Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

An evaluation of the utility of additional tests in the preoperative diagnostics of acute appendicitis

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

Abstract

Background

Determining the optimum algorithm for diagnostic procedure in suspected acute appendicitis (AA) may not only reduce the number of unnecessary operations, but also the frequency of complications, and may contribute measurably to reducing the costs of treating patients with acute abdominal conditions.

Objective

The aim of the study was to assess the value of standard diagnostic methods and measurement of selected biochemical and hematological parameters (C-reactive protein, CRP; interleukin-6, IL-6; procalcitonin, PCT; total count of white blood cell, WBC) in the accuracy of preoperative AA diagnosis.

Material and methods

The prospective study included 132 patients (female: 52.3%, male: 47.7%) emergency admitted to the Surgical Department, aged 15 to 74 years (mean 36 years), with a suspicion of appendicitis. Measurement of PCT concentration was carried out by immunoluminometric assay, IL-6 concentration by micro enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and CRP concentration by immunonephelometric assay. Statistical analysis was done by the chi-square test and Fisher's exact test for categorized discrete variables, and the Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis tests for continuous variables. In order to assay the diagnostic utility of tests, the receiver operating characteristic model of curve analysis was used.

Results

AA was confirmed in 89 (67.5%) of the patients operated on (group A). Twenty-six (19.7%) of the patients were not operated on and did not require surgery (group C); in 13 patients (9.8%) operated with a preliminary diagnosis of AA, no changes in the appendix were found during the course of the operation (group B). Four (3%) of the patients treated conservatively for periappendicular infiltration were excluded from the following analysis (group D). The mean count of WBC in AA was 13.22 ± 4.45 × 103/μL, with no statistical significance between groups, which does not allow the patients requiring surgery to be distinguished. The highest elevation of IL-6 concentration was observed in the group with the AA and the periappendicular infiltration: 101.5 ± 355.9 vs. 173.6 ± 228.33 pg/mL, respectively; p < 0.05. No surgery patients of group C showed considerably lower CRP concentrations than those of group D: CRP: 2.05 ± 3.6 vs. 6.36 ± 4.74 mg/L; p < 0.05. In cases of advanced forms of AA, the gangrenous with perforation, higher marker values are obtained than those in the phlegmonose form (186.60 ± 541.2 vs. 40.08 ± 48.3 pg/mL; (p < 0.05) for IL-6 and 8.88 ± 7.45 vs. 2.84 ± 3.83 mg/L; (p < 0.001) for CRP, respectively).

Conclusions

1. AA diagnosis based only on an assessment of clinical status may lead to an increase in the number of people operated with false-positive diagnoses of AA. 2. Applying additional diagnostic methods such as IL-6 determination seems to be useful in reducing the numbers of false-positive diagnoses of AA. 3. Laboratory tests, i.e., CRP, IL-6, and PCT are much more useful in assessing the risk of complications during the course of AA.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Tzanakis NE, Efstathion SP, Danulidis K, Rallis GE, Tsioulos DI, Chatzivasiliou A, Peros G, Nikiteas NI (2005) A new approach to accurate diagnosis of acute appendicitis. World J Surg 29(9):1151–1156, discussion 1157

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Amalesh T, Shankar M, Shankar R (2004) CRP in acute appendicitis—is it a necessary investigation? Int J Surg 2(2):88–89

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Weyant MJ, Eachempati SR, Maluccio MA, Rivadeneira DE, Grobmyer SR, Hydo LJ, Barie PS (2000) Interpretation of computed tomography does not correlate with laboratory or pathologic findings in surgically confirmed acute appendicitis. Surgery 128(2):145–152

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Anielski R, Barczyński M, Cichoń S, Kostka A, Hładki W (2001) Acute appendicitis in Cracow population [Ostre zapalenie wyrostka robaczkowego w populacji Krakowa]. Przegl Lek 58(12):1034–1037

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Yildirim O, Solak C, Kocer B, Unal B, Karabeyoglu M, Bozkurt B, Aksaray S, Cengiz O (2006) The role of serum inflammatory markers in acute appendicitis and their success in preventing negative laparotomy. J Invest Surg 19(6):345–352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Khan MN, Davie E, Irshad K (2004) The role of white cell count and C-reactive protein in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad 16(3):17–19

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Zimmerman MA, Selzman CH, Cothren C, Sorensen AC, Raeburn CD, Harken AH (2003) Diagnostic implications of C-reactive protein. Arch Surg 138(2):220–224

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Andersson M, Andersson RE (2008) The appendicitis inflammatory response score: a tool for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis that outperforms the Alvorado score. World J Surg 32(8):1843–1849

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Shakhatreh HS (2000) The accuracy of C-reactive protein in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis compared with that of clinical diagnosis. Med Arch 54(2):109–110

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Asfar S, Safar H, Khoursheed M, Dashti H, al-Bader A (2000) Would measurement of C-reactive protein reduce the rate of negative exploration for acute appendicitis? J R Coll Surg Edinb 45(1):21–24

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Erkasap S, Ates E, Ustuner Z, Sahin A, Yilmaz S, Yasar B, Kiper H (2000) Diagnostic value of interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein in acute appendicitis. Swiss Surg 6(4):169–172

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Groselj-Grenc M, Repse S, Dolenc-Strazar Z, Hojker S, Derganc M (2007) Interleukin-6 and lipopolysaccharide-binding protein in acute appendicitis in children. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 67(2):197–206

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Almagor M, Mintz A, Sibirsky O, Durst A (2005) Preoperative and postoperative levels of interleukin-6 in patients with acute appendicitis. Surg Endosc 19(3):331–333

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sengupta A, Bax G, Paterson-Brown S (2009) White cell count and C-reactive protein measurement in patients with possible appendicitis. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 91(2):113–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kafetzis DA, Velissariou IM, Nikolaides P, Sklavos M, Maktabi M, Spyridis G, Kafetzis DD, Androulakakis E (2005) Procalcitonin as a predictor of severe appendicitis in children. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 24(7):484–487

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chakhunashvili L, Samkharadze J, Chkhaidze I (2005) Procalcitonin as the biomarker of inflammation in diagnostics of pediatric appendicitis and for prevention of unnecessary appendectomy. Ann Biomedical Res Edu 5(1):6–9 http://abre.tsmu.edu//2005/v5is1_03.htm

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kang JY, Hoare J, Majeed A, Williamson RCN, Maxwell JD (2003) Decline in admission rates for acute appendicitis in England. Br J Surg 90(12):1586–1592

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Johansson EP, Rydh A, Riklund KA (2007) Ultrasound, computed tomography, and laboratory findings in the diagnosis of appendicitis. Acta Radiol 48(3):267–273

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Birkhahn RH, Briggs M, Datillo PA, Van Deusen SK, Gaeta TJ (2006) Classifying patients suspected of appendicitis with regard to likelihood. Am J Surg 191(4):497–502

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wysocki A, Panek J, Krzywoń J (1999) Causes of acute surgical abdominal diseases and age in a 60-year period [Przyczyny ostrych chirurgicznych chorób jamy brzusznej i wiek chorych w ostatnich 60 latach]. Pol Przegl Chir 71(4):368–376

    Google Scholar 

  21. Yang HR, Wang YC, Chung PK, Chen WK, Jeng LB, Chen RJ (2006) Laboratory tests in patients with acute appendicitis. ANZ J Surg 76(1-2):71–74

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yang HR, Wang YC, Chung PK, Chen WK, Jeng LB, Chen RJ (2005) Role of leukocyte count, neutrophil percentage, and C-reactive in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the elderly. Am Surg 71(4):344–347

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Semm K (1993) Stellenwert der Laparoskopie der Appendizitis: Beantwortung des Fragenkatalogs. Chir Gastroenterologie 9:266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Horton MD, Counter SF, Florence MG, Hart MJ (2000) A prospective trial of computed tomography and ultrasonography for diagnosing appendicitis in the atypical patient. Am J Surg 179(5):379–381

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schwerk WB (2000) Ultrasound first in acute appendix? Unnecessary laparotomies can often be avoided. MMW Fortschr Med 142(26–27):29–32

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Douglas CD, Macpherson NE, Davidson PM, Gani JS (2000) Randomised controlled trial of ultrasonography in diagnosis of acute appendicitis, incorporating the Alvarado score. BMJ 321(7266):919–922

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Kessler N, Cyteval C, Gallix B, Lesnik A, Blayac PM, Pujol J, Bruel JM, Taourel P (2004) Appendicitis: evaluation of sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of US, Doppler US, and laboratory findings. Radiology 230(2):472–478

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Josephson T, Styrud J, Eriksson S (2000) Ultrasonography in acute appendicitis. Body mass index as selection factor for US examination. Acta Radiol 41(5):486–488

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Arendt J, Zygmunt J, Heinrich G, Niemiec A, Podwiński A (1999) Evaluation of the validity of laparoscopy in diagnostic management of patients presenting with clinical symptoms of acute appendicitis [Ocena przydatności techniki laparoskopowej w diagnostyce chorych z objawami klinicznymi ostrego zapalenia wyrostka robaczkowego]. Pol Przegl Chir 71(12):1234–1243

    Google Scholar 

  30. Tytgat SH, Bakker XR, Butzelaar RM (1998) Laparoscopic evaluation of patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Surg Endosc 12(9):918–920

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Prabhudesai SG, Gould S, Rekhraj S, Tekkis PP, Glazer G, Ziprin P (2008) Artificial neural network: useful aid in diagnosing acute appendicitis. World J Surg 32(2):305–309; discussion 310-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Andersson RE (2008) Artificial neural network: useful aid in diagnosing acute appendicitis. World J Surg 32(8):310–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Wu HP, Lin CY, Chang CF, Chang YJ, Huang CY (2005) Predictive value of C-reactive protein at different cutoff levels in acute pancreatitis. Am J Emerg Med 23(4):449–453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kim E, Subhas G, Mittal VK, Golladay ES (2009) C-reactive protein estimation does not improve accuracy in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in pediatric patients. Int J Surg 7(1):74–77

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kuśnierz-Cabala B, Galicka-Latała D (2004) Diagnostic value of procalcitonin (PCT) determination [Wartość diagnostyczna oznaczeń prokalcytoniny]. Przeg Lek 61(9):978–980

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryszard Anielski.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anielski, R., Kuśnierz-Cabala, B. & Szafraniec, K. An evaluation of the utility of additional tests in the preoperative diagnostics of acute appendicitis. Langenbecks Arch Surg 395, 1061–1068 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-009-0565-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-009-0565-x

Keywords

Navigation