Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
DOI 10.1007/s00247-014-3009-x
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Received: 26 October 2013 / Revised: 4 March 2014 / Accepted: 21 April 2014 / Published online: 20 May 2014
# Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014
Abstract
Background To decrease the negative appendectomy rate in
children, knowledge of the misleading imaging findings on
US and CT in negative appendicitis cases is important.
Objective To evaluate the negative appendectomy rate and
describe the imaging findings of US and CT that lead radiologists to misdiagnose acute appendicitis in children.
Materials and methods From 2007 to 2013, 374 children
operated for suspected appendicitis were proved to either have
acute appendicitis (n=348) or to be negative for appendicitis
(n=26) on pathological reports. Negative appendectomy rates
were compared among imaging modalities, age groups and
genders. We retrospectively reviewed US and CT findings
from negative appendectomy cases.
Results The overall negative appendectomy rate was 7.0%
(26/374). There were no statistically significant differences
among the subgroups. The most common misleading presentations on US were sonographic tenderness (9/16, 56%) and
non-compressibility (9/16, 56%). The most common misleading finding on CT were the presence of an appendicolith or
hyperdense feces (5/12, 42%). Periappendiceal fat inflammation was observed in only one case of negative appendicitis on
US and on CT.
Conclusion Radiologists can misdiagnose children with
equivocal diameters of appendices as having acute appendicitis when sonographic tenderness or non-compressibility is
present on US and when an appendicolith or hyperdense feces
is noted on CT. The possibility of negative appendicitis should
Introduction
Acute appendicitis is one of the most frequent causes of acute
abdominal pain in children, and surgery is required when
acute appendicitis is considered to be present. Traditionally
acute appendicitis has been diagnosed solely on the basis of
clinical examinations and laboratory data, without the aid of
diagnostic imaging. However, studies have shown the negative appendectomy rate to be up to 20%, and as high as 40% in
females [13]; it might be even higher in children because of
the difficulty in specifying physical examination findings and
in obtaining clear clinical information. Today, few patients who
are suspected of having acute appendicitis undergo surgery
directly without preoperative imaging such as US or CT [4,
5], both of which have been shown to improve the outcomes of
pediatric patients with acute appendicitis [6, 7]. As a result, the
negative appendectomy rate among children with preoperative
imaging has decreased greatly, although it remains in the range
of 3.66.7% despite the efforts of pediatric radiologists and
surgeons to decrease the negative appendectomy rate in children [810]. We hypothesized that knowledge of the misleading
imaging findings of US and CT in negative appendicitis cases
would be helpful in decreasing the negative appendectomy rate
in children. Although a few studies have described the imaging
findings of US or CT in negative appendectomy cases in
children [11, 12], a more comprehensive overview was needed.
Therefore, the purposes of our study are to identify the negative
appendectomy rate among different imaging modalities, age
1244
Ultrasound and CT
Data and image interpretation
US was performed in 21/26 children and CT was performed in 12/26 children with negative appendectomies.
All 21 children who underwent US imaging were scanned
1245
bowel wall. The mural thickness of the appendix was measured from the hyperechoic luminal interface to the outer
hyperechoic serosal layer on US. The appendiceal wall was
considered to be thickened when the maximal mural thickness
was measured at larger than 2.2 mm [22].
Periappendiceal fat inflammation on US was defined as
hyperechoic, thickened intra-abdominal fatty tissue around the
appendix [19]. Lymphadenopathy was defined as an enlarged
lymph node with the shortest diameter larger than 8 mm [23].
Sonographic tenderness and sonographic non-compressibility
were evaluated only in cases that were available in the original
radiologic reports. The presence of evident signs of inflammation at the adjacent organs covered in the imaging modalities
was evaluated in order to differentiate secondary inflammatory
changes of the appendix from acute appendicitis.
Statistical analysis
All statistical analysis was performed using commercially available software (MedCalc for Windows, version 12.7.0; MedCalc
Software, Mariakerke, Belgium). Both the chi-square test and
Fisher exact test were used to evaluate the difference in negative
appendectomy rate among the variable groups. A P-value of
less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
US or CT was performed in 359 children during the study
period and neither US nor CT was performed in the remaining
15 children prior to appendectomy. One hundred seventy-two
children underwent only US prior to appendectomy and 133
underwent only CT prior to appendectomy. Fifty-four children
underwent both US and CT, with 49 children undergoing US
first and 5 undergoing CT first. In the group negative for
appendicitis (n=26), 12 children underwent only US prior to
appendectomy, 3 underwent only CT, and 9 underwent both
US and CT, with 8 children undergoing US first and 1 undergoing CT first. The remaining two children did not undergo an
imaging study prior to appendectomy (Fig. 1). All imaging
studies were performed within 1 day after the presentation of
acute abdominal pain.
Surgical resection and histopathological findings
Among the 374 children, 348 were confirmed to have acute
appendicitis with or without perforation, while 26 children
showed no evidence of appendicitis on surgical and pathological reports. The time interval between imaging and appendectomy in the negative appendicitis group varied, ranging
from 0 to 5 days, with a mean interval of 0.67 day. All 26
1246
Whole group
Imaging modalities
US only
CT only
Both US and CT
No imaging
Age groups
04
59
1013
1417
Gender
Male
Female
Number of negative
appendicitis cases
Negative
appendectomy rate
26/374
7.0%
12/172
7/133
5/54
2/15
7.0%
5.3%
9.3%
13.3%
5/39
8/152
8/126
5/57
12.8%
5.3%
6.3%
8.8%
Preoperative interpretation
Numbers (percentage)
Non-visualized appendix
Equivocal finding
Probable acute appendicitis
Tip appendicitis
5 (24%)
3 (14%)
11 (52%)
5
6
2 (10%)
21
n=16
1 (6%)
3 (19%)
8 (50%)
5 (31%)
9 (56%)
9 (56%)
19/236
8.1%
7/138
5.1%
1247
n=12
5 (42%)
3 (25%)
3 (25%)
1 (8%)
2 (17%)
4 (33%)
6 (50%)
7 (58%)
1248
heterogeneous parenchymal enhancement and perirenal infiltrations suggestive of upper urinary tract infection. Inflammatory changes in the
appendix were secondary to the upper urinary tract infection rather than
acute appendicitis
Discussion
1249
1250
as well as correlation with clinical findings rather than immediate surgery because our results demonstrate that the possibility of negative appendicitis is present when the appendix is
equivocal in diameter without associated periappendiceal fat
inflammation. We believe the following two findings may be
helpful in ascertaining periappendiceal inflammation. First,
inflamed fat is usually not movable and can be consistently
observed even after compression with the probe. Second, an
increased Doppler signal within the hyperechoic fat tissue
may be helpful. In our study, periappendiceal fat inflammation
on US and fat stranding on CT were noted in only one
negative appendectomy case per modality. Even such changes, however, were observed to be related to the inflammatory
condition of adjacent bowel loops or organs and not to acute
appendicitis. Therefore, the absence of periappendiceal fat
inflammation or stranding may provide clues for radiologists
to exclude acute appendicitis in indeterminate cases in which
the appendix is equivocal in size.
Our study has several limitations. First, US and CT
findings were evaluated only in children with negative
appendicitis, which is why we only described imaging
findings without performing statistical analysis. However,
these descriptions presented us with some confusing US
and CT findings in diagnosing acute appendicitis and may
be a good consideration in the clinical setting, especially
for trainees working in the emergency room. Second, our
study was retrospectively designed, and the possibility of
bias was present in reviewing the US and CT findings
because we were aware of the pathological diagnosis of
negative appendicitis. Third, there is a possibility that
some of our negative appendectomy rate cases were cases
of spontaneously resolving appendicitis [31] because of
the time delay between imaging and surgery. However
such a chance was very low because surgery was performed within 2 days after imaging in 23 of 24 (95%)
cases. Last, the reliability of sonographic tenderness and
non-compressibility is uncertain, because there were no
reports of these findings in 44% (7/16) of the children
who underwent US; furthermore these subjective findings
were evaluated by trainees.
Conclusion
The negative appendectomy rates were similar among imaging modalities and age groups, and between genders.
Most negative appendicitis cases on US examinations were
related to sonographic tenderness or sonographic noncompressibility. At CT the most common misleading finding was the presence of an appendicolith or hyperdense
feces. The diagnosis of appendicitis needs to be critically
queried when the appendiceal diameter is equivocal and
there is no periappendiceal fat inflammation.
References
1. Morse BC, Roettger RH, Kalbaugh CA et al (2007) Abdominal CT
scanning in reproductive-age women with right lower quadrant abdominal pain: does its use reduce negative appendectomy rates and
healthcare costs? Am Surg 73:580584
2. Pinto Leite N, Pereira JM, Cunha R et al (2005) CT evaluation of
appendicitis and its complications: imaging techniques and key diagnostic findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 185:406417
3. Antevil J, Rivera L, Langenberg B et al (2004) The influence of age
and gender on the utility of computed tomography to diagnose acute
appendicitis. Am Surg 70:850853
4. Raman SS, Osuagwu FC, Kadell B et al (2008) Effect of CT on false
positive diagnosis of appendicitis and perforation. N Engl J Med 358:
972973
5. Wagner PL, Eachempati SR, Soe K et al (2008) Defining the
current negative appendectomy rate: for whom is preoperative
computed tomography making an impact? Surgery 144:276
282
6. Pena BM, Taylor GA, Fishman SJ et al (2000) Costs and
effectiveness of ultrasonography and limited computed tomography for diagnosing appendicitis in children. Pediatrics 106:
672676
7. Cuschieri J, Florence M, Flum DR et al (2008) Negative appendectomy and imaging accuracy in the Washington state surgical care and
outcomes assessment program. Ann Surg 248:557563
8. Colvin JM, Bachur R, Kharbanda A (2007) The presentation of
appendicitis in preadolescent children. Pediatr Emerg Care 23:849
855
9. Doria AS (2009) Optimizing the role of imaging in appendicitis.
Pediatr Radiol 39:S144148
10. Flum DR, Koepsell T (2002) The clinical and economic
correlates of misdiagnosed appendicitis: nationwide analysis.
Arch Surg 137:799
11. Taylor GA, Callahan MJ, Rodriguez D et al (2006) CT for suspected
appendicitis in children: an analysis of diagnostic errors. Pediatr
Radiol 36:331337
12. Trout AT, Sanchez R, Ladino-Torres MF et al (2012) A critical
evaluation of US for the diagnosis of pediatric acute appendicitis in
a real-life setting: how can we improve the diagnostic value of
sonography? Pediatr Radiol 42:813823
13. Stengel JW, Webb EM, Poder L et al (2010) Acute appendicitis:
clinical outcome in patients with an initial false-positive CT diagnosis. Radiology 256:119126
14. Keyzer C, Tack D, de Maertelaer V et al (2004) Acute appendicitis:
comparison of low-dose and standard-dose unenhanced multidetector row CT. Radiology 232:164172
15. Pereira JM, Sirlin CB, Pinto PS et al (2004) Disproportionate fat
stranding: a helpful CT sign in patients with acute abdominal pain.
Radiographics 24:703715
16. Rettenbacher T, Hollerweger A, Macheiner P et al (2001) Outer
diameter of the vermiform appendix as a sign of acute appendicitis:
evaluation at US. Radiology 218:757762
17. Akay HO, Akpinar E, Ozmen CA et al (2007) Visualization of the
normal appendix in children by non-contrast MDCT. Acta Chir Belg
107:531
18. Ozel A, Orhan UP, Akdana B et al (2011) Sonographic appearance of
the normal appendix in children. J Clin Ultrasound 39:183186
19. Wiersma F, Srameck A, Holscher HC (2005) US features of the
normal appendix and surrounding area in children. Radiology 235:
10181022
1251
26. Park NH, Oh HE, Park HJ et al (2011) Ultrasonography of normal
and abnormal appendix in children. World J Radiol 3:85
27. Sohail S, Siddiqui KJ (2009) Doptaus a simple criterion for
improving sonographic diagnosis of acute appendicitis. J Pak Med
Assoc 59:7579
28. Rollins MD, Andolsek W, Scaife ER et al (2010) Prophylactic
appendectomy: unnecessary in children with incidental
appendicoliths detected by computed tomographic scan. J Pediatr
Surg 45:23772380
29. Pooler BD, Lawrence EM, Pickhardt PJ (2012) Alternative diagnoses
to suspected appendicitis at CT. Radiology 265:733742
30. Lai V, Chan WC, Lau HY et al (2012) Diagnostic power of various
computed tomography signs in diagnosing acute appendicitis. Clin
Imaging 36:2934
31. Cobben LP, De Van Otterloo AM, Puylaert JB (2000) Spontaneously
resolving appendicitis: frequency and natural history in 60 patients.
Radiology 215:349352
Copyright of Pediatric Radiology is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V.
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.