Routine Computed Tomography Versus Selective Imaging: An Audit of Negative Appendicectomy Rates in Two Hospitals

Introduction There are a variety of conflicting recommendations in the literature for pre-operative imaging in acute appendicitis. There is debate over what the ideal imaging protocol is to lower the negative appendicectomy rate (NAR) without increasing missed appendicitis. The aim of this study is...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Curēus (Palo Alto, CA) CA), 2022-12, Vol.14 (12), p.e32389-e32389
Main Authors: Symonds, Tristan, Buschel, Helen, Avramovic, John, Palamuthusingam, Pranavan
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Appendectomy
Appendicitis
Audits
Emergency Medicine
General Surgery
Histology
Hospitals
Medical imaging
Pathology
Patients
Radiology
Tomography
Ultrasonic imaging
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction There are a variety of conflicting recommendations in the literature for pre-operative imaging in acute appendicitis. There is debate over what the ideal imaging protocol is to lower the negative appendicectomy rate (NAR) without increasing missed appendicitis. The aim of this study is to compare the audited NAR between two groups with different imaging approaches: (i) mandatory pre-operative computed tomography (CT) imaging and (ii) selective imaging with CT, ultrasound (US), or no imaging prior to appendicectomy. Materials and methods A retrospective chart audit was conducted of 400 patients who underwent an appendicectomy at two hospitals with different approaches to pre-operative imaging (hospital A and hospital B). The primary outcome measure was histologically confirmed appendicitis. It was also documented whether there was radiological (CT or US) evidence of appendicitis.  Results At hospital A, all 200 patients underwent CT imaging prior to appendicectomy. The total histologically confirmed NAR for this group was 9.5% (19/200). At hospital B, 97 (48.5%) patients underwent CT, 41 (25.5%) underwent US, 10 (5%) had both US and CT, and 52 (26%) had no imaging. The total NAR was 11.5% (23/200). Conclusion There was no statistically significant difference (p=0.62) in audited NARs when comparing clinician-guided selective imaging versus routine CT imaging for all patients undergoing appendicectomy.
ISSN:2168-8184
2168-8184
DOI:10.7759/cureus.32389