Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Appendicitis—the balance between cost effectiveness and safety remains challenging

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The diagnosis of acute appendicitis remains a challenge in daily clinical practice. The aim of the present study was to determine clinical criteria for a careful and cost-effective integration of computed tomography (CT) scans in the clinical pathway for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

Methods

In this retrospective study, we analyzed all patients who were admitted to our hospital with suspected appendicitis (2008–2011). We included all patients who had an appendectomy with or without preoperative CT. Furthermore, we analyzed all patients who received a CT because of suspected appendicitis but did not have an appendectomy.

Results

A total of 367 patients were included in this study. A CT was performed in 35 % of the patients with suspected appendicitis. Women had a significantly higher rate of negative appendectomy (NA) (16.5 %) than men (5.3 %). The frequency of NA was 5.7 % in the group of patients who were imaged, whereas it was 11.8 % (p = 0.075) among those who were not imaged. Thereby, CT scans helped to reduce total hospital expenses (€1,317.44 (no CT scan) to €675.85 (CT scan and no operation). Furthermore, CT scans can be avoided in men with normal white blood cell counts who should be observed if not operated immediately.

Conclusion

CT can be effectively applied for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. We propose a diagnostic algorithm which helps to simultaneously avoid unnecessary operations and radiation exposure.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bundesamt S (2010) Operationen und Prozeduren der vollstationären Patientinnen und Patienten in Krankenhäusern. http://www.gbe-bund.de. 2010

  2. Addiss DG, Shaffer N, Fowler BS, Tauxe RV (1990) The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. Am J Epidemiol 132(5):910–925

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Jess P, Bjerregaard B, Brynitz S, Holst-Christensen J, Kalaja E, Lund-Kristensen J (1981) Acute appendicitis. Prospective trial concerning diagnostic accuracy and complications. Am J Surg 141(2):232–234

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lewis FR, Holcroft JW, Boey J, Dunphy E (1975) Appendicitis. A critical review of diagnosis and treatment in 1,000 cases. Arch Surg 110(5):677–684, Chicago, Ill : 1960

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ma KW, Chia NH, Yeung HW, Cheung MT (2010) If not appendicitis, then what else can it be? A retrospective review of 1492 appendectomies. Hong Kong Med J=Xianggang yi xue za zhi / Hong Kong Acad Med 16(1):12–17

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Pickhardt PJ, Lawrence EM, Pooler BD, Bruce RJ (2011) Diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomography for suspected acute appendicitis. Ann Intern Med 154(12):789–796. doi:10.1059/0003-4819-154-12-201106210-00006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bijnen CL, van den Broek WT, Bijnen AB, de Ruiter P, Gouma DJ (2003) Implications of removing a normal appendix. Dig Surg 20(3):215–219. doi:10.1159/000070388, discussion 220–211

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Paulson EK, Kalady MF, Pappas TN (2003) Clinical practice. Suspected appendicitis. New Engl J Med 348(3):236–242. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp013351

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pooler BD, Lawrence EM, Pickhardt PJ (2012) MDCT for suspected appendicitis in the elderly: diagnostic performance and patient outcome. Emerg Radiol 19(1):27–33. doi:10.1007/s10140-011-1002-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Paranjape C, Dalia S, Pan J, Horattas M (2007) Appendicitis in the elderly: a change in the laparoscopic era. Surg Endosc 21(5):777–781. doi:10.1007/s00464-006-9097-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Storm-Dickerson TL, Horattas MC (2003) What have we learned over the past 20 years about appendicitis in the elderly? Am J Surg 185(3):198–201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Antevil J, Rivera L, Langenberg B, Brown CV (2004) The influence of age and gender on the utility of computed tomography to diagnose acute appendicitis. Am Surg 70(10):850–853

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. McGory ML, Zingmond DS, Nanayakkara D, Maggard MA, Ko CY (2005) Negative appendectomy rate: influence of CT scans. Am Surg 71(10):803–808

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Naoum JJ, Mileski WJ, Daller JA, Gomez GA, Gore DC, Kimbrough TD, Ko TC, Sanford AP, Wolf SE (2002) The use of abdominal computed tomography scan decreases the frequency of misdiagnosis in cases of suspected appendicitis. Am J Surg 184(6):587–589, discussion 589–590

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wagner PL, Eachempati SR, Soe K, Pieracci FM, Shou J, Barie PS (2008) Defining the current negative appendectomy rate: for whom is preoperative computed tomography making an impact? Surgery 144(2):276–282. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2008.03.040

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Morse BC, Roettger RH, Kalbaugh CA, Blackhurst DW, Hines WB (2007) Abdominal CT scanning in reproductive-age women with right lower quadrant abdominal pain: does its use reduce negative appendectomy rates and healthcare costs? Am Surg 73(6):580–584, discussion 584

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Webb EM, Nguyen A, Wang ZJ, Stengel JW, Westphalen AC, Coakley FV (2011) The negative appendectomy rate: who benefits from preoperative CT? AJR Am J Roentgenol 197(4):861–866. doi:10.2214/AJR.10.5369

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kim K, Kim YH, Kim SY, Kim S, Lee YJ, Kim KP, Lee HS, Ahn S, Kim T, S-s H, Song KJ, Kang S-B, Kim D-W, Park SH, Lee KH (2012) Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med 366(17):1596–1605. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1110734

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Raja AS, Wright C, Sodickson AD, Zane RD, Schiff GD, Hanson R, Baeyens PF, Khorasani R (2010) Negative appendectomy rate in the era of CT: an 18-year perspective. Radiology 256(2):460–465. doi:10.1148/radiol.10091570

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Drake FT, Florence MG, Johnson MG, Jurkovich GJ, Kwon S, Schmidt Z, Thirlby RC, Flum DR (2012) Progress in the diagnosis of appendicitis: a report from Washington State’s Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program. Ann Surg 256(4):586–594. doi:10.1097/SLA.0b013e31826a9602

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Abou-Nukta F, Bakhos C, Arroyo K, Koo Y, Martin J, Reinhold R, Ciardiello K (2006) Effects of delaying appendectomy for acute appendicitis for 12 to 24 hours. Arch Surg 141(5):504–506. doi:10.1001/archsurg.141.5.504, Chicago, Ill : 1960

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bickell NA, Aufses AH, Rojas M, Bodian C (2006) How time affects the risk of rupture in appendicitis. J Am Coll Surg 202(3):401–406. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2005.11.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Stahlfeld K, Hower J, Homitsky S, Madden J (2007) Is acute appendicitis a surgical emergency? Am Surg 73(6):626–629, discussion 629–630

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Andersson RE (2007) The natural history and traditional management of appendicitis revisited: spontaneous resolution and predominance of prehospital perforations imply that a correct diagnosis is more important than an early diagnosis. World J Surg 31(1):86–92. doi:10.1007/s00268-006-0056-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA, Mostafavi AA, Lawrason JN, McCabe CJ (1997) Helical CT combined with contrast material administered only through the colon for imaging of suspected appendicitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 169(5):1275–1280

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA, Mostafavi AA, McCabe CJ (1998) Effect of computed tomography of the appendix on treatment of patients and use of hospital resources. N Engl J Med 338(3):141–146. doi:10.1056/nejm199801153380301

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Singh A, Danrad R, Hahn PF, Blake MA, Mueller PR, Novelline RA (2007) MR imaging of the acute abdomen and pelvis: acute appendicitis and beyond. Radiographics: a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc 27 (5):1419–1431. doi:10.1148/rg.275065021

  28. Cobben L, Groot I, Kingma L, Coerkamp E, Puylaert J, Blickman J (2009) A simple MRI protocol in patients with clinically suspected appendicitis: results in 138 patients and effect on outcome of appendectomy. Eur Radiol 19(5):1175–1183. doi:10.1007/s00330-008-1270-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Leeuwenburgh MMN, Wiarda BM, Jensch S, van Es HW, Stockmann HBAC, Gratama JWC, Cobben LPJ, Bossuyt PMM, Boermeester MA, Stoker J (2013) Accuracy and interobserver agreement between MR-non-expert radiologists and MR-experts in reading MRI for suspected appendicitis. Eur J Radiol. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.09.022

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Chooi WK, Brown JA, Zetler P, Wiseman S, Cooperberg P (2007) Imaging of acute appendicitis and its impact on negative appendectomy and perforation rates: the St. Paul’s experience. Can Assoc Radiol J=Journal l'Association canadienne des radiologistes 58(4):220–224

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Kim K, Lee CC, Song K-J, Kim W, Suh G, Singer AJ (2008) The impact of helical computed tomography on the negative appendectomy rate: a multi-center comparison. J Emerg Med 34(1):3–6. doi:10.1016/j.jemermed.2007.05.042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Piper HG, Rusnak C, Orrom W, Hayashi A, Cunningham J (2008) Current management of appendicitis at a community center—how can we improve? Am J Surg 195(5):585–588. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2007.12.033, discussion 588–589

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Coursey CA, Nelson RC, Patel MB, Cochran C, Dodd LG, Delong DM, Beam CA, Vaslef S (2010) Making the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: do more preoperative CT scans mean fewer negative appendectomies? A 10-year study. Radiology 254(2):460–468. doi:10.1148/radiol.09082298

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Eriksson S, Granström L (1995) Randomized controlled trial of appendicectomy versus antibiotic therapy for acute appendicitis. Br J Surg 82(2):166–169

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Hansson J, Körner U, Khorram-Manesh A, Solberg A, Lundholm K (2009) Randomized clinical trial of antibiotic therapy versus appendicectomy as primary treatment of acute appendicitis in unselected patients. Br J Surg 96(5):473–481. doi:10.1002/bjs.6482

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Vons C, Barry C, Maitre S, Pautrat K, Leconte M, Costaglioli B, Karoui M, Alves A, Dousset B, Valleur P, Falissard B, Franco D (2011) Amoxicillin plus clavulanic acid versus appendicectomy for treatment of acute uncomplicated appendicitis: an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 377(9777):1573–1579. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60410-8

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hansson J, Körner U, Ludwigs K, Johnsson E, Jönsson C, Lundholm K (2012) Antibiotics as first-line therapy for acute appendicitis: evidence for a change in clinical practice. World J Surg 36(9):2028–2036. doi:10.1007/s00268-012-1641-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Paajanen H, Grönroos JM, Rautio T, Nordström P, Aarnio M, Rantanen T, Hurme S, Dean K, Jartti A, Mecklin J-P, Sand J, Salminen P (2013) A prospective randomized controlled multicenter trial comparing antibiotic therapy with appendectomy in the treatment of uncomplicated acute appendicitis (APPAC trial). BMC Surg 13:3. doi:10.1186/1471-2482-13-3

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Antevil JL, Rivera L, Langenberg BJ, Hahm G, Favata MA, Brown CVR (2006) Computed tomography-based clinical diagnostic pathway for acute appendicitis: prospective validation. J Am Coll Surg 203(6):849–856. doi:10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2006.08.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Toorenvliet BR, Wiersma F, Bakker RFR, Merkus JWS, Breslau PJ, Hamming JF (2010) Routine ultrasound and limited computed tomography for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. World J Surg 34(10):2278–2285. doi:10.1007/s00268-010-0694-y

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. John H, Neff U, Kelemen M (1993) Appendicitis diagnosis today: clinical and ultrasonic deductions. World J Surg 17(2):243–249

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Joy Velasco for her editorial help with the manuscript.

Conflicts of interests

There are no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of General and Visceral Surgery, University Hospital Frankfurt, Goethe-University, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, Frankfurt, 60590, Germany

    Juliane Liese, Thomas M. Halbinger, Frank Ulrich & Wolf O. Bechstein

  2. Department of General, Visceral and Vascular Surgery, Diakoniekrankenhaus Friederikenstift, Humboldtstraße 5, Hannover, 30169, Germany

    Christoph W. Strey

Authors
  1. Juliane Liese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas M. Halbinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Frank Ulrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wolf O. Bechstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christoph W. Strey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juliane Liese.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liese, J., Halbinger, T.M., Ulrich, F. et al. Appendicitis—the balance between cost effectiveness and safety remains challenging. Langenbecks Arch Surg 399, 493–501 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-014-1179-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-014-1179-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation