Ultrasonography for acute appendicitis – the way it looks today

B. Lembcke

doi:10.1055/s-0042-116949

Zeitschrift für Gastroenterologie, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Z Gastroenterol 2016; 54(10): 1151-1165
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-116949

Übersicht

Ultrasonography for acute appendicitis – the way it looks today

30 years of established ultrasonography for appendicitis – a pictorial essay concerning practice, patterns, pitfalls and potentialsUltraschalldiagnostik der akuten Appendizitis – so sieht’s aus30 Jahre fundierte Ultraschalldiagnostik der Appendizitis – eine visuelle Philippika zu Praxis, Pittoreskem, Problemen und Potenzial

Authors

B. Lembcke

Abstract

Despite sophisticated physical examination and laboratory support, diagnosis of acute appendicitis remained challenging in clinical practice with a negative appendectomy rate of 15 – 30 %. As a remarkable clue and as early as 1986, ultrasonography (US) has been proven a reliable diagnostic method that is also explicitly helpful in difficult cases with atypical presentation and enables to rule out many differential diagnoses.

Recent publications emphasized the role of multidetector computed tomography (CT) resulting in a significant reduction of false negative findings at operation. Extensive as well as uncritical application of this method even in children inevitably causes substantial radiation exposure, a sequel to either pure ignorance or unqualified/inadequate performance of US in this particular situation, which in turn can be considered sequel to either egocentric or economic preponderance.

Recent data shed new light on the role of US (and CT) in acute appendicitis. Therefore, 1 generation after US with graded compression was etched in stone as the method of choice for diagnosing acute appendicitis (Puylaert), a visual arousal fostering its role and performance in clinical medicine appears justified.

Zusammenfassung

Die Diagnostik der akuten Appendizitis ist durchaus anspruchsvoll und auch bei sorgfältiger Anamnese und klinischer Untersuchung mit 15 – 30 % unnötigen Appendektomien verbunden. Die Sonografie ist bei akuter Appendizitis eine seit 1986 validierte und etablierte Untersuchung und auch in schwierigen oder unklaren Situationen wegweisend für die Diagnosefindung und Differenzialdiagnostik.

Eine Reihe Publikationen attestieren der Multidetektor-Computertomografie (CT) eine wesentliche Rolle zur Reduktion falsch negativer Befunde bei der Appendektomie und haben dadurch zu einer erheblichen Zunahme von CTs bei Verdacht auf Appendizitis geführt. Dieser extensive CT-Einsatz mit zwangsläufig erheblicher Strahlenbelastung bei den zumeist (sehr) jungen Patient(inn)en impliziert entweder pure Ignoranz gegenüber der Ultraschalldiagnostik oder ihre unzureichend qualifizierte/inadäquate Durchführung im Spannungsfeld egozentrischer bzw. ökonomischer Anreize.

Kürzlich publizierte Daten präzisieren, spezifizieren und untermauern die Bedeutung der Sonografie als Primärdiagnostik bei der akuten Appendizitis; sie sind Veranlassung, 30 Jahre, nachdem Puylaert die Ultraschalluntersuchung mit dosierter Kompression als Methode der Wahl in Stein meißelte, die Rolle der Sonografie in Relation zur CT durch einen „optischen Weckruf“ zu betonen.

Schlüsselwörter

akute Appendizitis - Appendix - intestinaler Ultraschall - Computertomografie - Strahlenschutz

Key words

acute appendicitis - appendicitis - intestinal ultrasonography - computed tomography - radiation protection

Volltext

Referenzen

References
1 Flum DR, Koepsell T. The clinical and economic correlates of misdiagnosed appendicitis: nationwide analysis. Arch Surg 2002; 137: 799-804 ; discussion 804
2 Humes DJ, Simpson J. Acute appendicitis. BMJ 2006; 333: 530-534
3 Ma KW, Chia NH, Yeung HW et al. If not appendicitis, then what else can it be? A retrospective review of 1492 appendectomies. Hong Kong Med J 2010; 16: 12-17
4 Paulson EK, Kalady MF, Pappas TN. Clinical practice. Suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 236-242
5 Lee M, Paavana T, Mazari F et al. The morbidity of negative appendicectomy. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2014; 96: 517-520
6 Bundy DG, Byerley JS, Liles EA et al. Does this child have appendicitis?. JAMA 2007; 298: 438-451
7 Craig S, Dalton S. Diagnosing appendicitis: What works, what does not, and where to from here?. J Paediatrics Child Health 2015; 52: 168-173
8 Raja AS, Wright C, Sodickson AD et al. Negative appendectomy rate in the era of CT: an 18-year perspective. Radiology 2010; 256: 460-465
9 Fahimi J, Herring A, Harries A et al. Computed tomography use among children presenting to emergency departments with abdominal pain. Pediatrics 2012; 130: e1069-e1075
10 Hryhorczuk AL, Mannix RC, Taylor GA. Pediatric abdominal pain: use of imaging in the emergency department in the United States from 1999 to 2007. Radiology 2012; 263: 778-785
11 Board of Radiation Effects Research Division on Earth and Life Sciences National Research Council of the National Academies. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2006
12 Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Int Med 2009; 169: 2078-2086
13 Pickhardt PJ, Lawrence EM, Pooler D et al. Diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomography for suspected acute appendicitis. Ann Intern Med 2011; 154: 789-796
14 Rodriguez DP, Vargas S, Callahan MJ et al. Appendicitis in young children: imaging experience and clinical outcomes. Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186: 1158-1164
15 Smith-Bindman R. Is computed tomography safe?. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 1-4
16 Hillman BJ, Goldsmith JC. The uncritical use of high-tech medical imaging. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 4-6
17 Puylaert JBCM. Acute appendicitis: US evaluation using graded compression. Radiology 1986; 158: 355-360
18 Schwerck WN, Wichtrup B, Rüschoff J et al. Acute and perforated appendicitis: current experience with ultrasound-aided diagnosis. World J Surg 1990; 14: 271-276
19 Van Breda Vriesman AC, Puylaert JB. Mimics of appendicitis: alternative nonsurgical diagnoses with sonography and CT. Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186: 1103-1112
20 Park NH, Oh HE, Park HJ et al. Ultrasonography of normal and abnormal appendix in children. World J Radiol 2011; 3: 85-91
21 Goethe W, Schiller F. Xenien Nr. 2503, aus dem Nachlass 45.
22 Rettenbacher T, Hollerweger A, Macheiner P et al. Ovoid shape of the vermiform appendix: a criterion to exclude acute appendicitis – evaluation with US. Radiology 2003; 226: 95-100
23 Coyne SM, Zhang B, Trout AT. Does appendiceal diameter change with age? A sonographic study. Am J Roentgenol 2014; 203: 1120-1126
24 Rettenbacher T, Hollerweger A, Macheiner P et al. Presence or absence of gas in the appendix: additional criteria to rule out or confirm acute appendicitis – evaluation with US. Radiology 2000; 214: 183-187
25 Borushok KF, Jeffrey Jr RB, Laing FC et al. Sonographic diagnosis of perforation in patients with acute appendicitis. Am J Roentgenol 1990; 154: 275-278
26 Puylaert JB, Rutgers PH, Labisang RJ et al. A prospective study of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of appendicitis. N Engl J Med 1987; 317: 666-669
27 Abu-Yousef MM, Bleicher JJ, Maher JW et al. High-resolution sonography of acute appendicitis. ARJ 1987; 149: 53-58
28 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
29 Ceres L, Alonso I, López P et al. Ultrasound study of acute appendicitis in children with emphasis upon the diagnosis of retrocecal appendicitis. Pediatr Radiol 1990; 20: 258-261
30 Singh JP, Mariadason JG. Role of the feacolith in modern-day appendicitis. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2013; 95: 48-51
31 Burkitt DP. The aetiology of appendicitis. Br J Surg 1971; 58: 695-699
32 Ramdass MJ, Sing QY, Milne D et al. Association between the appendix and the fecalith in adults. Can J Surg 2015; 58: 10-14
33 Alaedeen DI, Cook M, Chwals WJ. Appendiceal fecalith is associated with early perforation in pediatric patients. J Pediatr Surg 2008; 43: 889-892
34 Sung T, Callahan MJ, Taylor GA. Clinical and imaging mimickers of acute appendicitis in the pediatric population. Am J Roentgenol 2006; 186: 67-74
35 Högenauer C, Langner C, Beubler E et al. Klebsiella oxytoca as a causative organism of antibiotic-associated hemorrhagic colitis. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2418-2426
36 Dietrich CF, Lembcke B, Seifert H et al. Sonografische Diagnostik der Penizillin-induzierten segmentär-hämorrhagischen Colitis. Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2000; 125: 755-760
37 Sachak T, Arnold MA, Naini BV et al. Neutropenic enterocolitis. New insights into a deadly entity. Am J Surg Pathol 2015; 39: 1635-1642
38 Bidwell LA. Intussusception caused by an inverted Meckel’s diverticulum; excision and end-to-end anastomosis. The Lancet 1907: 682-684
39 Dietrich CF, Lembcke B, Jensen C et al. Intestinal ultrasound in rare gastrointestinal disease, update, part 1. Ultraschall in Med 2014; 35: 400-421
40 Lidar M, Doron A, Kedem R et al. Appendectomy in familial Mediterranean fever: clinical, genetic and pathological findings. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2008; 26: 568-573
41 Karul M, Berliner C, Keller S et al. Imaging of appendicitis in adults. Röfo 2014; 186: 551-558
42 Franke C, Gerharz CD, Böhner H et al. Neurogenic appendicopathy: a clinical disease entity?. Int J Colorectal Dis 2002; 17: 185-191
43 Partecke LI, Thiele A, Schmidt-Wankel F et al. Appendicopathy – a clinical and diagnostic dilemma. Int J Colorectal Dis 2013; 28: 1081-1089
44 Rettenbacher T, Hollerweger A, Gritzmann N et al. Appendicitis: should diagnostic imaging be performed if the clinical presentation is highly suggestive of the disease?. Gastroenterology 2002; 123: 992-998
45 Cohen B, Bowling J, Midulla P et al. The non-diagnostic ultrasound in appendicitis: is a non-visualized appendix the same as a negative study?. J Pediatr Surg 2015; 50: 923-927
46 Int'Hof KH, Krestin GP, Steijerberg EW et al. Interobserver variability in CT scan interpretation for suspected acute appendicitis. Emerg Med J 2009; 26: 92-94
47 Kim ME, Orth RC, Fallon SC et al. Performance of CT examinations in children with suspected acute appendicitis in the community setting: a need for more education. Am J Roentgenol 2015; 204: 857-860
48 Kotagal M, Richards MK, Flum DR et al. Use and accuracy of diagnostic imaging in the evaluation of pediatric appendicitis. J Pediatr Surg 2015; 50: 642-646
49 Cobben LP, Bakker OJ, Puylaert JB et al. Imaging of patients with clinically suspected appendicitis in the Netherlands: conclusions of a survey. Br J Radiol 2009; 82: 482-485
50 Keyzer C, Zalcman M, De Maertelaer V et al. Comparison of US and unenhanced multi-detector row CT in patients suspected of having acute appendicitis. Radiology 2005; 236: 527-534
51 The 2012 CAR (Canadian Association of Radiologists) diagnostic imaging referral guidelines: Section L. Pediatrics. The Canadian Association of Radiologists: Ottawa (ON). Available: http://www.car.ca/en/standards-guidelines/guidelines.aspx (accessed January 29, 2016).
52 Howell JM, Eddy OL, Lukens TW et al. Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation and management of emergency department patients with suspected appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med 2010; 55: 71-116
53 Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z et al. Cancer risk in 680000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. BMJ 2013; 346: f2360
54 Polites SF, Mohamed MI, Habermann EB et al. A simple algorithm reduces computed tomography use in the diagnosis of appendicitis in children. Surgery 2014; 156: 448-454
55 Herliczek TW, Swenson DW, Mayo-Smith WW. Utility of MRI after inconclusive ultrasound in pediatric patients with suspected appendicitis: retrospective review of 60 consecutive patients. Am J Roentgenol 2013; 200: 969-973
56 Aspelund G, Fingeret A, Gross E et al. Ultrasonography/MRI versus CT for diagnosing appendicitis. Pediatrics 2014; 133: 586-593
57 Bakker OJ, Go PM, Puylaert JB et al. Richtlijn voor diagnostiek en behandeling van acute appendicitis. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2010; 154: A303
58 Tan WJ, Acharyya S, Goh YC et al. Prospective comparison of the alvarado score and CT scan in the evaluation of suspected appendicitis: a proposed algorithm to guide CT use. J Am Coll Surg 2015; 220: 218-224
59 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
60 Roy H, Burbridge B. To CT or not CT? The influence of computed tomography on the diagnosis of appendicitis in obese paediatric patients. Can J Surg 2015; 58: 181-187
61 Doria AS. Optimizing the role of imaging in appendicitis. Pediatr Radiol 2009; 39 (Suppl. 02) S144-S148
62 Nielsen JW, Boomer L, Kurtovic K et al. Reducing computed tomography scans for appendicitis by introduction of a standardized and validated ultrasonography report template. J Ped Surg 2015; 50: 144-148
63 Kotagal M, Richards MK, Chapman T et al. Improving ultrasound quality to reduce tomography use in pediatric appendicitis: the Safe and Sound campaign. Am J Surg 2015; 209: 896-900
64 Franca Neto AH, Amorim MM, Nóbrega BM. Acute appendicitis in pregnancy: literature review. Rev Assoc Med Bras 2015; 61: 170-177
65 Lim HK, Bae SH, Seo GS. Diagnosis of acute appendicitis in pregnant women: value of sonography. Am J Roentgenol 1992; 159: 539-542
66 Dietrich CF, Lembcke B, Jensen C et al. Intestinal ultrasound in rare gastrointestinal disease, update, part 2. Ultraschall in Med 2015; 36: 428-456
67 Lembcke B. Ultrasonography in acute diverticulitis – credit where credit is due. An educational review on patterns, practice and differential diagnoses accompanying the Statement of the Section Internal Medicine of the DEGUM. Z Gastroenterol 2016; 54: 47-57
68 Cha SW, Kim IY, Kim YW. Quantitative measurement of elasticity of the appendix using shear wave elastography in patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Plos One 2014; 9: e101292
69 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
70 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
71 Fallon SC, Kim ME, Hallmark CA et al. Correlating surgical and pathological diagnoses in paediatric appendicitis. J Pediatr Surg 2015; 50: 638-641
72 Correa J, Jimeno J, Vallverdu H et al. Correlation between intraoperative surgical diagnosis of complicated acute appendicitis and the pathology report: clinical implications. Surg Infect 2015; 16: 41-44
73 Willekens I, Peeters E, De Maeseneer M et al. The normal appendix on CT: does size matter?. Plos One 2014; 9: e96476