HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bendeck, S. E. Articles by Jeffrey, R. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Bendeck, S. E. Articles by Jeffrey, R. B., Jr

Imaging for Suspected Appendicitis: Negative Appendectomy and Perforation Rates¹

¹ From the Departments of Radiology (S.E.B., M.N.M., R.B.J.) and Pathology (G.J.B.), Stanford University Medical Center, 300 Pasteur Dr, Rm H1307, Stanford, CA 94305; and the Department of Radiology, VA Palo Alto Health Care System, Calif (M.N.M.). Received November 2, 2001; revision requested January 18, 2002; revision received February 11; accepted March 14. Address correspondence to R.B.J. (e-mail: bjeffrey@stanford.edu).

PURPOSE: To determine which patients suspected of having acute appendicitis benefit from preoperative imaging.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: The medical records of 462 consecutive patients who underwent appendectomy for clinically suspected acute appendicitis and underwent preoperative evaluation at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were divided into four groups: women (n = 166), girls (n = 46), men (n = 178), and boys (n = 72). Preoperative computed tomography (CT) or ultrasonography (US), requested by the referring clinician, was performed in 313 of the 462 patients. Unnecessary, or negative, appendectomy and perforation rates were calculated for each group for preoperative evaluation with CT, with US, and with neither CT nor US. In addition, the sensitivity and positive predictive value of CT and US were calculated for diagnosing appendicitis.

RESULTS: In women, the negative appendectomy rate was significantly lower for those who underwent preoperative CT (7% [six of 85 patients], P = .005) or US (8% [four of 49 patients], P = .019), as compared with 28% [nine of 32 patients] for those who underwent no preoperative imaging (P > .35 for all groups). The negative appendectomy rates for girls, men, and boys were not significantly affected by preoperative imaging. The sensitivity of CT and US for diagnosing acute appendicitis exceeded 93% and 77%, respectively, in all groups. The positive predictive values for both CT and US were greater than 92% in all groups.

CONCLUSION: Women suspected of having appendicitis benefit the most from preoperative CT or US, with a statistically significantly lower negative appendectomy rate than women who undergo no preoperative imaging. Therefore, we propose that preoperative imaging be considered part of the routine evaluation of women suspected of having acute appendicitis.

© RSNA, 2002

Index terms: Appendicitis, 751.291 • Appendix, 751.291 • Appendix, CT, 751.12111, 751.12112, 751.12115 • Appendix, US, 751.1299

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K Kim, J E Rhee, C C Lee, K S Kim, J H Shin, M J Kwak, J H Kim, G J Suh, S K Hahn, and A J Singer Impact of helical computed tomography in clinically evident appendicitis Emerg. Med. J., August 1, 2008; 25(8): 477 - 481. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Gaitini, N. Beck-Razi, D. Mor-Yosef, D. Fischer, O. B. Itzhak, M. M. Krausz, and A. Engel Diagnosing Acute Appendicitis in Adults: Accuracy of Color Doppler Sonography and MDCT Compared with Surgery and Clinical Follow-Up Am. J. Roentgenol., May 1, 2008; 190(5): 1300 - 1306. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Tsuboi, K. Takase, I. Kaneda, T. Ishibashi, T. Yamada, M. Kitami, S. Higano, and S. Takahashi Perforated and Nonperforated Appendicitis: Defect in Enhancing Appendiceal Wall Depiction with Multi Detector Row CT Radiology, January 1, 2008; 246(1): 142 - 147. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. Pedrosa, D. Levine, A. D. Eyvazzadeh, B. Siewert, L. Ngo, and N. M. Rofsky MR Imaging Evaluation of Acute Appendicitis in Pregnancy Radiology, March 1, 2006; 238(3): 891 - 899. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. P. Daly, R. H. Cohan, I. R. Francis, E. M. Caoili, J. H. Ellis, and B. Nan Incidence of Acute Appendicitis in Patients with Equivocal CT Findings Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2005; 184(6): 1813 - 1820. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. A. Foley, F. Earnest IV, M. A. Nathan, D. M. Hough, H. J. Schiller, and T. L. Hoskin Differentiation of Nonperforated from Perforated Appendicitis: Accuracy of CT Diagnosis and Relationship of CT Findings to Length of Hospital Stay Radiology, April 1, 2005; 235(1): 89 - 96. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]