective randomized study of clinical assessment versus computed tomography for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Surg Infect (Larchmt) 2003 Fall;4(3):231 9. 10. York D, Smith A, Duncan Phillips J, et al. The influence of advanced radiographic imaging on the treatment of pediatric appendicitis. J Ped Surg 2005;40: 1908 11. 11. Jones PF. Suspected acute appendicitis: trends in management over 30 years. Br J Surg 2001;88:1570 7. 12. Bendeck SE, Nino-Mrucia M, Berry GJ, et al. Imaging for suspected appendicitis: negative appendectomy and perforation rates. Radiology 2002;225:131 6. 13. Flum DR, McClure TD, Morris A, Koepsell T. Misdiagnosis of appendicitis and the use of diagnostic imaging. J Am Coll Surg 2005;201:933. 14. Bickell NA, Aufses JAH, Rojas M, Bodian C. How time affects the risk of rupture in appendicitis. J Am Coll Surg 2006;202:401 6. 15. Broek van den WT, Bijnen AB, de Ruiter P, Gouma DJ. A normal appendix found during diagnostic laparoscopy should not be removed. Br J Surg 2001;88: 251 4. 16. Doria AS, Moineddin R, Kellenberger CJ, et al. US or CT for diagnosis of appendicitis in children and adults. A meta-analysis. Radiology 2006;241:83 94. 17. Lee SL, Walsh AJ, Ho HS. Computed tomography and ultrasonongraphy do not improve and may delay the diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis. Arch Surg 2001;136:556 62. 18. Deng CY, Huang N, Chou YJ, Hsu YJ, Chen LS, Chou P. Comparison of perforation risk among physicians, other medical professionals and general adults with acute appendicitis in Taiwan. Br J Surg 2006 Oct;93(10):1297 302. 19. Flum DR, Morris A, Koepsell T, Patchen Dellinger A. Has misdiagnosis of appendicitis decreased over time? A population-based analysis. JAMA 2001;286:1748 53. 20. Moberg AC, Ahlberg G, Leijonmarck CE, et al. Diagnostic laparoscopy in 1043 patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Eur J Surg 1998;164:833 40. 21. Moberg AC, Montgomery A. Introducing diagnostic laparoscopy for patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Surg Endosc 2000;14:942 7. 22. Golash V, Willson PD. Early laparoscopy as a routine procedure in the management of abdominal pain. Surg Endosc 2005;19:882 5. 23. Anderson BA, Salem L, Flum DR. A systematic review of whether oral contrast is necessary for the computed tomography diagnosis of appendicitis in adults. Am J Surg 2005 Sep;190(3):474 8. 24. Douglas CD, Macpherson NE, Davidson PM, Gani JS. Randomised controlled trial of ultrasonography in diagnosis of acute appendicitis, incorporating the Alvarado score. BMJ 2000;321:1 7.