This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (17)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kosloske, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Lacey, S. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kosloske, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Lacey, S. R.
Related Collections
Right arrow Surgery
PEDIATRICS Vol. 113 No. 1 January 2004, pp. 29-34

The Diagnosis of Appendicitis in Children: Outcomes of a Strategy Based on Pediatric Surgical Evaluation

Ann M. Kosloske, MD, MPH*,{ddagger},||, C. Lance Love, MD*, James E. Rohrer, PhD§, Jane F. Goldthorn, MD*,{ddagger},|| and Stuart R. Lacey, MD*,{ddagger},||

* Departments of Surgery
{ddagger} Pediatrics
§ Health Services Research, Texas Tech University, Health Sciences Center, Lubbock, Texas
|| Covenant Children’s Hospital, Lubbock, Texas

Objective. To determine the accuracy of a protocol for diagnosis of appendicitis in children based on clinical evaluation by a pediatric surgeon with selective use of diagnostic imaging studies. We performed this study because 1) current reports in the medical, pediatric, emergency medical, and surgical literature advocate imaging, particularly computed tomography (CT), as the gold standard for diagnosis of appendicitis, and 2) the value of pediatric surgical evaluation early in the management of the child with possible appendicitis has rarely been emphasized.

Methods, Design, Setting, and Participants. Retrospective review of 356 children (mean age: 9.6 years; range: 1–18 years) referred to a regional pediatric surgical center for possible appendicitis from 1999 through 2001.

Interventions. Initial pediatric surgical evaluation consisted of history, physical examination, white blood cell count, differential count, and urinalysis. Children diagnosed with appendicitis underwent appendectomy without additional studies; those with equivocal findings received intravenous fluids, rest, and reevaluation after 4 to 6 hours. Imaging was used selectively by the pediatric surgeon.

Outcome Measures. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of the protocol based on final diagnoses; rate of appendiceal perforation; and rate of negative appendectomy.

Results. Of 356 children evaluated for appendicitis, 220 (62%) had an appendectomy. Two-hundred nine (95%) had histologically proven appendicitis, and 11 (5%) had a normal appendix. Of the 209 children with appendicitis, 139 (66%) had acute appendicitis, 34 (16%) had advanced appendicitis without perforation, and 36 (17%) had advanced appendicitis with perforation. Appendectomy was performed after initial evaluation in 195 (89%) of the 220 children and after a period of supportive care and observation in 25 (11%) of 220. One hundred thirty-six children (38%) did not have an appendectomy and were discharged with other diagnoses. The sensitivity of this protocol was 99%, specificity was 92%, positive predictive value was 95%, and negative predictive value was 99%. The accuracy was 97% compared with an accuracy of 82% for ultrasound alone and 90% for CT scan alone.

Conclusions. These data show that a protocol based on clinical evaluation by a pediatric surgeon with selective use of imaging was highly accurate for the diagnosis of appendicitis in children. Low rates of negative appendectomy (5%) and perforation (17%) were achieved without the potential costs and radiation exposure of excess imaging.

Key Words: appendicitis • appendectomy • pediatric surgeon • CT • computed tomography

Abbreviations: CT, computed tomography • US, ultrasound • WBC, white blood cell

Received for publication Mar 3, 2003; Accepted Apr 10, 2003.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 CLIN PEDIATRHome page
A. A. Miller
CT Scans on Children: Is This a Problem?
Clinical Pediatrics, April 1, 2008; 47(3): 220 - 223.
[PDF]

Home page
 Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
R. H. Gottlieb
Imaging for Whom: Patient or Physician?
Am. J. Roentgenol., December 1, 2005; 185(6): 1399 - 1403.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 PediatricsHome page
D. Swarr and R. Keren
Comparison of Alternative Diagnostic Approaches for Managing Appendicitis in Children: The Effect of Disease Prevalence and Spectrum
Pediatrics, August 1, 2004; 114(2): 513 - 514.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal Watch DermatologyHome page
Clinical Assessment, Limited Imaging Diagnose Appendicitis
Journal Watch Dermatology, May 25, 2004; 2004(525): 8 - 8.
[Full Text]

Home page
 Journal Watch DermatologyHome page
Diagnosing Appendicitis in Children: What's the Best Strategy?
Journal Watch Dermatology, March 3, 2004; 2004(303): 9 - 9.
[Full Text]

Home page
 JWatch PediatricsHome page
Clinical Assessment, Limited Imaging Diagnose Appendicitis
Journal Watch Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, March 1, 2004; 2004(301): 1 - 1.
[Full Text]

Home page
 JWatch GeneralHome page
Diagnosing Appendicitis in Children: What's the Best Strategy?
Journal Watch (General), February 6, 2004; 2004(206): 4 - 4.
[Full Text]