Download PDF
Rofo 2014; 186(6): 551-558
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1366074
Review
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Imaging of Appendicitis in Adults

Bildgebung der Appendizitis beim Erwachsenen
M. Karul
1   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg
,
C. Berliner
1   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg
,
S. Keller
1   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg
,
T. Y. Tsui
2   Department of General, Visceral- and Thoracic Surgery, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg
,
J. Yamamura
1   Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

18 October 2013

20 December 2013

Publication Date:
23 April 2014 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Three imaging modalities are available for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: ultrasound (US), computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Transabdominal ultrasound should be the first-line imaging test. Abdominal CT is superior to US and is required immediately in patients with atypical clinical presentation of appendicitis and suspected perforation. However, low-dose unenhanced CT is equal to standard-dose CT with intravenous contrast agents in the detection of five signs of acute appendicitis (thickened appendiceal wall more than 2 mm, cross-sectional diameter greater than 6 mm, periappendicitis, abscess, and appendicolith). MRI is necessary in pregnant women and young adults. This review illustrates the principles of state-of-the-art imaging techniques and their clinical relevance.

Key Points:

• US is the basic diagnostic method in case of suspected appendicitis.

• CT is necessary in patients with atypical presentation of appendicitis.

• MRI should be the first-line imaging test in pregnant women.

Citation Format:

• Karul M, Berliner C, Keller S et al. Imaging of Appendicitis in Adults. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2014; 186: 551 – 558

Zusammenfassung

Zur Akutdiagnostik der Appendizitis stehen drei radiologische Verfahren zur Verfügung: 1. Ultraschall (US); 2. Computertomografie (CT); 3. Magnetresonanztomografie (MRT). Während der transabdominelle Ultraschall zur Basisdiagnostik zählt, sollte die diagnostisch überlegene CT bei atypischen klinischen Appendizitiszeichen und Perforationsverdacht unverzüglich erfolgen. Besonders hervorzuheben ist die native Niedrigdosis-CT, die der Standarddosis-CT nach intravenöser Kontrastmittelapplikation in der Detektion von fünf Appendizitiszeichen (Wandverdickung größer 2 mm, vergrößerter Appendixdurchmesser mehr als 6 mm, Periappendizitis, Abszessformation und Appendicolith) ebenbürtig ist. Die MRT kommt bei Schwangeren und jungen Erwachsenen zum Einsatz. Diese Übersichtsarbeit stellt die Prinzipien der modernen Untersuchungstechniken sowie ihre klinischen Implikationen dar.

Key words

abdomen - CT - MR imaging - ultrasound - appendicitis

Deutscher Artikel/German Article

 

  • References

  • 1 Marincek B. Akutes Abdomen: Bildgebung heute. Dtsch Arztebl 2002; 99: 3010-3017
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kreis ME, Koch FEv, Jauch KW et al. Abklärung des rechtsseitigen Unterbauchschmerzes. Dtsch Arztebl 2009; 2: 42a
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Petroianu A. Diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Int J Surg 2012; 10: 115-119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hardin JR M. Acute Appendicitis: Review and Update. Am Fam Physician 1999; 60: 2027-2034
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Mysorekar VV, Chanda S, Dandeka CP. Mast cells in surgically resected appendices. Indian J Pathol Microbiol 2006; 49: 229-233
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kim HC, Yang DM, Lee CM et al. Acute appendicitis: relationships between CT determined severities and serum white blood cell counts and C-reactive protein levels. Br J Radiol 2011; 84: 1115-1120
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Reich B, Zalut T, Weiner SG. An international evaluation of ultrasound vs. computed tomography in the diagnosis of appendicitis. Int J Emerg Med 2011; 29: 68
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lankisch PG, Mahlke R, Lübbers H. Das akute Abdomen aus internistischer Sicht. Dtsch Arztebl 2009; 2: 46a
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bondi M, Miller R, Zbar A et al. Improving the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography in suspected acute appendicitis by the combined transabdominal and transvaginal approach. Am Surg 2012; 78: 98-103
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Ultraschall-Kurs. Dietrich CF. (ed.) Köln: Deutscher Ärzte-Verlag; 2012: 215-216
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Koichi Y, Toshizo K, Shigeru S et al. Sonographic appearance of the normal appendix in adults. J Ultrasound Med 2007; 27: 37-43
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sonographische Appendizitisdiagnostik. Möglichkeit und Grenzen. Hans Marseille Verlag GmbH München Chir Praxis 2001; 58: 587-598
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lim HK, Bae SH, Seo GS. Diagnosis of acute appendicitis in pregnant women: value of sonography. Am J Roentgenol 1992; 159: 539-542
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Nasiri S, Mohebbi F, Sodagari N et al. Diagnostic values of ultrasound and the Modified Alvarado Scoring System in acute appendicitis. Int J Emerg Med 2012; 5: 26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Carroll PJ, Gibson D, El-Faedy O et al. Surgeon-performed ultrasound at the bedside for the detection of appendicitis and gallstones: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Surg 2013; 205: 102-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Al-Ajerami Y. Sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. East Mediterr Health J 2012; 18: 66-69
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 MRT in der Gastroenterologie. Adamek HE, Lauenstein TC, (eds.) Stuttgart, New York: Thieme; 2009: 168-182
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ames CM, Shipp TD, Castro EE et al. The use of helical computed tomography in pregnancy for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2001; 184: 954-957
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Chen MM, Coakley FV, Kaimal A et al. Guidelines for computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging use during pregnancy and lactation. Obstet Gynecol 2008; 112: 333-340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Karul M, Avanesov M, Yamamura J. Acute appendicitis: a clinical diagnosis?. Radiologe 2012; 52: 1089-1090
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kim K, Kim YH, Kim SY et al. Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 1596-1605
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lai V, Chan WC, Lau HY et al. Diagnostic power of various computed tomography signs in diagnosing acute appendicitis. Clin Imaging 2012; 36: 29-34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Stacul F, van der Molen AJ, Reimer P et al. Contrast Media Safety Committee of European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR). Contrast induced nephropathy: updated ESUR Contrast Media Safety Committee guidelines. Eur Radiol 2011; 21: 2527-2541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hekimoglu K, Yildirim UM, Karabulut E et al. Comparison of combined oral and i.v. contrast-enhanced versus single i.v. contrast-enhanced CT for the detection of acute appendicitis. JBR-BTR 2011; 94: 278-282
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kepner AM, Bacasnot JV, Stahlman BA. Intravenous contrast alone vs intravenous and oral contrast computed tomography for the diagnosis of appendicitis in adult ED patients. Am J Emerg Med 2012; 30: 1765-1773
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Latifi A, Labruto F, Kaiser S et al. Does enteral contrast increase the accuracy of appendicitis diagnosis?. Radiol Technol 2011; 82: 294-299
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Laqmani A, Buhk JH, Henes FO et al. Impact of a 4th Generation Iterative Reconstruction Technique on Image Quality in Low-Dose Computed Tomography of the Chest in Immunocompromised Patients. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2013; 185: 749-757
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Coursey CA, Nelson RC, Patel MB et al. Making the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: do more preoperative CT scans mean fewer negative appendectomies? A 10-year study. Radiology 2010; 254: 460-468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kim SY, Lee KH, Kim TY et al. Acute appendicitis in young adults: low- versus standard-radiation-dose contrast-enhanced abdominal CT for diagnosis. Radiology 2011; 260: 437-445
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Seo H, Lee KH, Kim HJ et al. Diagnosis of acute appendicitis with sliding slab ray-sum interpretation of low-dose unenhanced CT and standard-dose i.v. contrast-enhanced CT scans. Am J Roentgenol 2009; 193: 96-105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Platon A, Jlassi H, Rutschmann OT et al. Evaluation of al low-dose CT protocol with oral contrast for assessment of acute appendicitis. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 446-454
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Dabir D, Fürst G, Blondin D. MRI in acute appendicitis in pregnancy. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2010; 182: 1010-1011
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Oto A, Ernst RD, Ghulmiyyah LM et al. MR imaging in the triage of pregnant patients with acute abdominal and pelvic pain. Abdom imaging 2009; 34: 243-250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Nikolaidis P, Hammond N, Marko J et al. Incidence of visualization of the normal appendix on different MRI sequences. Emerg Radiol 2006; 12: 223-226
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Heverhagen JT, Pfestroff K, Heverhagen AE et al. Diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging: a prospective evaluation of patients with suspected appendicitis (diamond). J Magn Reson Imaging 2012; 35: 617-623
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Cobben L, Groot I, Kingma L et al. A simple MRI protocol in patients with clinically suspected appendicitis: results in 138 patients and effect on outcome of appendectomy. Eur Radiol 2009; 19: 1175-1183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Incesu L, Coskun A, Selcuk MB et al. Acute appendicitis: MR imaging and sonographic correlation. Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168: 669-674
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Fröhlich JM, Kubik-Huch RA. Röntgen-, MR- oder Ultraschallkontrastmittel während der Schwangerschaft oder Stillzeit: Was ist zu beachten?. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2013; 185: 13-25
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Leeuwenburgh MM, Jensch S, Gratama JW et al. MRI features associated with acute appendicitis. Eur Radiol 2013; Epub ahead of print
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Avcu S, Cetin FA, Arslan H et al. The value of diffusion-weighted imaging and apparent diffusion coefficient quantification in the diagnosis of perforated and nonperforated appendicitis. Diagn Interv Radiol 2013; 19: 106-110
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Pedrosa I, Lafornara M, Pandharipande PV et al. Having acute appendicitis: effects of MR imaging on negative laparatomy rate and appendiceal perforation rate. Radiology 2009; 250: 749-757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 van Randen A, Bipat S, Zwinderman AH et al. Acute appendicitis: meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of CT and graded compression US related to prevalence of disease. Radiology 2008; 249: 97-106
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Leeuwenburgh MM, Wiarda BM, Wiezer MJ et al. Comparison of imaging strategies with conditional contrast-enhanced CT and unenhanced MR imaging in patients suspected of having appendicitis: a multicenter diagnostic performance study. Radiology 2013; 268: 135-143
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar