Imaging for Suspected Acute Appendicitis
Preferred Imaging Study
For non-pregnant adults with suspected acute appendicitis, CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast alone is the preferred initial imaging study, and oral contrast is not necessary. 1
Adults
- CT abdomen/pelvis with IV contrast alone achieves sensitivity of 96-100% and specificity of 93-95% for diagnosing appendicitis. 1, 2
- The American College of Radiology designates this as the gold standard imaging modality for non-pregnant adults. 1
- IV contrast highlights key diagnostic features including enhancing inflammation in the appendiceal wall, periappendiceal inflammatory changes, and helps identify alternative diagnoses. 1
Pediatric Patients
- Ultrasound should be the initial imaging modality in children with suspected appendicitis. 3, 1
- Ultrasound achieves sensitivity of 76% and specificity of 95% in pediatric populations. 1
- If ultrasound is equivocal or non-diagnostic and clinical suspicion persists, proceed to CT abdomen/pelvis with IV contrast. 3, 1
- A staged algorithm (ultrasound followed by CT when equivocal) demonstrates 99% sensitivity and 91% specificity. 3
Pregnant Patients
- Ultrasound is the initial imaging modality in pregnant patients. 1
- If ultrasound is inconclusive, MRI without IV contrast is preferred over CT, achieving sensitivity of 94% and specificity of 96%. 1
Oral Contrast Is Not Necessary
Oral contrast should be avoided as it provides no diagnostic benefit and causes unnecessary delays. 1, 4
Evidence Against Oral Contrast
- A systematic review of 23 studies found oral contrast does not improve diagnostic accuracy compared to IV contrast alone. 1
- CT with IV contrast alone has negative predictive value of 100%, equivalent to or better than CT with both IV and oral contrast. 1
- Oral contrast requires 40 minutes to 2+ hours for bowel transit, is difficult to tolerate for patients with abdominal pain and vomiting, and adds cost without diagnostic benefit. 1
- In a pediatric study, oral contrast increased wait time by >90 minutes, did not reach the cecum in 48% of cases, and did not improve diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity 93.8% vs 94.6%, p=0.903). 4
- In adults, CT with IV contrast alone had 100% sensitivity and 98.6% specificity, with patients discharged nearly 2 hours faster than those receiving oral contrast. 5
Technical Considerations
Focused vs Full CT Coverage
- Focused CT from L2-L3 or L4 through the pubic symphysis is sufficient to diagnose acute appendicitis and identify most alternative diagnoses. 3, 6
- In a study of 200 adults, focused appendiceal CT identified the appendix in 191 patients and detected all 42 cases of acute appendicitis, identical to standard CT abdomen/pelvis. 6
- Focused CT may miss complications extending into the upper abdomen (perisplenic or perihepatic collections), though this has not been specifically studied. 3
When IV Contrast Is Contraindicated
- If IV contrast is contraindicated (severe allergy or renal failure), noncontrast CT remains highly accurate with sensitivity of 90-96% and specificity of 96-100%. 1, 2
- However, noncontrast CT has limitations in characterizing complicated appendicitis such as perforation or abscess formation. 3, 2
- Enhanced CT was superior to noncontrast CT in all age and gender groups in a retrospective study of 247 patients. 7
Identifying Complicated Appendicitis
CT with IV contrast provides optimal assessment for differentiating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis. 8
High-Specificity Features for Perforation
- Extraluminal appendicolith has 96% specificity and odds ratio of 28.9 for perforation. 2
- Focal wall enhancement defect has 98.8% specificity for perforation. 2
- Extraluminal air has 96% specificity but only 38% sensitivity. 2
- Abscess formation is highly specific for complicated disease. 2, 8
- Appendiceal diameter ≥11 mm has the greatest sensitivity (62.7%) for perforation. 2
Common Pitfalls and Caveats
- Do not delay CT for oral contrast administration—it provides no diagnostic benefit and causes unnecessary delays of 90+ minutes. 1, 4, 5
- Do not dismiss appendicitis based on negative imaging alone if clinical suspicion remains high—consider observation, antibiotics, or surgical consultation depending on clinical context. 1
- Do not rely on the traditional 6 mm appendiceal diameter cutoff alone as it has poor specificity (59.6%) and leads to overdiagnosis; use the optimal cutoff of >8.2 mm outer diameter (sensitivity 88.8%, specificity 93.4%). 2
- Do not assume fat stranding alone indicates perforation—combine with high-specificity features (wall defect, extraluminal air, appendicolith) to accurately stratify risk. 2