Efficiency of unenhanced MRI in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: comparison with Alvarado scoring system and histopathological results

2024 Clinical Practice Guideline Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America on Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections: Diagnostic Imaging of Suspected Acute Appendicitis in Adults, Children, and Pregnant People

This paper is part of a clinical practice guideline update on the risk assessment, diagnostic imaging, and microbiological evaluation of complicated intra-abdominal infections in adults, children, and pregnant people, developed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). In this paper, the panel provides recommendations for diagnostic imaging of suspected acute appendicitis. The panel's recommendations are based on evidence derived from systematic literature reviews and adhere to a standardized methodology for rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendation according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

Comparison of Clinical and Laboratory Manifestations Between Acute Appendicitis and Mesenteric Lymphadenitis in Children

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Acute appendicitis is a major cause of emergency surgery in children and adolescents. Mesenteric lymphadenitis is also one of the most common differential diagnoses in children with acute appendicitis, and despite its high prevalence, few clinical studies have examined its features. The clinical signs of mesenteric lymphadenitis in children are very similar to those of acute appendicitis. The aim of this study was to determine the clinical manifestations of acute appendicitis and mesenteric lymphadenitis in children.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, patients less than 15 years old admitted to the pediatric emergency center of Afzalipour Hospital in Kerman from 2018 to 2021 were studied, and those who had a final diagnosis of appendicitis, mesenteric lymphadenitis, or appendectomy were included in the study by census. Data collection from the records of these patients included age, sex, clinical signs, duration of emergency until diagnosis, fever, number of times of vomiting, leukocytosis, lymphocyte, neutrophil count, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio, sonographic findings, and pathology findings. SPSS software and descriptive and analytical statistics were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

The results showed that unlike sex (p=0.11), there was a significant difference between the two groups in terms of age (p<0.001). Nausea, vomiting, anorexia, pain shift, and leukocytosis were more common in the acute appendicitis group than in the mesenteric lymphadenitis group, with a significant difference between the two groups (p<0.001). There was a significant difference between the two groups in terms of neutrophil percentage and neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The present study was conducted with the aim of assisting medical professionals due to the possibility of misdiagnosing mesenteric lymphadenitis with acute appendicitis. Differentiation of these two diseases is facilitated by the significant differences in their clinical signs and test results. These results can be a useful guide for physicians to better diagnose the diseases.

Diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis remains controversial. This systematic review details the evidence and current best practices for the evaluation and management of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis in adults and children.

METHODS

Eight questions regarding the diagnosis and management of appendicitis were formulated. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane and clinicaltrials.gov/NLM were queried for articles published from 2010 to 2022 with key words related to at least one question. Randomized and non-randomized studies were included. Two reviewers screened each publication for eligibility and then extracted data from eligible studies. Random effects meta-analyses were performed on all quantitative data. The quality of randomized and non-randomized studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 or Newcastle Ottawa Scale, respectively.

RESULTS

2792 studies were screened and 261 were included. Most had a high risk of bias. Computerized tomography scan yielded the highest sensitivity (> 80%) and specificity (> 93%) in the adult population, although high variability existed. In adults with uncomplicated appendicitis, non-operative management resulted in higher odds of readmission (OR 6.10) and need for operation (OR 20.09), but less time to return to work/school (SMD - 1.78). In pediatric patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, non-operative management also resulted in higher odds of need for operation (OR 38.31). In adult patients with complicated appendicitis, there were higher odds of need for operation following antibiotic treatment only (OR 29.00), while pediatric patients had higher odds of abscess formation (OR 2.23). In pediatric patients undergoing appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, higher risk of reoperation at any time point was observed in patients who had drains placed at the time of operation (RR 2.04).

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis remains nuanced. A personalized approach and appropriate patient selection remain key to treatment success. Further research on controversies in treatment would be useful for optimal management.

Rapid MRI Abdomen for Assessment of Clinically Suspected Acute Appendicitis in the General Adult Population: a Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

To perform a systematic review on the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the abdomen to evaluate clinically suspected appendicitis in the general adult population. We examined the diagnostic accuracy, the reported trends of MRI use, and the factors that affect the utility of MRI abdomen, including study duration and cost-benefits.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search on PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases. We enrolled primary studies investigating the use of MRI in diagnosing appendicitis in the general adult population, excluding studies that predominantly reported on populations not representative of typical adult appendicitis presentations, such as those focusing on paediatric or pregnant populations.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven eligible primary studies and 6 secondary studies were included, totaling 2,044 patients from eight countries. The sensitivity and specificity of MRI for diagnosing appendicitis were 96% (95% CI: 93-97%) and 93% (95% CI: 80-98%), respectively. MRI can identify complicated appendicitis and accurately propose alternative diagnoses. The duration of MRI protocols in each primary study ranged between 2.26 and 30 minutes, and only one study used intravenous contrast agents in addition to the non-contrast sequences. Decision analysis suggests significant benefits for replacing computed tomography (CT) with MRI and a potential for cost reduction. Reported trends in MRI usage showed minimal utilisation in diagnostic settings even when MRI was available.

CONCLUSIONS

MRI accurately diagnoses appendicitis in the general adult population and improves the identification of complicated appendicitis or alternative diagnoses compared to other modalities using a single, rapid investigation.

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for diagnosis of acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Appendicitis remains a difficult disease to diagnose, and imaging adjuncts are commonly employed. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an imaging test that can be used to diagnose appendicitis. It is not commonly regarded as a first-line imaging test for appendicitis, but the reported diagnostic accuracy in some studies is equivalent to computed tomography (CT) scans. As it does not expose patients to radiation, it is an attractive imaging modality, particularly in women and children.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for detecting appendicitis in all patients. Secondary objectives: To investigate the accuracy of MRI in subgroups of pregnant women, children, and adults. To investigate the potential influence of MRI scanning variables such as sequences, slice thickness, or field of view.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase until February 2021. We searched the references of included studies and other systematic reviews to identify further studies. We did not exclude studies that were unpublished, published in another language, or retrospective.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies that compared the outcome of an MRI scan for suspected appendicitis with a reference standard of histology, intraoperative findings, or clinical follow-up. Three study team members independently filtered search results for eligible studies.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We independently extracted study data and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy - Revised (QUADAS-2) tool. We used the bivariate model to calculate pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 58 studies with sufficient data for meta-analysis including a total of 7462 participants (1980 with and 5482 without acute appendicitis). Estimates of sensitivity ranged from 0.18 to 1.0; estimates of specificity ranged from 0.4 to 1.0. Summary sensitivity was 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 0.97); summary specificity was 0.96 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.97). Sensitivity and specificity remained high on subgroup analysis for pregnant women (sensitivity 0.96 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99); specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.98); 21 studies, 2282 women); children (sensitivity 0.96 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.97); specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98); 17 studies, 2794 children); and adults (sensitivity 0.96 (95% CI 0.93 to 0.97); specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.98); 9 studies, 1088 participants), as well as different scanning techniques. In a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients, there would be 12 false-positive results and 30 false-negative results. Methodological quality of the included studies was poor, and the risk of bias was high or unclear in 53% to 83% of the QUADAS-2 domains.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

MRI appears to be highly accurate in confirming and excluding acute appendicitis in adults, children, and pregnant women regardless of protocol. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally low due to incomplete and low standards of follow-up, so summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity may be biased. We could not assess the impact and direction of potential bias given the very low number of high-quality studies. Studies comparing MRI protocols were few, and although we found no influence of MRI protocol variables on the summary estimates of accuracy, our results do not rule out that some MRI protocols are more accurate than others.

Comparison of MRI appendix biometrics in children with and without acute appendicitis

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study is to improve MRI-specific diagnostic criteria for pediatric appendicitis through comparison of normal and abnormal appendix-related imaging features.

METHODS

A retrospective multireader-multicase design was used, including non-contrast MRI performed for suspected pediatric appendicitis following non-diagnostic US from January 2014 to December 2017. Positive diagnosis was defined by surgical pathology or symptom resolution after antibiotics. Four pediatric radiologists independently graded study biometrics while blinded to clinical data. Balanced complete block design was used to determine performance characteristics.

RESULTS

Global diagnosis of appendicitis (208 studies) had sensitivity 90.6% and specificity 97.7%. Median appendix diameter was 10.4 mm among positive cases and 5.8 mm among negative cases (p < 0.001) with an optimal diagnostic cutoff of 7.5 mm (sensitivity 89.4%, specificity 86.5%). Median appendix wall thickness was 2.6 mm among positive cases and 1.7 mm among negative cases (p < 0.001) with an optimal diagnostic cutoff of 2.3 mm (sensitivity 63.1%, specificity 82.9%). Performance characteristics for qualitative appendix features included distinguishable appendix luminal signal (sensitivity 89.6%, specificity 83.7%), intraluminal fluid-signal intensity (sensitivity 63.6%; specificity 52.3%), intraluminal signal intermediate between fluid and bowel wall (sensitivity 91.0%; specificity 37.1%), appendicolith (sensitivity 34.9%; specificity 100.0%), intraluminal layering (sensitivity 25.9%; specificity 100.0%), hyperintense appendix wall signal (sensitivity 31.7%; specificity 100.0%), periappendiceal fluid (sensitivity 66.8%; specificity 72.5%), periappendiceal fatty edema (sensitivity 91.3%; specificity 94.5%), and free pelvic fluid (sensitivity 88.5%; specificity 26.0).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides MRI-specific performance of pediatric appendicitis quantitative and qualitative biometrics with peri-appendiceal fatty edema, appendix diameter > 7.5 mm, and distinguishable appendix luminal signal demonstrating the highest overall accuracy.

KEY POINTS

• This retrospective multireader-multicase study characterized magnetic resonance imaging-specific diagnostic accuracy of quantitative and qualitative biometrics for pediatric appendicitis. • The optimal quantitative diagnostic thresholds for an abnormal pediatric appendix at MRI included diameter and wall thickness of 7.5 mm and 2.3 mm, respectively. • Qualitative imaging biometrics with high specificity for pediatric appendicitis on MRI included the presence of distinguishable appendix lumen signal from wall signal, appendicolith, intraluminal fluid-fluid layer, appendix wall hyperintensity, and peri-appendiceal fatty edema.

Problem-solving with MRI in acute abdominopelvic conditions, part 1: gastrointestinal, hepatobiliary, and pancreatic diseases

The purpose of this article is to review the benefit and added value and advantages of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) compared with other cross-sectional imaging in patients presenting with abdominopelvic emergencies. During the past decade, there has been increased utilization of MRI in the emergency department with widespread availability of MR scanners, improvement in rapid imaging techniques, and methods to overcome motion-related artifacts. This has benefited patients at higher risk of radiation, particularly children and pregnant women, and patients with contraindications to iodinated contrast including allergy and renal dysfunction. Still the challenges are: on site MR scanner in the emergency department, after-hour services, as well as availability of time slot to rapidly scan emergency patient. MRI has additional advantages over other imaging modalities due to its high contrast resolution, which allows it to better characterize tissue and fluid collections, and may avoid the need for intravenous contrast. Radiologists must be familiar with the role and added value of MRI, spectrum of imaging findings, and problem-oriented modified MR protocols in abdominal and pelvic emergencies. In part 1, we will discuss the utility of MRI in gastrointestinal, hepatobiliary, and pancreatic diseases. In part 2, the authors will focus on the key MR imaging features of female pelvic gynecological diseases, pregnancy related complications, abdominal vascular complications, and renal diseases.

Performance characteristics of magnetic resonance imaging without contrast agents or sedation in pediatric appendicitis

BACKGROUND

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has emerged as a promising modality for evaluating pediatric appendicitis. However optimal imaging protocols, including roles of contrast agents and sedation, have not been established and diagnostic criteria have not been fully evaluated.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate performance characteristics of rapid MRI without contrast agents or sedation in the diagnosis of pediatric appendicitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We included patients ages 4-18 years with suspicion of appendicitis who underwent rapid MRI between October 2013 and March 2015 without contrast agent or sedation. After two-radiologist review, we determined performance characteristics of individual diagnostic criteria and aggregate diagnostic criteria by comparing MRI results to clinical outcomes. We used receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves to determine cut-points for appendiceal diameter and wall thickness for optimization of predictive power, and we calculated area under the curve (AUC) as a measure of test accuracy.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight MRI examinations were performed in 97 subjects. Overall, MRI had a 94% sensitivity, 95% specificity, 91% positive predictive value and 97% negative predictive value. Optimal cut-points for appendiceal diameter and wall thickness were ≥7 mm and ≥2 mm, respectively. Independently, those cut-points produced sensitivities of 91% and 84% and specificities of 84% and 43%. Presence of intraluminal fluid (30/33) or localized periappendiceal fluid (32/33) showed a significant association with acute appendicitis (P<0.01), with sensitivities of 91% and 97% and specificities of 60% and 50%. For examinations in which the appendix was not identified by one or both reviewers (23/98), the clinical outcome was negative.

CONCLUSION

Rapid MRI without contrast agents or sedation is accurate for diagnosis of pediatric appendicitis when multiple diagnostic criteria are considered in aggregate. Individual diagnostic criteria including optimized cut-points of ≥7 mm for diameter and ≥2 mm for wall thickness demonstrate high sensitivities but relatively low specificities. Nonvisualization of the appendix favors a negative diagnosis.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of MRI for Evaluation of Acute Appendicitis

OBJECTIVE

A meta-analysis was performed to determine the accuracy of MRI in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the general population and in subsets of pregnant patients and children.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed and EMBASE databases for articles published through the end of October 2014 was performed to identify studies that used MRI to evaluate patients suspected of having acute appendicitis. Pooled data for sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 30 studies that comprised 2665 patients were reviewed. The sensitivity and specificity of MRI for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis are 96% (95% CI, 95-97%) and 96% (95% CI, 95-97%), respectively. In a subgroup of studies that focused solely on pregnant patients, the sensitivity and specificity of MRI were 94% (95% CI, 87-98%) and 97% (95% CI, 96-98%), respectively, whereas in studies that focused on children, sensitivity and specificity were found to be 96% (95% CI, 95-97%) and 96% (95% CI, 94-98%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

MRI has a high accuracy for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis, for a wide range of patients, and may be acceptable for use as a first-line diagnostic test.

An Imaging Diagnostic Protocol in Children with Clinically Suspected Acute Appendicitis

The objective of the present study is to evaluate a new diagnostic strategy using clinical findings followed by ultrasound (US) and, in selected cases, MRI. This study included 166 children presenting signs and symptoms suggesting acute appendicitis. Cases classified as suggesting appendicitis according to clinical exams had to be referred to surgery, whereas the other cases were discharged. Unclear cases were evaluated using US. If the US results were considered inconclusive, patients underwent MRI. Of the 166 patients, 78 (47%) had acute appendicitis and 88 (53%) had other diseases. The strategy under study had a sensitivity of 96 per cent, specificity of 100 per cent, positive predictive value of 100 per cent, negative predictive value of 97 per cent, and accuracy of 98 per cent. Eight patients remained undiagnosed and underwent MRI. After MRI two girls presented normal appendixes and were discharged. One girl had an enlarged appendix on MRI and appendicitis could have been confirmed by surgery. In the other five patients, no other sign of the disease was detected by MRI such as an inflammatory mass, free fluid or an abscess in the right iliac fossa. All of them were discharged after clinical observation. In the vast majority of cases the correct diagnosis was reached by clinical and US examinations. When clinical assessment and US findings were inconclusive, MRI was useful to detect normal and abnormal appendixes and valuable to rule out other abdominal pathologies that mimic appendicitis.

Magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric appendicitis: a systematic review

Magnetic resonance imaging for the evaluation of appendicitis in children has rapidly increased recently. This change has been primarily driven by the desire to avoid CT radiation dose. This meta-analysis reviews the diagnostic performance of MRI for pediatric appendicitis and discusses current knowledge of cost-effectiveness. We used a conservative Haldane correction statistical method and found pooled diagnostic parameters including a sensitivity of 96.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 94.3-97.8%), specificity of 96.1% (95% CI: 93.5-97.7%), positive predictive value of 92.0% (95% CI: 89.3-94.0%) and negative predictive value of 98.3% (95% CI: 97.3-99.0%), based on 11 studies. Assessment of patient outcomes associated with MRI use at two institutions indicates that time to antibiotics was 4.7 h and 8.2 h, time to appendectomy was 9.1 h and 13.9 h, and negative appendectomy rate was 3.1% and 1.4%, respectively. Alternative diagnoses were present in ~20% of cases, most commonly adnexal cysts and enteritis/colitis. Regarding technique, half-acquisition single-shot fast spin-echo (SSFSE) pulse sequences are crucial. While gadolinium-enhanced T1-weighted pulse sequences might be helpful, any benefit beyond non-contrast MRI has not been confirmed. Balanced steady-state free precession (SSFP) sequences are generally noncontributory. Protocols do not need to exceed five sequences; four-sequence protocols are commonly utilized. Sedation generally is not indicated; patients younger than 5 years might be attempted based on the child's ability to cooperate. A comprehensive pediatric cost-effectiveness analysis that includes both direct and indirect costs is needed.

How to improve the clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis in resource limited settings

This article is a general review of the diagnostic tools that the clinician can use for the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis with emphasis on the Alvarado Score, and it is aimed principally to the medical practitioners in different parts of the world where the diagnostic facilities and technological resources are limited.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of MRI to diagnose appendicitis in the general population

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published studies since 2005 that evaluate the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the general population presenting to emergency departments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All retrospective and prospective studies evaluating the accuracy of MRI to diagnose appendicitis published in English and listed in PubMed, Web of Science, Cinahl Plus, and the Cochrane Library since 2005 were included. Excluded studies were those without an explicitly stated reference standard, with insufficient data to calculate the study outcomes, or if the population enrolled was limited to pregnant women or children. Data were abstracted by one investigator and confirmed by another. Data included the number of true positives, true negatives, false positives, false negatives, number of equivocal cases, type of MRI scanner, type of MRI sequence, and demographic data including study setting and gender distribution. Summary test characteristics were calculated. Forest plots and a summary receiver operator characteristic plot were generated.

RESULTS

Ten studies met eligibility criteria, representing patients from seven countries. Nine were prospective and two were multicenter studies. A total of 838 subjects were enrolled; 406 (48%) were women. All studies routinely used unenhanced MR images, although two used intravenous contrast-enhancement and three used diffusion-weighted imaging. Using a bivariate random-effects model the summary sensitivity was 96.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 92.3%-98.5%) and summary specificity was 95.9% (95% CI: 89.4%-98.4%).

CONCLUSION

MRI has a high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of appendicitis, similar to that reported previously for computed tomography. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;43:1346-1354.

The utility of acoustic radiation force impulse imaging in diagnosing acute appendicitis and staging its severity

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of using acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) imaging to diagnose acute appendicitis.

METHODS

Abdominal ultrasonography (US) and ARFI imaging were performed in 53 patients that presented with right lower quadrant pain, and the results were compared with those obtained in 52 healthy subjects. Qualitative evaluation of the patients was conducted by Virtual Touch™ tissue imaging (VTI), while quantitative evaluation was performed by Virtual Touch™ tissue quantification (VTQ) measuring the shear wave velocity (SWV). The severity of appendix inflammation was observed and rated using ARFI imaging in patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis. Alvarado scores were determined for all patients presenting with right lower quadrant pain. All patients diagnosed with appendicitis received appendectomies. The sensitivity and specificity of ARFI imaging relative to US was determined upon confirming the diagnosis of acute appendicitis via histopathological analysis.

RESULTS

The Alvarado score had a sensitivity and specificity of 70.8% and 20%, respectively, in detecting acute appendicitis. Abdominal US had 83.3% sensitivity and 80% specificity, while ARFI imaging had 100% sensitivity and 98% specificity, in diagnosing acute appendicitis. The median SWV value was 1.11 m/s (range, 0.6-1.56 m/s) for healthy appendix and 3.07 m/s (range, 1.37-4.78 m/s) for acute appendicitis.

CONCLUSION

ARFI imaging may be useful in guiding the clinical management of acute appendicitis, by helping its diagnosis and determining the severity of appendix inflammation.

Imaging for appendicitis: should radiation-induced cancer risks affect modality selection?

PURPOSE

To compare life expectancy (LE) losses attributable to three imaging strategies for appendicitis in adults-computed tomography (CT), ultrasonography (US) followed by CT for negative or indeterminate US results, and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-by using a decision-analytic model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this model, for each imaging strategy, LE losses for 20-, 40-, and 65-year-old men and women were computed as a function of five key variables: baseline cohort LE, test performance, surgical mortality, risk of death from delayed diagnosis (missed appendicitis), and LE loss attributable to radiation-induced cancer death. Appendicitis prevalence, test performance, mortality rates from surgery and missed appendicitis, and radiation doses from CT were elicited from the published literature and institutional data. LE loss attributable to radiation exposure was projected by using a separate organ-specific model that accounted for anatomic coverage during a typical abdominopelvic CT examination. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate effects of model input variability on results.

RESULTS

Outcomes across imaging strategies differed minimally-for example, for 20-year-old men, corresponding LE losses were 5.8 days (MR imaging), 6.8 days (combined US and CT), and 8.2 days (CT). This order was sensitive to differences in test performance but was insensitive to variation in radiation-induced cancer deaths. For example, in the same cohort, MR imaging sensitivity had to be 91% at minimum (if specificity were 100%), and MR imaging specificity had to be 62% at minimum (if sensitivity were 100%) to incur the least LE loss. Conversely, LE loss attributable to radiation exposure would need to decrease by 74-fold for combined US and CT, instead of MR imaging, to incur the least LE loss.

CONCLUSION

The specific imaging strategy used to diagnose appendicitis minimally affects outcomes. Paradigm shifts to MR imaging owing to concerns over radiation should be considered only if MR imaging test performance is very high.

What are the most clinically useful cutoffs for the Alvarado and Pediatric Appendicitis Scores? A systematic review

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study is to systematically review the accuracy of the Alvarado score and Pediatric Appendicitis Score and to identify optimal cutoffs for low- and high-risk populations.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of the literature and identified 26 studies of the accuracy of the Alvarado score and Pediatric Appendicitis Score. Data were abstracted in parallel, and only prospective, cohort studies that avoided verification bias were included. We calculated summary likelihood ratios for low-, moderate-, and high-risk groups, using all possible cutoffs based on available data, even if not reported in the original study.

RESULTS

The pretest probability of appendicitis was approximately 33% in studies of children and approximately 66% in studies of adults. Likelihood ratios at different cutoffs for the Alvarado score in adults were as follows: 0.03 (<4 points), 0.42 (4 to 6 points), and 3.4 (≥ 7 points); and 0.01 (<5 points), 0.98 (5 to 8 points), and 6.7 (≥ 9 points). Likelihood ratios for the Alvarado score in children were as follows: 0.02 (<4 points), 0.27 (4 to 6 points), and 4.2 (≥ 7 points); and 0.04 (<5 points), 1.2 (5 to 8 points), and 8.5 (≥ 9 points). For the Pediatric Appendicitis Score, likelihood ratios were 0.13 (<4 points), 0.70 (4 to 7 points), and 8.1 (≥ 8 points).

CONCLUSION

For children with a pretest probability of acute appendicitis of 60% or less, an Alvarado score below 4 rules out the diagnosis; this is also true for a score less than 5 if the pretest probability is up to approximately 40%. In adults with a pretest probability greater than or equal to 60%, an Alvarado score of 8 or higher rules in the diagnosis, whereas one of 9 or higher rules in the diagnosis at pretest probabilities greater than or equal to 40%. The Pediatric Appendicitis Score did not identify clinically useful low- or high-risk groups at typical pretest probabilities.

Improvement in the diagnosis of appendicitis

Our attempts to systematically improve accuracy in the evaluation of patients with suspected appendicitis are, in some ways, hindered by the fact that the condition is so frequently straightforward to diagnose. Careful history-taking and physical examination are reliable in most patients. However, establishing the diagnosis with these skills alone remains vulnerable to conditions that masquerade as acute appendicitis. A substantial body of clinical research over the last quarter-century has shown that improved accuracy is possible. Strategies for improvement include the use of diagnostic scoring systems, laboratory makers such as CRP, diagnostic laparoscopy, and advanced imaging modalities such as CT, MRI, and US. How clinicians use these strategies depends on many factors related to practice setting, the population served, and clinical goals. In children, for instance, the desire to limit exposure to ionizing radiation competes with the greater anatomic detail that a CT scan can provide; at the same time, many hospitals that treat children do not have the resources to maintain the sort of full-time, highly sophisticated abdominal US programs that achieve the highest rates of diagnostic accuracy in clinical studies. Trade-offs have to be made, but improvement is possible in almost all groups of patients: the clinical community should no longer settle for a 15% NA rate when 5% is clearly possible without adverse consequences. Many clinicians will be faced with the task of evaluating patients suspected of having acute appendicitis. A deliberate, proactive, and, ideally, benchmarked strategy for improving diagnosis should be the standard to which we hold ourselves and the promise we deliver to our patients.

Treatment options of inflammatory appendiceal masses in adults

At present, the treatment of choice for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in adults continues to be surgical. The inflammation in acute appendicitis may sometimes be enclosed by the patient’s own defense mechanisms, by the formation of an inflammatory phlegmon or a circumscribed abscess. The management of these patients is controversial. Immediate appendectomy may be technically demanding. The exploration often ends up in an ileocecal resection or a right-sided hemicolectomy. Recently, the conditions for conservative management of these patients have changed due to the development of computed tomography and ultrasound, which has improved the diagnosis of enclosed inflammation and made drainage of intra-abdominal abscesses easier. New efficient antibiotics have also given new opportunities for nonsurgical treatment of complicated appendicitis. The traditional management of these patients is nonsurgical treatment followed by interval appendectomy to prevent recurrence. The need for interval appendectomy after successful nonsurgical treatment has recently been questioned because the risk of recurrence is relatively small. After successful nonsurgical treatment of an appendiceal mass, the true diagnosis is uncertain in some cases and an underlying diagnosis of cancer or Crohn’s disease may be delayed. This report aims at reviewing the treatment options of patients with enclosed appendiceal inflammation, with emphasis on the success rate of nonsurgical treatment, the need for drainage of abscesses, the risk of undetected serious disease, and the need for interval appendectomy to prevent recurrence.

An evaluation of a superfast MRI sequence in the diagnosis of suspected acute appendicitis

BACKGROUND

A lack of typical symptoms in acute appendicitis may delay the appropriate therapy. We hypothesized that a superfast MRI sequence with fat suppression could assist in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of MRI in the diagnosis of suspected acute appendicitis especially in the early stages and before surgery.

METHODS

Subject images were acquired with a 1.5-T clinical MRI scanner (Achieva Nova Dual, Philips, Netherlands) with a four-element phased array abdominal coil with a SENSE factor of 1.8. A total of 41 cases with suspected acute appendicitis were recruited. SENSE-BTFE-SPIR sequence, sensitivity encoding (SENSE) with balanced turbo field echo (BTFE) and spectral presaturation and inversion recovery (SPIR), was adopted in this study.

RESULTS

The sensitivity and specificity were 91.7% and 100%, respectively, in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis by SENSE-BTFE-SPIR in this series. Cases with simple acute appendicitis showed a higher T2 signal in the appendiceal wall, with local fluid surrounding appendix. Cases with purulent appendicitis showed an increased T2 signal within the cavity of the appendix, along with appendiceal wall thickening, or increased T2 signals around effusions in cases with gangrenous appendicitis. A periappendiceal abscess showed a localized, high-signal fluid collection that may have had extensive effects on the adjacent bowel loops, into which the entire appendix may disappear.

CONCLUSIONS

The fast SENSE-BTFE-SPIR sequence is capable of demonstrating the location and position of the appendix, the presence of acute appendicitis and its complications, and the clinical stages.