Appendicitis Diagnosis Criteria: A Comprehensive Guide for Accurate Detection

Anatomy and Pathology of Appendicitis

Appendicitis, a common cause of abdominal pain, occurs in both infectious/inflammatory and neoplastic forms. Neoplastic appendicitis, while less frequent, includes epithelial tumors and neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), among others. Epithelial tumors are more common in older adults, whereas NETs tend to appear in younger individuals. Although often asymptomatic, appendiceal neoplasms can grow, causing obstruction and mimicking acute appendicitis symptoms. In severe cases, particularly with mucinous neoplasms, pseudomyxoma peritonei can develop, characterized by mucin accumulation within the peritoneum.

Acute appendicitis itself is a widespread condition, affecting 7-9% of the population during their lifetime. Its classic presentation involves initial periumbilical pain shifting to the right lower quadrant (RLQ), accompanied by nausea, vomiting, anorexia, and fever. The RLQ pain typically centers at McBurney’s point. Acute appendicitis often results from a fecalith or other mechanical obstructions. A significant complication is perforation, with the risk increasing over time. Early and accurate diagnosis is crucial to prevent complications and ensure timely intervention.

The appendix, or vermiform appendix, is a vestigial organ attached to the cecum. The convergence of the taeniae coli at the cecum serves as a reliable landmark for locating the appendix base. Structurally, the appendix is a true diverticulum, sharing the colon’s mucosal, submucosal, muscularis, and serosal layers. Distinctively, it contains lymphoid cells, differentiating it from the colonic tissue it originates from.

While the appendix base is consistently located, its tail position is variable, most commonly retrocecal but also found in subcecal, pre-ileal, post-ileal, and pelvic positions. This positional variability influences the diverse clinical presentations of acute appendicitis. The appendix averages 8-10 cm in length and 7 mm in diameter, with a typical wall thickness of 2 mm. These dimensions are critical in diagnosing inflammation, with a diameter exceeding 7 mm (or 6 mm in some contexts) and wall thickness surpassing 2-3 mm being significant diagnostic criteria for acute appendicitis in imaging.

Diagnostic Imaging Modalities for Appendicitis

Plain Radiography

Plain radiographs, or X-rays, offer limited utility in directly imaging the appendix. In cases of suspected acute appendicitis, radiographs may occasionally reveal a calcified fecalith, but this finding is not specific to appendicitis. Pneumoperitoneum, indicative of a rupture, is another rare finding on radiographs associated with complicated appendicitis. Overall, abdominal radiographs are not sensitive or specific enough for diagnosing acute appendicitis, although they can help identify other urgent abdominal conditions like obstruction or free air.

Computed Tomography (CT) Scan

Computed tomography (CT) is a primary imaging modality for diagnosing appendicitis. CT scans demonstrate a sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 76% in diagnosing appendicitis. Intravenous contrast-enhanced CT is generally recommended, as oral or rectal contrast typically provides no additional diagnostic advantage. The classic CT diagnosis of acute appendicitis relies on identifying an enlarged appendix, typically greater than 6 mm in diameter, with wall thickening exceeding 2-3 mm, wall enhancement, and surrounding inflammation indicated by periappendiceal fat stranding or free fluid. A fecalith may be present, but its absence does not rule out appendicitis.

Recent studies suggest that a diameter cutoff of 6 mm might be too low, particularly for adults, potentially leading to false positives and unnecessary appendectomies. While 6 mm may be appropriate for pediatric cases, many adults have normal appendix diameters between 6 and 7 mm. Therefore, a diameter cutoff of over 7 mm is increasingly recommended to improve CT scan accuracy in diagnosing appendicitis in adults.

For diagnosing appendiceal neoplasms, CT scans have a high sensitivity of 95% in symptomatic patients. Both IV and oral contrast can aid in tumor identification and staging. Diagnostic criteria for neoplasms include an appendix diameter exceeding 15 mm, cystic dilatation, or the presence of a soft tissue mass. Mucoceles, which can vary in size, may also be detected; smaller mucoceles (under 2 cm) are often due to luminal obstruction, while larger ones are more likely neoplastic. Neoplasms may present as dilated appendices with homogenous low-attenuating material, irregular wall thickening, soft-tissue masses, periappendiceal fat stranding, invasion into adjacent structures, or lymphadenopathy. Suspected NETs are investigated for small submucosal masses (less than 1-2 cm) in the distal appendix that enhance significantly with contrast and may show calcifications, although NETs can sometimes be too small for CT detection.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is increasingly used, especially for pregnant and pediatric patients, due to its lack of ionizing radiation. MRI exhibits high diagnostic accuracy for appendicitis, with a sensitivity and specificity of 96%. MRI is considered slightly more effective in adults than children for appendix visualization. While imaging protocols can vary, MRI for appendicitis typically does not require contrast. Diagnostic criteria for appendicitis on MRI are similar to CT, including an enlarged appendix (over 7 mm diameter), wall thickening over 2 mm, peri-appendiceal fat stranding, fluid-filled appendix, or free fluid.

MRI also plays a crucial role in staging appendiceal neoplasms, proving more accurate than CT, particularly when incorporating diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). DWI enhances the detection of highly cellular tumor implants by showing restricted diffusion in solid tumors, distinguishing them from surrounding tissues. Using delayed gadolinium-enhanced imaging with oral and rectal contrast alongside DWI achieves a sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 70% in staging appendiceal neoplasms.

Ultrasonography (US)

Ultrasound (US) shares similar indications with MRI, especially useful in children due to their thinner musculature and less abdominal fat. For diagnosing acute appendicitis, US has a sensitivity of 55% and a high specificity of 95%. However, US is operator-dependent, and a negative result does not definitively rule out appendicitis.

The ultrasound examination utilizes graded compression and assesses several factors: appendix diameter (over 6 mm), pericecal fat, periappendiceal inflammation, free fluid, reactive lymph nodes, and mural hyperplasia. Periappendiceal inflammation is often the most reliable US sign for appendicitis, and its absence is a strong indicator against appendicitis.

Lymphoid hyperplasia, a benign condition, is a common mimic of appendicitis on ultrasound. It causes appendiceal enlargement, specifically in the lamina propria, which appears as a hypoechoic inner layer on ultrasound. Lamina propria thickening exceeding 0.8 mm is diagnostic for lymphoid hyperplasia, even with an enlarged appendix overall. This condition is non-surgical and often associated with viral enteritis.

Appendiceal mucoceles can also be visualized on ultrasound as ovoid cystic masses with varying echogenicity, typically displaying concentric echogenic layers (“onion skin”), acoustic shadowing from calcifications, and a pear-shaped appendix. Regional adenopathy, fat stranding, and free fluid may also be present.

Clinical Significance of Appendicitis Diagnosis Criteria

Imaging plays a critical role in investigating acute appendicitis and, less commonly, appendiceal neoplasms. For neoplasms, imaging demonstrates high sensitivity and specificity, especially when patients present with symptoms that can mimic acute appendicitis, abdominal pain, palpable mass, obstruction, or distension. Imaging not only aids in tumor diagnosis but also in staging using the TNM system, primarily via MRI. Epithelial tumors are more frequently identified through imaging, while NET diagnoses are less common due to their smaller size and typically non-aggressive nature. However, definitive neoplasm diagnosis requires pathological examination post-appendectomy.

In acute appendicitis, radiological studies, particularly CT scans due to their speed and accuracy, are often decisive in guiding management decisions, differentiating between operative and non-operative approaches. While clinical assessment is vital, imaging often confirms the diagnosis. MRI and US offer valuable alternatives but have limitations. US is highly operator-dependent and best suited for patients with less abdominal fat, like children. MRI availability can be limited, and the procedure is longer, potentially challenging for patients in acute pain. Currently, negative appendectomy rates remain notable, especially in women. Accurate imaging is essential to reduce unnecessary surgeries. Therefore, selecting the most appropriate imaging modality is crucial for providing clinicians with the most accurate diagnostic information tailored to the clinical scenario.

References

1. Tang LH. Epithelial neoplasms of the appendix. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010 Nov;134(11):1612-20. [PubMed: 21043814]
2. Wu H, Chintagumpala M, Hicks J, Nuchtern JG, Okcu MF, Venkatramani R. Neuroendocrine Tumor of the Appendix in Children. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2017 Mar;39(2):97-102. [PubMed: 27306228]
3. Komo T, Kohashi T, Hihara J, Oishi K, Yoshimitsu M, Kanou M, Nakashima A, Aoki Y, Miguchi M, Kaneko M, Mukaida H, Hirabayashi N. Intestinal obstruction caused by low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm: A case report and review of the literature. Int J Surg Case Rep. 2018;51:37-40. [PMC free article: PMC6104576] [PubMed: 30138868]
4. Rizvi SA, Syed W, Shergill R. Approach to pseudomyxoma peritonei. World J Gastrointest Surg. 2018 Aug 27;10(5):49-56. [PMC free article: PMC6121001] [PubMed: 30190782]
5. Humes D, Speake WJ, Simpson J. Appendicitis. BMJ Clin Evid. 2007 Jul 01;2007 [PMC free article: PMC2943782] [PubMed: 19454096]
6. Grover CA, Sternbach G. Charles McBurney: McBurney’s point. J Emerg Med. 2012 May;42(5):578-81. [PubMed: 21982626]
7. Bickell NA, Aufses AH, Rojas M, Bodian C. How time affects the risk of rupture in appendicitis. J Am Coll Surg. 2006 Mar;202(3):401-6. [PubMed: 16500243]
8. Leonards LM, Pahwa A, Patel MK, Petersen J, Nguyen MJ, Jude CM. Neoplasms of the Appendix: Pictorial Review with Clinical and Pathologic Correlation. Radiographics. 2017 Jul-Aug;37(4):1059-1083. [PubMed: 28598731]
9. Bhangu A, Søreide K, Di Saverio S, Assarsson JH, Drake FT. Acute appendicitis: modern understanding of pathogenesis, diagnosis, and management. Lancet. 2015 Sep 26;386(10000):1278-1287. [PubMed: 26460662]
10. Lotfollahzadeh S, Lopez RA, Deppen JG. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island (FL): Feb 12, 2024. Appendicitis. [PubMed: 29630245]
11. Hodge BD, Kashyap S, Khorasani-Zadeh A. StatPearls [Internet]. StatPearls Publishing; Treasure Island (FL): Aug 8, 2023. Anatomy, Abdomen and Pelvis: Appendix. [PubMed: 29083761]
12. Mizumoto T. B and T cells in lymphoid tissues of human appendix. Int Arch Allergy Appl Immunol. 1976;51(1):80-93. [PubMed: 132409]
13. Willekens I, Peeters E, De Maeseneer M, de Mey J. The normal appendix on CT: does size matter? PLoS One. 2014;9(5):e96476. [PMC free article: PMC4011757] [PubMed: 24802879]
14. Ulukaya Durakbaşa C, Taşbaşi I, Tosyali AN, Mutus M, Sehiralti V, Zemheri E. An evaluation of individual plain abdominal radiography findings in pediatric appendicitis: results from a series of 424 children. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2006 Jan;12(1):51-8. [PubMed: 16456751]
15. Campos Canelas AL, Fernandez HM, Crociati Meguins L, Silva Barros S, Crociati Meguins EM, Ishak G, Rodrigues De Moraes LA. Pneumoperitoneum in association with perforated appendicitis in a Brazilian Amazon woman. Case report. G Chir. 2010 Mar;31(3):80-2. [PubMed: 20426916]
16. van Randen A, Laméris W, Luitse JS, Gorzeman M, Hesselink EJ, Dolmans DE, Peringa J, van Geloven AA, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J, Boermeester MA., OPTIMA study group. The role of plain radiographs in patients with acute abdominal pain at the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2011 Jul;29(6):582-589.e2. [PubMed: 20825832]
17. Iamwat J, Teerasamit W, Apisarnthanarak P, Noppakunsomboon N, Kaewlai R. Predictive ability of CT findings in the differentiation of complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis: a retrospective investigation of 201 patients undergone appendectomy at initial admission. Insights Imaging. 2021 Oct 21;12(1):143. [PMC free article: PMC8531161] [PubMed: 34674054]
18. Park G, Lee SC, Choi BJ, Kim SJ. Stratified computed tomography findings improve diagnostic accuracy for appendicitis. World J Gastroenterol. 2014 Oct 14;20(38):13942-9. [PMC free article: PMC4194577] [PubMed: 25320531]
19. Moskowitz E, Khan AD, Cribari C, Schroeppel TJ. Size matters: Computed tomographic measurements of the appendix in emergency department scans. Am J Surg. 2019 Aug;218(2):271-274. [PubMed: 30558802]
20. Pickhardt PJ, Levy AD, Rohrmann CA, Kende AI. Primary neoplasms of the appendix manifesting as acute appendicitis: CT findings with pathologic comparison. Radiology. 2002 Sep;224(3):775-81. [PubMed: 12202713]
21. Spyropoulos C, Rentis A, Alexaki E, Triantafillidis JK, Vagianos C. Appendiceal mucocele and pseudomyxoma peritonei; the clinical boundaries of a subtle disease. Am J Case Rep. 2014 Aug 27;15:355-60. [PMC free article: PMC4156334] [PubMed: 25163976]
22. Bayhan Z, Yildiz YA, Akdeniz Y, Gonullu E, Altintoprak F, Mantoglu B, Capoglu R, Kahyaoglu Akkaya Z. Appendix Neuroendocrine Tumor: Retrospective Analysis of 4026 Appendectomy Patients in a Single Center. Emerg Med Int. 2020;2020:4030527. [PMC free article: PMC7486639] [PubMed: 32963833]
23. Kim DW, Suh CH, Yoon HM, Kim JR, Jung AY, Lee JS, Cho YA. Visibility of Normal Appendix on CT, MRI, and Sonography: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Sep;211(3):W140-W150. [PubMed: 30040469]
24. Duke E, Kalb B, Arif-Tiwari H, Daye ZJ, Gilbertson-Dahdal D, Keim SM, Martin DR. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of MRI for Evaluation of Acute Appendicitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Mar;206(3):508-17. [PubMed: 26901006]
25. Franke C, Böhner H, Yang Q, Ohmann C, Röher HD. Ultrasonography for diagnosis of acute appendicitis: results of a prospective multicenter trial. Acute Abdominal Pain Study Group. World J Surg. 1999 Feb;23(2):141-6. [PubMed: 9880422]
26. Pacharn P, Ying J, Linam LE, Brody AS, Babcock DS. Sonography in the evaluation of acute appendicitis: are negative sonographic findings good enough? J Ultrasound Med. 2010 Dec;29(12):1749-55. [PubMed: 21098847]
27. Xu Y, Jeffrey RB, DiMaio MA, Olcott EW. Lymphoid Hyperplasia of the Appendix: A Potential Pitfall in the Sonographic Diagnosis of Appendicitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Jan;206(1):189-94. [PubMed: 26700351]
28. Kwon LM, Lee K, Min SK, Ahn SM, Ha HI, Kim MJ. Ultrasound features of secondary appendicitis in pediatric patients. Ultrasonography. 2018 Jul;37(3):233-243. [PMC free article: PMC6044217] [PubMed: 29141286]
29. Sanchez TR, Corwin MT, Davoodian A, Stein-Wexler R. Sonography of Abdominal Pain in Children: Appendicitis and Its Common Mimics. J Ultrasound Med. 2016 Mar;35(3):627-35. [PubMed: 26892821]
30. Joshi MK, Joshi R, Alam SE, Agarwal S, Kumar S. Negative Appendectomy: an Audit of Resident-Performed Surgery. How Can Its Incidence Be Minimized? Indian J Surg. 2015 Dec;77(Suppl 3):913-7. [PMC free article: PMC4775693] [PubMed: 27011482]