Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Appendicitis, Acute
Sandy Craig, MD, Adjunct Associate Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Carolinas Medical Center
Updated Apr !", "#!#
Introduction
Background
Appendicitis is a common and urgent surgical illness $ith protean manifestations, generous
overlap $ith other clinical syndromes, and significant mor%idity, $hich increases $ith diagnostic
delay& No single sign, symptom, or diagnostic test accurately confirms the diagnosis of
appendiceal inflammation in all cases&
'he surgeon(s goals are to evaluate a relatively small population of patients referred for suspected
appendicitis and to minimi)e the negative appendectomy rate $ithout increasing the incidence of
perforation& 'he emergency department clinician must evaluate the larger group of patients $ho
present to the ED $ith a%dominal pain of all etiologies $ith the goal of approaching !##*
sensitivity for the diagnosis in a time+, cost+, and consultation+efficient manner&
,ee Medscape(s -astroenterology ,pecialty page for more information&
Pathophysiology
.%struction of the appendiceal lumen is the primary cause of appendicitis& An anatomic %lind
pouch, o%struction of the appendiceal lumen leads to distension of the appendi/ due to
accumulated intraluminal fluid& 0neffective lymphatic and venous drainage allo$s %acterial invasion
of the appendiceal $all and, in advanced cases, perforation and spillage of pus into the peritoneal
cavity&
Frequency
United States
Appendicitis occurs in 1* of the U, population, $ith an incidence of !&! cases per !### people
per year& ,ome familial predisposition e/ists&
International
0ncidence of appendicitis is lo$er in cultures $ith a higher inta2e of dietary fi%er& Dietary fi%er is
thought to decrease the viscosity of feces, decrease %o$el transit time, and discourage formation
of fecaliths, $hich predispose individuals to o%structions of the appendiceal lumen&
Mortality/Morbidity
'he overall mortality rate of #&"+#&3* is attri%uta%le to complications of the disease rather
than to surgical intervention&
Mortality rate rises a%ove "#* in patients older than 1# years, primarily %ecause of
diagnostic and therapeutic delay&
Perforation rate is higher among patients younger than !3 years and patients older than 4#
years, possi%ly %ecause of delays in diagnosis& Appendiceal perforation is associated $ith a
sharp increase in mor%idity and mortality rates&
Sex
'he incidence of appendicitis is appro/imately !&5 times greater in men than in $omen& 'he
incidence of primary appendectomy is appro/imately e6ual in %oth se/es&
Age
0ncidence of appendicitis gradually rises from %irth, pea2s in the late teen years, and
gradually declines in the geriatric years& 'he median age at appendectomy is "" years&
Although rare, neonatal and even prenatal appendicitis have %een reported&
'he emergency department clinician must maintain a high inde/ of suspicion in all age
groups&
Clinical
istory
7ariations in the position of the appendi/, age of the patient, and degree of inflammation
ma2e the clinical presentation of appendicitis notoriously inconsistent&
0t is important to remem%er that the position of the appendi/ is varia%le& .f !## patients
undergoing 8+D multidetector C', the %ase of the appendi/ $as located at Mc9urney(s point
in only 5* of patients& 0n 8:* of patients, the %ase $as $ithin 8 cm of Mc9urney(s point; in
"3*, it $as 8+4 cm from Mc9urney(s point; and, in 8:* of patients, the %ase of the
appendi/ $as more than 4 cm from Mc9urney(s point&
<! =
0n addition, patients $ith many other disorders present $ith symptoms similar to those of
appendicitis& E/amples include the follo$ing
o Pelvic inflammatory disease >P0D? or tu%o+ovarian a%scess
o Endometriosis
o .varian cyst or torsion
o Ureterolithiasis and renal colic
o Degenerating uterine leiomyomata
o Diverticulitis
o Crohn disease
o Colonic carcinoma
o @ectus sheath hematoma
o Cholecystitis
o 9acterial enteritis
o Mesenteric adenitis
o .mental torsion
'he classic history of anore/ia and perium%ilical pain follo$ed %y nausea, right lo$er
6uadrant >@AB? pain, and vomiting occurs in only 4#* of cases&
Migration of pain from the perium%ilical area to the @AB is the most discriminating feature of
the patient(s history& 'his finding has a sensitivity and specificity of appro/imately 3#*&
Positive li2elihood ratio is 8&!3 >"&5!+5&"!?, and negative li2elihood ratio is #&4 >#&5"+#&4C?&
<" =
Dhen vomiting occurs, it nearly al$ays follo$s the onset of pain& 7omiting that precedes
pain is suggestive of intestinal o%struction, and the diagnosis of appendicitis should %e
reconsidered&
Nausea is present in :!+C"* of patients; anore/ia is present in 15+13* of patients& Neither
finding is statistically different from findings in ED patients $ith other etiologies of a%dominal
pain&
Diarrhea or constipation is noted in as many as !3* of patients and should not %e used to
discard the possi%ility of appendicitis&
Duration of symptoms is less than 53 hours in appro/imately 3#* of adults %ut tends to %e
longer in elderly persons and in those $ith perforation& Appro/imately "* of patients report
duration of pain in e/cess of " $ee2s&
A history of similar pain is reported in as many as "8* of cases& A history of similar pain, in
and of itself, should not %e used to rule out the possi%ility of appendicitis&
An inflamed appendi/ near the urinary %ladder or ureter can cause irritative voiding
symptoms and hematuria or pyuria& Cystitis in male patients is rare in the a%sence of
instrumentation& Consider the possi%ility of an inflamed pelvic appendi/ in male patients
$ith apparent cystitis&
Also consider the possi%ility of appendicitis in pediatric or adult patients $ho present $ith
acute urinary retention&
<8 =
Physical
@AB tenderness is present in C:* of patients, %ut this is a nonspecific finding& @arely, left
lo$er 6uadrant >AAB? tenderness has %een the major manifestation in patients $ith situs
inversus or in patients $ith a lengthy appendi/ that e/tends into the AAB&
'he most specific physical findings are re%ound tenderness, pain on percussion, rigidity,
and guarding&
'he @ovsing sign >@AB pain $ith palpation of the AAB? suggests peritoneal irritation in the
right lo$er 6uadrant precipitated %y palpation at a remote location&
'he o%turator sign >@AB pain $ith internal and e/ternal rotation of the fle/ed right hip?
suggests that the inflamed appendi/ is located deep in the right hemipelvis&
'he psoas sign >@AB pain $ith e/tension of the right hip or $ith fle/ion of the right hip
against resistance? suggests that an inflamed appendi/ is located along the course of the
right psoas muscle&
'hese signs are present in a minority of patients $ith acute appendicitis& 'heir a%sence
never should %e used to rule out appendiceal inflammation&
Dunphy(s sign >sharp pain in the @AB elicited %y a voluntary cough? may %e helpful in
ma2ing the clinical diagnosis of locali)ed peritonitis& ,imilarly, @AB pain in response to
percussion of a remote 6uadrant of the a%domen, or to firm percussion of the patient(s heel,
suggests peritoneal inflammation&
'he Mar2le sign, pain elicited in a certain area of the a%domen $hen the standing patient
drops from standing on toes to the heels $ith a jarring landing, $as studied in !C# patients
undergoing appendectomy and found to have a sensitivity of 15*&
<5 =
'here is no evidence in the medical literature that the digital rectal e/amination >D@E?
provides useful information in the evaluation of patients $ith suspected appendicitis;
ho$ever, failure to perform a rectal e/amination is fre6uently cited in successful malpractice
claims& 0n "##3, ,edla2 et al studied 411 patients $ho under$ent D@E as part of an
evaluation for suspected appendicitis and found no value as a means of distinguishing
patients $ith and $ithout appendicitis&
<4 =
Male infants and children occasionally present $ith an inflamed hemiscrotum due to
migration of an inflamed appendi/ or pus through a patent processus vaginalis& 'his is often
initially misdiagnosed as acute testicular torsion&
Causes
.%struction of the appendiceal lumen usually precipitates appendicitis&
'he most common causes of luminal o%struction are fecaliths and lymphoid follicle
hyperplasia&
o Eecaliths form $hen calcium salts and fecal de%ris %ecome layered around a nidus
of inspissated fecal material located $ithin the appendi/&
o Aymphoid hyperplasia is associated $ith a variety of inflammatory and infectious
disorders including Crohn disease, gastroenteritis, ame%iasis, respiratory infections,
measles, and mononucleosis&
o .%struction of the appendiceal lumen has less commonly %een associated $ith
parasites >eg, Schistosomes species, Strongyloides species?, foreign material >eg,
shotgun pellet, intrauterine device, tongue stud, activated charcoal?, tu%erculosis,
and tumors&
!i""erential !iagnoses
A%dominal A%scess Mesenteric Aymphadenitis
Cholecystitis and 9iliary Colic .mental 'orsion
Constipation .varian Cysts
Crohn Disease .varian 'orsion
Diverticular Disease Pediatrics, 0ntussusception
Ectopic Pregnancy Pelvic 0nflammatory Disease
Endometriosis @enal Calculi
-astroenteritis ,pider Envenomations, Dido$
-astroenteritis, 9acterial Urinary 'ract 0nfection, Eemale
0nflammatory 9o$el Disease Urinary 'ract 0nfection, Male
Mec2el Diverticulum
Mesenteric 0schemia
#ther Proble$s to Be Considered
Appendiceal stump appendicitis
'yphilitis
Epiploic appendagitis
Psoas a%scess
Fersiniosis
%orkup
&aboratory Studies
Complete blood cell count
,tudies consistently sho$ that 3#+34* of adults $ith appendicitis have a D9C count greater than
!#,4## cellsGmm
8
& Neutrophilia greater than 14* occurs in 13* of patients& Ee$er than 5* of
patients $ith appendicitis have a D9C count less than !#,4## cellsGmm
8
and neutrophilia less than
14*&
Dueholm et al, in !C3C, further delineated the relationship %et$een D9C count and the li2elihood
of appendicitis %y calculating li2elihood ratios for defined intervals of the D9C count&
<: =
'a%le !& D9C Count and Ai2elihood of Appendicitis
WBC (X 10,000) Likeliood !atio ("#$ C%&)
5+1 #&!# >#+#&8C?
1+C #&4" >#+!&41?
C+!! #&"C >#+#&:"?
!!+!8 "&3 >!&"+5&5?
!8+!4 !&1 >#+8&:?
!4+!1 "&3 >#+:&#?
!1+!C 8&4 >#+!#?
!C+"" H
IC0, confidence interval&
C9C tests are ine/pensive, rapid, and $idely availa%le; ho$ever, the findings are nonspecific&
'he literature is inconsistent $ith regard to D9C counts in children and elderly patients $ith
appendicitis&
C'reacti(e protein te)t
C+reactive protein >C@P? is an acute+phase reactant synthesi)ed %y the liver in response to
infection or inflammation& A rapid assay is $idely availa%le&
,everal prospective studies >'himsen !C3C, Al%u !CC5, de Carvalho "##8? have sho$n that, in
adults $ho have had symptoms for longer than "5 hours, a normal C@P level has a negative
predictive value of C1+!##* for appendicitis&
<1,3,C =
0n a !C3C study of 1# patients, 'himsen et al noted that a normal C@P level after !" hours of
symptoms $as !##* predictive of %enign, self+limited illness&
<1 =
Multiple studies have e/amined the sensitivity of C@P alone for the diagnosis of appendicitis in
patients selected to undergo appendectomy&
-urleyi2 et al, in !CC4, found that 31 of C# patients $ith histologically proven appendicitis
had an elevated C@P, a sensitivity of C:&:*&
<!# =
,ha2hetrah, in "###, found that 34 of 3C patients $ith histologically proven appendicitis had
an elevated C@P, a sensitivity of C4&4*&
<!! =
Asfar et al, in "###, completed a prospective dou%le %lind study of 13 patients undergoing
appendectomy and found that C@P had a sensitivity of C8&:*&
<!" =
Er2asap et al, in "###, prospectively studied the more relevant group of !#" adult patients
$ith @AB pain, 44 of $hom proceeded to appendectomy& 0n this group, the sensitivity of
C@P $as C:*&
<!8 =
0nvestigators have also studied the a%ility of com%inations of D9C and C@P to relia%ly rule out the
diagnosis of appendicitis&
-ronroos, in !CCC, studied 8## patients operated for suspected appendicitis >"## positive,
!## negative? and found that D9C or C@P $as a%normal in all "## patients $ith
appendicitis&
<!5 =
.rtega+De%allon et al, in "##3, prospectively studied patients referred to a surgeon for @AB
pain and found that normal D9C and C@P had a negative predictive value of C"&8* for the
presence of appendicitis&
<!4 =
Fang, in "##:, retrospectively studied 3C1 patients $ho under$ent appendectomy >15#
$ith appendicitis, !41 $ithout? and found that only : of 15# patients $ith appendicitis had
D9C J!#,4## cellsGmm
8
AND neutrophilia J14*, AND a normal C@P& 'his yields a
sensitivity of CC&"* for the Ktriple screenK&
<!: =
,ome studies have e/amined the sensitivity of com%ined D9C and C@P in the su%population of
patients older than :# years&
-ronroos, in !CCC, studied 38 patients older than :# years $ho under$ent appendectomy
>18 found to have appendicitis? and found that no patient $ith appendicitis had %oth normal
D9C and C@P&
<!1 =
Fang et al, in "##4, retrospectively studied 11 patients older than :# years $ith
histologically proven appendicitis and found that only " had a normal Ktriple screen&K
<!3 =
,everal studies have e/amined the accuracy of C@P and D9C in the su%population of pediatric
patients $ith suspected appendicitis&
-ronroos, in "##!, studied !## children $ith pathology+proven appendicitis and found that
%oth D9C and C@P $ere normal in 1 of the !## patients&
<!C =
Mohammed, in "##5, prospectively studied "!: children admitted for suspected
appendicitis and found triple screen sensitivity and negative predictive value of 3:* and
3!*, respectively&
<"# =
,tefanutti et al, in "##1, prospectively studied more than !## children undergoing surgery
for suspected appendicitis and found that either D9C or C@P $as elevated in C3* of those
$ith pathology+proven appendicitis >C0, C4&8+!##*?&
<"! =
C@P is nonspecific and does not distinguish %et$een various types of infection or inflammation&
*rinaly)i)
.ne study of 4## patients $ith acute appendicitis revealed that appro/imately one third reported
urinary symptoms, most commonly dysuria or right flan2 pain& .ne in 1 patients had pyuria greater
than !# D9C per high po$er field, and ! in : patients had greater than 8 @9C per high po$er
field& 'hus, the diagnosis of appendicitis should not %e dismissed due to the presence of urologic
symptoms or a%normal urinalysis&
<"" =
I$aging Studies
Computed tomography
o A%dominal C' has %ecome the most important imaging study in the evaluation of
patients $ith atypical presentations of appendicitis& ,tudies have found a decrease in
negative laparotomy rate and appendiceal perforation rate $hen pelvic C' $as used
in selected patients $ith suspected appendicitis&
<"8,"5,"4,": =
An enlarged appendi/ is
sho$n in the C' %elo$&
o
C' scan re(eals an enlarged appendix )ith thickened )alls* )hich
do not "ill )ith colonic contrast agent* lying ad+acent to the right
psoas $uscle,
o Note that one study of asymptomatic volunteers undergoing pelvic C' found that
5"* had an Ka%normalK appendiceal diameter of greater than : mm and 13* of
appendices did not fill after oral contrast& 'hus, findings on C' must %e correlated
$ith the clinical scenario&
<"1 =
o Advantages of C' scanning include its superior sensitivity and accuracy compared
$ith those of other imaging techni6ues, ready availa%ility, noninvasiveness, and
potential to reveal alternative diagnoses& Disadvantages include radiation e/posure,
potential for anaphylactic reaction if intravenous contrast agent is used, lengthy
ac6uisition time if oral contrast is used, and patient discomfort if rectal contrast is
used&
o 0nitial studies evaluated se6uential >nonhelical? C' in the diagnosis of appendicitis& 0n
!CC8, Malone evaluated nonenhanced, se6uential C' in "!! patients and reported a
sensitivity of 31* and a specificity of C1*&
<"3 =
'he addition of intravenous and oral
contrast agent increased sensitivity to C:+C3*& 'hus, se6uential C' $ith oral and
intravenous contrast enhancement is highly accurate %ut time consuming and
e/pensive; it is %est used for e6uivocal presentations $hen helical C' is not
availa%le&
o 0n !CC1, Aane et al evaluated helical C' $ithout contrast enhancement and found a
sensitivity of C#* and specificity of C1*&
<"C =
More recent studies of noncontrast helical
C' in adults $ith suspected appendicitis sho$ed a sensitivity of C!+C:* and a
specificity of C"+!##*&
<8#,8!,8",88,85 =
o 0n a "##5 study of pediatric patients, Laiser et al found that nonenhanced C' $as
::* sensitive&
<84 =
,ensitivity increased to C#* $ith the use of intravenous contrast
material& 0n a "##4 study of !!" pediatric patients, Hoec2er and 9ilman found that
unenhanced C' achieved a sensitivity of 31&4*, specificity of C3&1*, positive
predictive value of C!&8*, and negative predictive value of C#&3*&
<8: =
o 0n !CC1, @ao et al found that focused >lo$er a%dominal and upper pelvic? helical C'
$ith 8* -astrografin instilled into the colon >$ithout intravenous contrast agent? had
a superior sensitivity of C3* and specificity of C3*&
<81 =
Eocused helical scanning
$ithout intravenous contrast agent eliminates the ris2 of anaphyla/is and reduces
the cost to a%out M"8#& Ac6uisition time is less than !4 minutes& @adiation e/posure
is less than that of a standard o%struction series& Alternative diagnoses are revealed
in up to :"* of patients and include diverticulitis, nephrolithiasis, adne/al pathology,
@AB tumor, small+%o$el hernias, and ischemia&
o 'he literature suggests that limited helical C' $ith rectal contrast enhancement is a
highly accurate, time+efficient, cost+effective $ay to evaluate adults $ith e6uivocal
presentations for appendicitis& '$o studies of focused helical C' $ith rectal contrast
in children suggest a sensitivity of C4+C1*& 'his is an e/cellent diagnostic approach
in patients $ith e6uivocal presentations $ho are poor candidates for intravenous
contrast&
o .ne recent retrospective study of !18 adults found that helical C' $ith intravenous
contrast only has a sensitivity of !##*, specificity of C1*, positive predictive value of
C1*, and negative predictive value of !##*&
<83 =
An earlier study of 13 patients $ith
appendicitis found sensitivity of C!&C*, specificity of 31&4*, and accuracy of C!*&
<8C =
0n a "##4 retrospective revie$ of "8 pu%lished reports, Anderson et al found that C'
$ithout oral contrast $as at least as accurate as C' $ith oral contrast, achieving
sensitivity of C4*, specificity of C1*, positive predictive value of C1*, and negative
predictive value of C:*&
<5# =
Elimination of oral contrast reduces emergency
department length of stay and delay to operative intervention&
o Continued improvements in helical C' technology may allo$ nonenhanced helical
C' to %e the imaging test of choice for adults $ith suspected appendicitis& Additional
studies are needed to identify su%groups that derive the most %enefit from diagnostic
imaging&
Ultrasonography
o 'ransa%dominal sonograms are sho$n %elo$&
o
Sagittal graded co$pression transabdo$inal sonogra$ sho)s an
acutely in"la$ed appendix, 'he tubular structure is
nonco$pressible* lacks peristalsis* and $easures greater than -
$$ in dia$eter, A thin ri$ o" periappendiceal "luid is present,
o
'rans(erse graded co$pression transabdo$inal sonogra$ o" an
acutely in"la$ed appendix, .ote the targetlike appearance due to
thickened )all and surrounding loculated "luid collection,
o 0n !C3:, Puylaert descri%ed a graded compression techni6ue for evaluating the
appendi/ $ith transa%dominal sonography&
<5! =
A 4+MH) transducer is used& -entle
%ut firm pressure is applied on the @AB to displace intervening %o$el gas and to
decrease the distance %et$een the transducer and the appendi/, improving image
6uality& An outer diameter of greater than : mm, noncompressi%ility, lac2 of
peristalsis, or periappendiceal fluid collection characteri)es an inflamed appendi/&
'he normal appendi/ is not visuali)ed in most cases& A posterolateral approach is
suggested to evaluate the retrocecal area& ,cattered case reports endorse
transvaginal sonography in $omen $ith lo$ pelvic tenderness if the appendi/ is not
visuali)ed on transa%dominal scans&
o Numerous studies have documented a sensitivity of 34+C#* and a specificity of C"+
C:*& Eive studies of graded compression ultrasonography in children sho$ed overall
sensitivities of 34+C4* and specificities ranging from 51+C:*& .ne study found
sensitivity of 84* and specificity of C3* in pediatric patients $ith perforated
appendicitis& 'he cost is appro/imately M""4&
o Advantages of sonography include its noninvasiveness, short ac6uisition time, lac2
of radiation e/posure, and potential for diagnosis of other causes of a%dominal pain,
particularly in the su%set of $omen of child%earing age& Many authorities %elieve that
ultrasonography should %e the initial imaging test in pregnant $omen and in pediatric
patients %ecause radiation e/posure is particularly undesira%le in these groups&
o .ne ne$ study suggests that ultrasonography should %e incorporated as a first+line
imaging modality for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adults&
<5" =
0n this study, !4! patients $ith suspected appendicitis under$ent the
designed protocol& -raded+compression ultrasonography $as performed first&
Patients $ith positive results on graded+compression ultrasonography
under$ent surgery& 'hose $ith inconclusive or negative results under$ent
contrast+enhanced multidetector C'& Patients $ith positive findings on C'
also under$ent surgery& Patients $ith negative C' findings $ere admitted for
o%servation& Positive ultrasonography $as confirmed at surgery in 1! of 1C
patients, and positive C' $as confirmed in "! patients& 'hirty+nine patients
$ith normal C' results recovered and did not re6uire surgery& 'he sensitivity
and specificity of this protocol $as !##* and 3:*, respectively&
Poortman et al concluded that this diagnostic path$ay using primary graded+
compression ultrasonography and complementary multidetector C' yields a
high diagnostic accuracy for acute appendicitis $ithout adverse events from
delay in treatment& Although ultrasonography is less accurate than C', it can
%e used as a primary imaging modality and avoids the disadvantages of C'&
.%servation is safe for patients $ith negative findings on ultrasonography or
C'&
o 'he principal disadvantage is that ultrasonography is operator dependent& 9ecause
nonvisuali)ation is interpreted as a noninflamed appendi/, technical e/pertise and
commitment to a thorough e/amination are essential in o%taining ma/imum
sensitivity&
o 0f graded compression sonogram of the @AB is positive for appendicitis,
appendectomy should %e performed& 0f negative, this finding is not sufficiently
sensitive to rule out the possi%ility of appendicitis& Consideration should %e given to
further o%servation and focused helical C' $ith rectal contrast enhancement&
o ')ana2is and others proposed a clinical scoring system that assigns : points if
appendiceal ultrasonogram is positive, 5 points for @AB tenderness, 8 points for
re%ound tenderness, and " points for D9C count greater than !",###& 0n their
prospective study of 8#8 adults using a total score cut+off of 3 points or greater, they
found sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of C4&5*, C1&5*, and C:&4*, respectively&
<58 =
'hese findings should %e confirmed %y additional studies %efore routine clinical
use&
A%dominal radiography
o 'he 2idneys+ureters+%ladder >LU9? vie$ is typically used; this is sho$n %elo$&
7isuali)ation of an appendicolith in a patient $ith symptoms consistent $ith
appendicitis is highly suggestive of appendicitis, %ut this occurs in fe$er than !#* of
cases&
o
/idneys0ureters0bladder 1/UB2 radiograph sho)s an
appendicolith in the right lo)er quadrant, An appendicolith is seen
in "e)er than 345 o" patients )ith appendicitis* but* )hen
present* it is essentially pathogno$onic,
o 'he consensus in the literature is that plain radiographs are insensitive, nonspecific,
and not cost+effective&
9arium enema study
o A single+contrast study can %e performed on an unprepared %o$el& A%sent or
incomplete filling of the appendi/ coupled $ith pressure effect or spasm in the cecum
suggests appendicitis& 'he cost is appro/imately M5"#&
o Multiple studies have found that the sensitivity of a %arium enema study is in the
range of 3#+!##*& Ho$ever, as many as !:* of studies in adults >""+8C* in
children? $ere technically unsuita%le for interpretation and e/cluded from data
analysis&
o Advantages of %arium enema study are its $ide availa%ility, use of simple
e6uipment, and potential for diagnosis of other diseases >eg, Crohn disease, colon
cancer, ischemic colitis? that may mimic appendicitis&
o Disadvantages include its high incidence of nondiagnostic results, radiation
e/posure, insufficient sensitivity, and invasiveness& 'hese disadvantages ma2e
%arium enema study a poor screening e/amination for use %y emergency
departments&
o 9arium enema study has essentially no role in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in
the era of ultrasonography and C'&
@adionuclide scanning
o Dhole %lood is $ithdra$n for radionuclide scanning& Neutrophils and macrophages
are la%eled $ith technetium+CCm al%umin and administered intravenously& 0mages of
the a%domen and pelvis are o%tained serially over 5 hours& Aocali)ed upta2e of
tracer in the @AB suggests appendiceal inflammation; this is sho$n in the image
%elo$&
o
'echnetiu$066$ radionuclide scan o" the abdo$en sho)s "ocal
uptake o" labeled %BCs in the right lo)er quadrant consistent
)ith acute appendicitis,
o Eour early studies in adults $ith suspected appendicitis sho$ed a sensitivity of 3#+
C#* and specificity of C"+!##*&
<55,54,5:,51 =
'$o studies of ne$er la%eling techni6ues
achieved sensitivities of C3* for the presence of appendicitis&
<53,5C =
o Although future studies may confirm sensitivity as high as C3*, the ac6uisition time
of 4 hours and the lac2 of availa%ility are disadvantages to its use as a high+
sensitivity ED screening test for appendicitis&
Magnetic resonance imaging
o M@0 plays a relatively limited role in the evaluation %ecause of high cost, long scan
times, and limited availa%ility, though the lac2 of ioni)ing radiation ma2es it an
attractive modality in pregnant patients&
o A single retrospective study assessed the accuracy of M@0 in 4! pregnant patients
$ith suspected appendicitis in $hom ultrasonography $as nondiagnostic& ,ensitivity,
specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy for M@0 $as !##*,
C8&:*, C!&5*, !##*, and C5&#*, respectively&
<4# =
o Co%%en et al sho$ed that M@0 is far superior to transa%dominal ultrasonography in
evaluating pregnant patients $ith suspected appendicitis&
<4! =
o Dhen evaluating pregnant patients $ith suspected appendicitis, graded compression
ultrasound should %e the imaging test of choice& 0f ultrasonography demonstrates an
inflamed appendi/, the patient should undergo appendectomy& 0f graded
compression ultrasonography is nondiagnostic, the patient should undergo M@0 of
the a%domen and pelvis&
#ther 'ests
Clinical diagno)tic )core)
,everal investigators have created diagnostic scoring systems in $hich a finite num%er of clinical
varia%les is elicited from the patient and each is given a numerical value& 'he sum of these values
is used to predict the li2elihood of acute appendicitis&
'he %est 2no$n of these is the MAN'@EA, score, $hich ta%ulates migration of pain, anore/ia,
nausea andGor vomiting, tenderness in the @AB, re%ound tenderness, elevated temperature,
leu2ocytosis, and shift to the left >'a%le "?&
'a%le "& MAN'@EA, ,core
Characteristic Score
M N Migration of pain to the @AB !
A N Anore/ia !
N N Nausea and vomiting !
' N 'enderness in @AB "
@ N @e%ound pain !
E N Elevated temperature !
A N Aeu2ocytosis "
, N ,hift of D9C to the left !
'otal !#
,ource&OAlvarado, !C3:&
<4" =
Clinical scoring systems are attractive %ecause of their simplicity; ho$ever, none has %een sho$n
prospectively to improve on the clinician(s judgment in the su%set of patients evaluated in the ED
for a%dominal pain suggestive of appendicitis& 'he MAN'@EA, score, in fact, $as %ased on a
population of patients hospitali)ed for suspected appendicitis, $hich differs mar2edly from the
population seen in the ED&
McLay et al revie$ed !4# emergency department patients $ho under$ent a%dominopelvic C' to
rule out appendicitis& 0n that series, patients $ith a MAN'@EA, score of 8 or lo$er had a 8&:*
incidence of appendicitis, patients $ith scores of 5+: had a 8"* incidence of appendicitis, and
patients $ith scores of 1+!# had a 13* incidence of appendicitis& 'hese investigators suggested
that patients $ith an Alvarado score of #+8 could %e discharged $ithout imaging, that those $ith
scores of 1 or a%ove receive surgical consultation, and those $ith scores of 5+: undergo computed
tomography&
<48 =
,chneider et al, in "##1, studied 433 patients aged 8+"! years and found that a MAN'@EA, score
of 1 or greater had a positive predictive value of :4* and a negative predictive value of 34*& 'hey
concluded that the MAN'@EA, score $as not sufficiently accurate to %e used as the sole method
for determining the need for appendectomy in the pediatric population&
<45 =
Computer'aided diagno)i)
A retrospective data%ase of clinical features of patients $ith appendicitis and other causes of
a%dominal pain is entered into a computer& 0t is then used in prospectively assessing the ris2 of
appendicitis&
Computer+aided diagnosis can achieve a sensitivity greater than C#* $hile reducing rates of
perforation and negative laparotomy %y as much as 4#*&
'he principle disadvantages are that each institution must generate its o$n data%ase to reflect
characteristics of its local population& ,peciali)ed e6uipment and significant initiation time are
re6uired&
Computer+aided diagnosis is not $idely availa%le in U, EDs&
'reat$ent
7$ergency !epart$ent Care
'reatment guidelines for patients $ith suspected acute appendicitis
o Esta%lish intravenous access and administer aggressive crystalloid therapy to
patients $ith clinical signs of dehydration or septicemia&
o Patients $ith suspected appendicitis should not receive anything %y mouth&
o Administer parenteral analgesic and antiemetic as needed for patient comfort& 'he
administration of analgesics to patients $ith acute undifferentiated a%dominal pain
has historically %een discouraged and critici)ed %ecause of concerns that they
render the physical findings less relia%le& At least 3 randomi)ed controlled studies
no$ demonstrate that administering opioid analgesic medications to adult and
pediatric patients $ith acute undifferentiated a%dominal pain is safe; no study has
sho$n that analgesics adversely affect the accuracy of physical e/amination&
o Consider ectopic pregnancy in $omen of child%earing age, and o%tain a 6ualitative
%etaPhuman chorionic gonadotropin >%eta+hC-? measurement in all cases&
o Administer intravenous anti%iotics to those $ith signs of septicemia and to those $ho
are to proceed to laparotomy&
Nonsurgical treatment of appendicitis
o Anecdotal reports descri%e the success of intravenous anti%iotics in treating acute
appendicitis in patients $ithout access to surgical intervention >eg, su%mariners,
individuals on ships at sea?&
o 0n one prospective study of "# patients $ith sonography+proven appendicitis,
symptoms resolved in C4* of patients receiving anti%iotics alone, %ut 81* of these
patients had recurrent appendicitis $ithin !5 months&
<44 =
o Nonsurgical treatment may %e useful $hen appendectomy is not accessi%le or $hen
it is temporarily a high+ris2 procedure&
Preoperative anti%iotics
o Preoperative anti%iotics have demonstrated efficacy in decreasing postoperative
$ound infection rates in numerous prospective controlled studies&
o 9road+spectrum gram+negative and anaero%ic coverage is indicated&
o Preoperative anti%iotics should %e given in conjunction $ith the surgical consultant&
o Penicillin+allergic patients should avoid %eta+lactamase type anti%iotics and
cephalosporins& Car%apenems are a good option in these patients&
o Pregnant patients should receive pregnancy category A or 9 anti%iotics&
Consultations
Consult a general surgeon&
Medication
'he goals of therapy are to eradicate the infection and to prevent complications&
Antibiotics
'hese agents are effective in decreasing the rate of postoperative $ound infection and in
improving outcome in patients $ith appendiceal a%scess or septicemia& 'he ,urgical 0nfection
,ociety recommends starting prophylactic anti%iotics %efore surgery, using appropriate spectrum
agents for less than "5 hours for nonperforated appendicitis and for less than 4 days for perforated
appendicitis& @egimens are of appro/imately e6ual efficacy, so consideration should %e given to
features such as medication allergy, pregnancy category >if applica%le?, to/icity, and cost&
Metronida8ole 1Flagyl2
Used in com%ination $ith aminoglycoside >eg, gentamicin?; %road gram+negative and anaero%ic
coverage& Appears to %e a%sor%ed into cells; intermediate meta%oli)ed compounds %ind DNA and
inhi%it protein synthesis, causing cell death&
!osing
Adult
1&4 mgG2g 07 %efore surgery
Pediatric
!4+8# mgG2gGd 07 divided %idGtid for 1 d, or 5# mgG2g P. once; not to e/ceed " gGd
Interactions
May increase to/icity of anticoagulants, lithium, and phenytoin; cimetidine may increase to/icity;
disulfiram reaction may occur $ith orally ingested ethanol
Contraindications
Documented hypersensitivity
Precautions
Pregnancy
9 + Eetal ris2 not confirmed in studies in humans %ut has %een sho$n in some studies in animals
Precautions
Adjust dose in hepatic disease; monitor for sei)ures and peripheral neuropathy
9enta$icin 19entacidin* 9ara$ycin2
Aminoglycoside anti%iotic for gram+negative coverage& Used in com%ination $ith agent against
gram+positive organisms and one against anaero%es& Not D.C& Consider if penicillins or other
less to/ic drugs contraindicated, $hen clinically indicated, and in mi/ed infections caused %y
suscepti%le staphylococci and gram+negative organisms& Numerous regimens; adjust dose for
CrCl and changes in volume of distri%ution& May %e given 07G0M&
!osing
Adult
" mgG2g 07 loading dose %efore surgery; 8+4 mgG2gGd divided tidG6id thereafter
Pediatric
0nfantsGneonates 1&4 mgG2gGd 07 divided tid
Children :+1&4 mgG2gGd 07 divided tid
Interactions
Coadministration $ith other aminoglycosides, cephalosporins, penicillins, and amphotericin 9 may
increase nephroto/icity; aminoglycosides enhance effects of neuromuscular %loc2ing agents;
prolonged respiratory depression may occur; coadministration $ith loop diuretics may increase
ototo/icity of aminoglycosides, $hich may cause irreversi%le hearing loss of varying degrees
>monitor regularly?
Contraindications
Documented hypersensitivity; nonPdialysis+dependent renal insufficiency
Precautions
Pregnancy
C + Eetal ris2 revealed in studies in animals %ut not esta%lished or not studied in humans; may use
if %enefits out$eigh ris2 to fetus
Precautions
Narro$ therapeutic inde/ >not intended for long+term therapy?; caution in renal failure >not on
dialysis?, myasthenia gravis, hypocalcemia, and conditions that depress neuromuscular
transmission; adjust dose in renal impairment
Ce"otetan 1Ce"otan2
,econd+generation cephalosporin used as single+drug therapy for %road gram+negative and
anaero%ic coverage& Half+life is 8&4 h& -ive $ith cefo/itin to achieve effectiveness of single dose&
!osing
Adult
" g 07 once %efore surgery
Pediatric
"#+5# mgG2g 07G0M once %efore surgery
Interactions
Consumption of alcohol $ithin 1" h may produce disulfiramli2e reactions; may increase
hypoprothrom%inemic effects of anticoagulants; coadministration $ith potent diuretics >eg, loop
diuretics? or aminoglycosides may increase nephroto/icity
Contraindications
Documented hypersensitivity
Precautions
Pregnancy
9 + Eetal ris2 not confirmed in studies in humans %ut has %een sho$n in some studies in animals
Precautions
@educe dose %y half if CrCl !#+8# mAGmin and %y three 6uarters if J!# mAGmin; %acterial or fungal
overgro$th of nonsuscepti%le organisms may occur $ith prolonged or repeated therapy
Ce"oxitin 1Me"oxin2
,econd+generation cephalosporin indicated as single agent for management of infections caused
%y suscepti%le gram+positive cocci and gram+negative rods& Half+life is #&3 h&
!osing
Adult
" g 07 %efore surgery, follo$ed %y 8 doses of " g 65+:h for "5 h
Pediatric
J8 months Not esta%lished
Q8 months 8#+5# mgG2g 07 %efore surgery, follo$ed %y 8 doses of " g 65+:h for "5 h
Interactions
Pro%enecid may increase effects; coadministration $ith aminoglycosides or furosemide may
increase nephroto/icity >closely monitor renal function?
Contraindications
Documented hypersensitivity
Precautions
Pregnancy
9 + Eetal ris2 not confirmed in studies in humans %ut has %een sho$n in some studies in animals
Precautions
9acterial or fungal overgro$th of nonsuscepti%le organisms may occur $ith prolonged use or
repeated treatment; caution in patients $ith previously diagnosed colitis
Meropene$ 1Merre$2
9actericidal %road+spectrum car%apenem anti%iotic that inhi%its cell $all synthesis& Used as a
single agent, effective against most gram+positive and gram+negative %acteria&
!osing
Adult
! g 07 63h
Pediatric
5# mgG2g 07 63h
Interactions
Pro%enecid may inhi%it renal e/cretion, increasing levels
Contraindications
Documented hypersensitivity
Precautions
Pregnancy
9 + Eetal ris2 not confirmed in studies in humans %ut has %een sho$n in some studies in animals
Precautions
Pseudomem%ranous colitis and throm%ocytopenia may occur >immediate discontinue?
Piperacillin and ta8obacta$ sodiu$ 1:osyn2
Drug com%ination of %eta+lactamase inhi%itor $ith piperacillin& Activity against some gram+positive
organisms, gram+negative organisms, and anaero%ic %acteria& Used as a single agent, inhi%its
%iosynthesis of cell $all mucopeptide and is effective during stage of active multiplication&
!osing
Adult
8&814 g 07 6:h
Pediatric
8##+5## mg piperacillinG2gGd 07 divided 6:+3h
Interactions
'etracyclines may decrease effects of piperacillin; high concentrations of piperacillin may
physically inactivate aminoglycosides if administered in same 07 line; effects $hen administered
concurrently $ith aminoglycosides are synergistic; pro%enecid may increase penicillin levels; high
dose parenteral penicillins may result in increased ris2 of %leeding
Contraindications
Documented hypersensitivity; severe pneumonia, %acteremia, pericarditis, emphysema,
meningitis, and purulent or septic arthritis should not %e treated $ith an oral penicillin during the
acute stage
Precautions
Pregnancy
C + Eetal ris2 revealed in studies in animals %ut not esta%lished or not studied in humans; may use
if %enefits out$eigh ris2 to fetus
Precautions
Perform C9Cs prior to initiation of therapy and at least $ee2ly during therapy; monitor for liver
function a%normalities %y measuring A,' and AA' during therapy; e/ercise caution in patients
diagnosed $ith hepatic insufficiencies; perform urinalysis, and 9UN and creatinine determinations
during therapy and adjust dose if values %ecome elevated; monitor %lood levels to avoid possi%le
neuroto/ic reactions
A$picillin and sulbacta$ 1Unasyn2
Drug com%ination of %eta+lactamase inhi%itor $ith ampicillin& 0nterferes $ith %acterial cell $all
synthesis during active replication, causing %actericidal activity against suscepti%le organisms&
Used as a single agent&
Activity against some gram+positive organisms, gram+negative organisms >nonpseudomonal
species?, and anaero%ic %acteria&
!osing
Adult
!&4 >! g ampicillin R #&4 g sul%actam? to 8 g >" g ampicillin R ! g sul%actam? 07G0M 6:+3h; not to
e/ceed 5 gGd sul%actam or 3 gGd ampicillin
Pediatric
J8 months Not esta%lished
8 months to !" years !##+"## mg ampicillinG2gGd >!4#+8## mg Unasyn? 07 divided 6:h
Q!" years Administer as in adults; not to e/ceed 5 gGd sul%actam or 3 gGd ampicillin
Interactions
Pro%enecid and disulfiram elevate ampicillin levels; allopurinol decreases ampicillin effects and
has additive effects on ampicillin rash; may decrease effects of oral contraceptives
Contraindications
Documented hypersensitivity
Precautions
Pregnancy
9 + Eetal ris2 not confirmed in studies in humans %ut has %een sho$n in some studies in animals
Precautions
Adjust dose in renal failure; evaluate rash and differentiate from hypersensitivity reaction
Analgesics
'hese agents can %e used to relieve acute undifferentiated a%dominal pain in patients presenting
to the ED&
Morphine sul"ate 1Astra$orph* !ura$orph* MS Contin* MSI;* #ra$orph2
D.C for analgesia %ecause of relia%le and predicta%le effects, safety profile, and ease of
reversi%ility $ith nalo/one& 7arious 07 doses are used; commonly titrated to desired effect&
!osing
Adult
,tarting dose #&! mgG2g 07G0MG,C
Maintenance dose 4+"# mgG1# 2g 07G0MG,C 65h
@elative hypovolemia ,tart $ith " mg 07G0MG,C; reassess hemodynamic effects of dose
Pediatric
0nfants and children #&!+#&" mgG2g dose 07G0MG,C 6"+5h prn; not to e/ceed !4 mgGdose; may start
at # mgG2gGdose
Interactions
Phenothia)ines may antagoni)e analgesic effects of opiate agonists; tricyclic antidepressants,
MA.0s, and other CN, depressants may potentiate adverse effects of morphine
Contraindications
Documented hypersensitivity; hypotension; potentially compromised air$ay in $hich rapid air$ay
control may %e difficult
Precautions
Pregnancy
C + Eetal ris2 revealed in studies in animals %ut not esta%lished or not studied in humans; may use
if %enefits out$eigh ris2 to fetus
Precautions
Caution in hypotension, respiratory depression, nausea, emesis, constipation, urinary retention,
atrial flutter, and other supraventricular tachycardias; has vagolytic action and may increase
ventricular response rate
Follo)0up
Further Inpatient Care
.pen versus laparoscopic appendectomy
o 0nitially performed in !C31, laparoscopic appendectomy has %een performed in
thousands of patients and is successful in C#+C5* of attempts& @ecent e/perience
has also demonstrated that laparoscopic appendectomy is successful in
appro/imately C#* of cases of perforated appendicitis&
o Advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy include increased cosmetic satisfaction
and a decrease in the postoperative $ound+infection rate& ,ome studies sho$ that
laparoscopic appendectomy shortens the hospital stay and convalescent period
compared $ith open appendectomy&
o Disadvantages of laparoscopic appendectomy are increased cost and an operating
time appro/imately "# minutes longer than that of open appendectomy& 'he latter
may resolve $ith increasing e/perience $ith laparoscopic techni6ue&
o Aaparoscopic appendectomy is contraindicated in patients $ith significant intra+
a%dominal adhesions&
Emergent versus urgent appendectomy
o .ne retrospective study suggests that the ris2 of appendiceal rupture is minimal in
patients $ith less than "5+8: hours of untreated symptoms&
<4: =
Another recent
retrospective study suggests that appendectomy $ithin !"+"5 hours of presentation
is not associated $ith an increase in hospital length of stay, operative time,
advanced stages of appendicitis, or complications compared to appendectomy $ithin
!" hours of presentation&
<41 =
o Additional studies are needed to demonstrate $hether initiation of anti%iotic therapy
follo$ed %y urgent appendectomy is as effective as emergent appendectomy for
patients $ith unperforated appendicitis&
0mmediate versus interval appendectomy for appendicitis $ith perforation
o Historically, immediate >emergent? appendectomy $as recommended for all patients
$ith appendicitis, $hether perforated or unperforated&
o @ecent clinical e/perience suggests that patients $ith perforated appendicitis $ith
mild symptoms and locali)ed a%scess or phlegmon on a%dominopelvic C' scans can
%e initially treated $ith intravenous anti%iotics and percutaneous or transrectal
drainage of any locali)ed a%scess& 0f the patient(s symptoms, D9C count, and fever
satisfactorily resolve, therapy can %e changed to oral anti%iotics and the patient can
%e discharged home& Delayed >interval? appendectomy can then %e performed 5+3
$ee2s later& 'his approach is successful in the vast majority of patients $ith
perforated appendicitis and locali)ed symptoms& ,ome have suggested that interval
appendectomy is not necessary unless the patient presents $ith recurrent
symptoms& Eurther studies are needed to clarify $hether routine interval
appendectomy is indicated&
o Eurther studies are necessary to identify the optimal treatment strategy in patients
$ith perforated appendicitis&
Co$plications
Complications of appendicitis may include the follo$ing
Dound infection
Dehiscence
9o$el o%struction
A%dominalGpelvic a%scess
,tump appendicitis + Although rare, appro/imately 8: reported cases of appendicitis in the
surgical stump after prior appendectomy e/ist&
<43 =
Death >rare?
Prognosis
'he prognosis is e/cellent&
Patient 7ducation
Eor e/cellent patient education resources, visit eMedicine(s Esophagus, ,tomach, and
0ntestine Center& Also, see eMedicine(s patient education articles, Appendicitis and
A%dominal Pain in Adults&
Miscellaneous
Medicolegal Pit"alls
Eor appro/imately !#* of adults $ith appendicitis, the condition is not diagnosed correctly
on their first visit to the health care provider&
Eailure to diagnose appendicitis is the leading cause of successful malpractice claims and
the fifth most e/pensive source of claims against emergency physicians&
Special Concerns
Pregnant $omen
o 'he incidence of appendicitis is unchanged in pregnancy, %ut the clinical
presentation is more varia%le than at other times&
o During pregnancy, the appendi/ migrates in a countercloc2$ise direction to$ard the
right 2idney, rising a%ove the iliac crest at a%out 5&4 months( gestation&
o @AB pain and tenderness dominate in the first trimester, %ut in the latter half of
pregnancy, right upper 6uadrant >@UB? or right flan2 pain must %e considered a
possi%le sign of appendiceal inflammation&
o Nausea, vomiting, and anore/ia are common in uncomplicated first trimester
pregnancies, %ut their reappearance later in gestation should %e vie$ed $ith
suspicion&
o Physiologic leu2ocytosis during pregnancy ma2es the D9C count less useful in the
diagnosis than at other times, and no relia%le distinguishing D9C parameters are
cited in the literature&
o .ne study of "" pregnant $omen in the first and second trimesters sho$ed that
graded compression ultrasonography had a sensitivity of ::* and specificity of C4*&
<4C =
o Diagnostic laparoscopy has also %een suggested for pregnant patients in the first
trimester $ith suspected appendicitis&
o Although negative appendectomy does not appear to adversely affect maternal or
fetal health, diagnostic delay $ith perforation does increase fetal and maternal
mor%idity& 'herefore, aggressive evaluation of the appendi/ is $arranted in this
group&
Nonpregnant $omen of child%earing age
o Appendicitis is misdiagnosed in 88* of nonpregnant $omen of child%earing age&
'he most fre6uent misdiagnoses are P0D, follo$ed %y gastroenteritis and urinary
tract infection&
o 0n distinguishing appendiceal pain from that of P0D, anore/ia and onset of pain more
than !5 days after menses suggests appendicitis& Previous P0D, vaginal discharge,
or urinary symptoms indicates P0D&
o .n physical e/amination, tenderness outside the @AB, cervical motion tenderness,
vaginal discharge, and positive urinalysis support the diagnosis of P0D&
Children
o Appendicitis is misdiagnosed in "4+8#* of children, and the rate of initial
misdiagnosis is inversely related to the age of the patient&
o 'he most common misdiagnosis is gastroenteritis, follo$ed %y upper respiratory
infection and lo$er respiratory infection&
o Children $ith misdiagnosed appendicitis are more li2ely than their counterparts to
have vomiting %efore pain onset, diarrhea, constipation, dysuria, signs and
symptoms of upper respiratory infection, and lethargy or irrita%ility&
o Physical findings less li2ely to %e documented in children $ith a misdiagnosis than in
others include %o$el sounds; peritoneal signs; rectal findings; and ear, nose, and
throat findings&
Elderly patients
o Appendicitis in patients older than :# years accounts for !#* of all appendectomies&
o 'he incidence of misdiagnosis is increased in elderly patients&
o 0n patients $ith comor%id conditions, diagnostic delay is correlated $ith increased
mor%idity and mortality&
o .lder patients tend to see2 medical attention later in the course of illness; therefore,
a duration of symptoms in e/cess of "5+53 hours should not dissuade the clinician
from the diagnosis&