The dangers associated with misdiagnosis, delay, and perforation make quick and accurate diagnosis of appendicitis essential. This issue provides guidance for the management of children with appendicitis, including recommendations for diagnostic studies, pain management, prophylactic antibiotics, and surgical consultation. You will learn:
Age-based historical and physical examination findings that can narrow the differential diagnosis, including common signs of appendicitis (eg, Rovsing sign, pain upon coughing or hopping, and right iliac fossa tenderness)
Clinical scoring systems that can help guide the workup of appendicitis in children, including the pediatric appendicitis risk calculator (pARC), the pediatric appendicitis score (PAS), and the Alvarado score
Why ultrasound is recommended as the initial imaging study for patients with suspected appendicitis, and which imaging studies can be used when the ultrasound is equivocal
Appropriate initial stabilization strategies for patients with acute appendicitis
Recommendations for pain management and prophylactic antibiotics
Which patients may be candidates for nonoperative management
Appendicitis is the most common condition in children requiring emergency abdominal surgery. Delayed or missed diagnosis in young children is common and is associated with increased rates of perforation. Although several scoring systems have been developed, there is still no consensus on clinical, laboratory, and imaging criteria for diagnosing appendicitis. This issue reviews key age-based historical and physical examination findings, as well as clinical scoring systems, that can help guide the workup of appendicitis in children. The existing literature is reviewed to provide guidance for the management of children with appendicitis, including recommendations for diagnostic studies, prophylactic antibiotics, pain medication, and surgical consultation.
Case Presentations
An 11-year-old previously healthy boy presents to the ED on a busy Saturday evening. He has acute abdominal pain that started 18 hours ago as diffuse periumbilical abdominal pain. Within the last 3 hours or so, the pain migrated to the right lower quadrant and worsened in severity. The child says the bumps on the car ride to the hospital were painful, and hopping up and down makes the pain worse. He says it seems to be a bit better when he lies still and does not move. Oral ibuprofen has not really helped the pain. The patient has not eaten a meal all day and has vomited 3 times today. On presentation, he has a temperature of 38.3°C (101°F). He is fully immunized and does not have any upper respiratory symptoms. He has never had similar pain in the past and has no history of previous abdominal surgeries. He has a normal genitourinary examination. He has obvious discomfort with palpation of his abdomen with maximum tenderness in the right lower quadrant. He exhibits guarding and rebound tenderness. His mother asks you whether this could be appendicitis, and whether he will need surgery. You begin to think… Is this appendicitis? What else could it be? How will you definitively determine the diagnosis? What laboratory evaluation and imaging tests should you order? It is now 2:00 AM. If the patient definitely has appendicitis, does he need an emergent appendectomy or can it wait?
Your next patient is a 16-year-old girl with abdominal pain who is brought into the ED by her mother. When the girl arrived to the ED, her vital signs were age-appropriate except for tachycardia, with a heart rate of 115 beats/min. Initially, she had some mild pain in her lower abdomen that gradually got worse. What is your differential diagnosis? What history, physical examination findings, or diagnostic evaluations should you obtain?
Your last patient of the evening is a 4-year-old boy with abdominal pain who is brought into the ED by his parents. The parents report that the boy was at his baseline state of health until 2 days ago when he became more fatigued and did not want to play as much. Today, he has had poor oral intake and spiked a fever to 38.6°C (101.5°F). The patient has been moaning and seems to grab at his abdomen in pain. Again, the diagnosis of appendicitis comes to mind. Is the rate of perforated appendicitis higher in this age group? How do you get an accurate history and perform a physical examination if the child will not talk to you and cowers behind his father when you approach him?
Introduction
Abdominal pain is a common chief complaint for pediatric patients presenting to an emergency department (ED) and, most of the time, the etiology is self-limited and nonemergent. Nonetheless, acute appendicitis must be considered in the differential diagnosis of abdominal pain in the pediatric population because missed acute appendicitis can lead to morbidity and mortality as well as medicolegal consequences.
In children, acute appendicitis is the most common condition requiring emergency surgery, with > 75,000 children diagnosed annually in the United States.1 The potential for morbidity and mortality from perforation of the appendix necessitates prompt diagnosis.2 Although a variety of clinical scoring systems have been developed, there is still no consensus on clinical, laboratory, and imaging criteria for diagnosing appendicitis, which poses a dilemma for the emergency clinician.3-5
This issue of Pediatric Emergency Medicine Practice reviews the existing literature to help develop strategies for the diagnosis and management of appendicitis in the pediatric population.
Critical Appraisal of the Literature
A literature search was performed in PubMed using the search terms appendicitis, abdominal pain, pediatrics, clinical scoring systems, ultrasound, diagnostic tests, radiation risk, and non-operative management. An English language filter was applied, and articles were sorted by relevance. Several thousand articles were found, with over 1000 screened by title, then abstract. A total of 101 articles were chosen for inclusion.
There are many deficiencies inherent to the quality of the literature, including the lack of pediatric studies and more retrospective studies. According to standard evidence-level scales, the majority of evidence for pediatric appendicitis falls into the “weak” or “moderately strong” categories, and there are many single-center studies with limited enrollment. There is an article from the Effective Health Care Program on the “Diagnosis of Right Lower Quadrant Pain and Suspected Appendicitis” in the National Guidelines Clearinghouse.6 Despite these studies, there is no clear consensus on the approach to the pediatric patient with abdominal pain.
Risk Management Pitfalls in the Management of Appendicitis in Pediatric Patients
1. “I saw this patient in the ED 2 days ago. He presented with 2 hours of vague abdominal pain, and his exam was not consistent with acute appendicitis. I can't believe he is back today with a perforated appendix.”
Early appendicitis can present with vague abdominal pain with a broad differential diagnosis. Therefore, it can be easy to miss early appendicitis. If a patient presents to the ED with < 24 hours of abdominal pain or the diagnosis is equivocal, close follow-up with a primary care provider or ED follow-up should be ensured if the patient’s symptoms persist.
8. “This 3-year-old boy seemed to have abdominal pain on exam, but he had a normal appendix ultrasound. He re-presented to the ED 2 days later with a large right-sided basilar pneumonia.”
The preverbal child can be difficult to examine in the ED. Even though it is true that children aged < 5 years with appendicitis often present with a perforated appendix, other diagnoses are much more common in this age group and should be considered. Failing to consider a broad differential may result in missed pathology.
9. “I decided to withhold morphine from my 8-year-old patient with suspected appendicitis. I didn’t want to miss a diagnosis because I administered an analgesic.”
Early analgesia is recommended. There is no increase in missed appendicitis or in negative appendectomies after analgesia. Adequate pain control for patients with suspected appendicitis in the ED is imperative.
Tables and Figures
References
Evidence-based medicine requires a critical appraisal of the literature based upon study methodology and number of subjects. Not all references are equally robust. The findings of a large, prospective, randomized, and blinded trial should carry more weight than a case report.
To help the reader judge the strength of each reference, pertinent information about the study is included in bold type following the reference, where available. In addition, the most informative references cited in this paper, as determined by the author, are highlighted.
Barrett ML, Hines AL, Andrews RM. Trends in rates of perforated appendix, 2001-2010: Statistical Brief #159. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Statistical Briefs. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2006. (Government statistical brief)
Pena BM, Taylor GA, Fishman SJ, et al. Costs and effectiveness of ultrasonography and limited computed tomography for diagnosing appendicitis in children. Pediatrics. 2000;106(4):672-676. (Prospective; 139 patients)
Samuel M. Pediatric appendicitis score. J Pediatr Surg. 2002;37(6):877-881. (Prospective; 1170 patients)
Alvarado A. A practical score for the early diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med. 1986;15(5):557-564. (Retrospective; 305 patients)
Kharbanda AB, Vazquez-Benitez G, Ballard DW, et al. Development and validation of a novel pediatric appendicitis risk calculator (pARC). Pediatrics. 2018;141(4). (Prospective; 3849 patients)
Dahabreh IJ, Adam GP, Halladay CW, et al. AHRQ comparative effectiveness reviews. Diagnosis of Right Lower Quadrant Pain and Suspected Acute Appendicitis. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2015. (Meta-analysis; 903 studies)
Reynolds SL, Jaffe DM. Diagnosing abdominal pain in a pediatric emergency department. Pediatr Emerg Care. 1992;8(3):126-128. (Prospective; 377 patients)
Scholer SJ, Pituch K, Orr DP, et al. Clinical outcomes of children with acute abdominal pain. Pediatrics. 1996;98(4 Pt 1):680-685. (Retrospective; 1141 patients)
Rothrock SG, Pagane J. Acute appendicitis in children: emergency department diagnosis and management. Ann Emerg Med. 2000;36(1):39-51. (Review)
Almaramhy HH. Acute appendicitis in young children less than 5 years: review article. Ital J Pediatr. 2017;43(1):15. (Review)
Rothrock SG, Skeoch G, Rush JJ, et al. Clinical features of misdiagnosed appendicitis in children. Ann Emerg Med. 1991;20(1):45-50. (Retrospective; 181 patients)
Nance ML, Adamson WT, Hedrick HL. Appendicitis in the young child: a continuing diagnostic challenge. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2000;16(3):160-162. (Retrospective; 132 patients)
Addiss DG, Shaffer N, Fowler BS, et al. The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. Am J Epidemiol. 1990;132(5):910-925. (Retrospective; 3.4 million appendectomies)
Caperell K, Pitetti R, Cross KP. Race and acute abdominal pain in a pediatric emergency department. Pediatrics. 2013;131(6):1098-1106. (Retrospective; 9424 patients)
Wang L, Haberland C, Thurm C, et al. Health outcomes in US children with abdominal pain at major emergency departments associated with race and socioeconomic status. PLoS One. 2015;10(8):e0132758. (Retrospective; 4.2 million patient encounters)
Smink DS, Fishman SJ, Kleinman K, et al. Effects of race, insurance status, and hospital volume on perforated appendicitis in children. Pediatrics. 2005;115(4):920-925. (Retrospective; 33,184 patients)
Buschard K, Kjaeldgaard A. Investigation and analysis of the position, fixation, length and embryology of the vermiform appendix. Acta Chir Scand. 1973;139(3):293-298. (Prospective; 292 patients)
Guidry SP, Poole GV. The anatomy of appendicitis. Am Surg. 1994;60(1):68-71. (Prospective; 100 patients)
Bundy DG, Byerley JS, Liles EA, et al. Does this child have appendicitis? JAMA. 2007;298(4):438-451. (Review)
Guillet-Caruba C, Cheikhelard A, Guillet M, et al. Bacteriologic epidemiology and empirical treatment of pediatric complicated appendicitis. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2011;69(4):376-381. (Prospective; 93 patients)
Rabah R. Pathology of the appendix in children: an institutional experience and review of the literature. Pediatr Radiol. 2007;37(1):15-20. (Review)
Jeon HG, Ju HU, Kim GY, et al. Bacteriology and changes in antibiotic susceptibility in adults with community-acquired perforated appendicitis. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e111144. (Retrospective; 415 patients)
Lamps LW. Infectious causes of appendicitis. Infect Dis Clin North Am. 2010;24(4):995-1018. (Review)
Connor SJ, Hanna GB, Frizelle FA. Appendiceal tumors: retrospective clinicopathologic analysis of appendiceal tumors from 7,970 appendectomies. Dis Colon Rectum. 1998;41(1):75-80. (Retrospective; 7970 appendectomies)
Doede T, Foss HD, Waldschmidt J. Carcinoid tumors of the appendix in children--epidemiology, clinical aspects and procedure. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2000;10(6):372-377. (Retrospective; 4747 appendectomies)
Goede AC, Caplin ME, Winslet MC. Carcinoid tumour of the appendix. Br J Surg. 2003;90(11):1317-1322. (Review)
Kanthan R, Saxena A, Kanthan SC. Goblet cell carcinoids of the appendix: immunophenotype and ultrastructural study. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2001;125(3):386-390. (Case series; 7 cases)
Galai T, Beloosesky OZ, Scolnik D, et al. Misdiagnosis of acute appendicitis in children attending the emergency department: the experience of a large, tertiary care pediatric hospital. Eur J Pediatr Surg. 2017;27(2):138-141. (Retrospective; 400 patients)
Alloo J, Gerstle T, Shilyansky J, et al. Appendicitis in children less than 3 years of age: a 28-year review. Pediatr Surg Int. 2004;19(12):777-779. (Retrospective; 27 patients)
Graham JM, Pokorny WJ, Harberg FJ. Acute appendicitis in preschool age children. Am J Surg. 1980;139(2):247-250. (Retrospective; 183 patients)
O’Shea JS, Bishop ME, Alario AJ, et al. Diagnosing appendicitis in children with acute abdominal pain. Pediatr Emerg Care. 1988;4(3):172-176. (Prospective; 246 patients)
Benabbas R, Hanna M, Shah J, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and point-of-care ultrasound for pediatric acute appendicitis in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Emerg Med. 2017;24(5):523-551. (Systematic review and meta-analysis; 21 studies, 8605 patients)
Goldman RD, Carter S, Stephens D, et al. Prospective validation of the pediatric appendicitis score. J Pediatr. 2008;153(2):278-282. (Prospective; 849 patients)
Schneider C, Kharbanda A, Bachur R. Evaluating appendicitis scoring systems using a prospective pediatric cohort. Ann Emerg Med. 2007;49(6):778-784. (Prospective; 588 patients)
Ebell MH, Shinholser J. What are the most clinically useful cutoffs for the Alvarado and pediatric appendicitis scores? A systematic review. Ann Emerg Med. 2014;64(4):365-372.e362. (Review article)
Cotton DM, Vinson DR, Vazquez-Benitez G, et al. Validation of the pediatric appendicitis risk calculator (pARC) in a community emergency department setting. Ann Emerg Med. 2019. (Prospective; 2089 patients)
Bachur RG, Dayan PS, Dudley NC, et al. The influence of age on the diagnostic performance of white blood cell count and absolute neutrophil count in suspected pediatric appendicitis. Acad Emerg Med. 2016;23(11):1235-1242. (Prospective; 2133 patients)
Andersson RE. Meta-analysis of the clinical and laboratory diagnosis of appendicitis. Br J Surg. 2004;91(1):28-37. (Meta-analysis; 24 studies)
Kharbanda AB, Taylor GA, Fishman SJ, et al. A clinical decision rule to identify children at low risk for appendicitis. Pediatrics. 2005;116(3):709-716. (Prospective; 601 patients)
Gronroos JM, Gronroos P. Leucocyte count and C-reactive protein in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Br J Surg. 1999;86(4):501-504. (Retrospective; 300 patients)
Yang HR, Wang YC, Chung PK, et al. Laboratory tests in patients with acute appendicitis. ANZ J Surg. 2006;76(1-2):71-74. (Retrospective; 897 patients)
Beltran MA, Almonacid J, Vicencio A, et al. Predictive value of white blood cell count and C-reactive protein in children with appendicitis. J Pediatr Surg. 2007;42(7):1208-1214. (Retrospective; 198 patients)
Anandalwar SP, Callahan MJ, Bachur RG, et al. Use of white blood cell count and polymorphonuclear leukocyte differential to improve the predictive value of ultrasound for suspected appendicitis in children. J Am Coll Surg. 2015;220(6):1010-1017. (Retrospective; 845 patients)
Kim HC, Yang DM, Lee CM, et al. Acute appendicitis: relationships between CT-determined severities and serum white blood cell counts and C-reactive protein levels. Br J Radiol. 2011;84(1008):1115-1120. (Retrospective; 128 patients)
Yu CW, Juan LI, Wu MH, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of procalcitonin, C-reactive protein and white blood cell count for suspected acute appendicitis. Br J Surg. 2013;100(3):322-329. (Review)
Pezone I, Iezzi ML, Leone S. Retrocardiac pneumonia mimicking acute abdomen: a diagnostic challenge. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2012;28(11):1230-1231. (Case report)
Knight PJ, Vassy LE. Specific diseases mimicking appendicitis in childhood. Arch Surg. 1981;116(6):744-746. (Retrospective; 1039 patients)
Kosloske AM, Love CL, Rohrer JE, et al. The diagnosis of appendicitis in children: outcomes of a strategy based on pediatric surgical evaluation. Pediatrics. 2004;113(1 Pt 1):29-34. (Retrospective; 356 patients)
Partrick DA, Janik JE, Janik JS, et al. Increased CT scan utilization does not improve the diagnostic accuracy of appendicitis in children. J Pediatr Surg. 2003;38(5):659-662. (Retrospective; 616 patients)
Puylaert JB. Acute appendicitis: US evaluation using graded compression. Radiology. 1986;158(2):355-360. (Prospective; 60 patients)
Baldisserotto M, Marchiori E. Accuracy of noncompressive sonography of children with appendicitis according to the potential positions of the appendix. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175(5):1387-1392. (Prospective; 425 patients)
Lee JH, Jeong YK, Hwang JC, et al. Graded compression sonography with adjuvant use of a posterior manual compression technique in the sonographic diagnosis of acute appendicitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178(4):863-868. (Prospective; 570 patients)
Doria AS, Moineddin R, Kellenberger CJ, et al. US or CT for diagnosis of appendicitis in children and adults? A meta-analysis. Radiology. 2006;241(1):83-94. (Meta-analysis; 26 studies, 9356 children and 31 studies, 4341 adults)
Schuh S, Man C, Cheng A, et al. Predictors of non-diagnostic ultrasound scanning in children with suspected appendicitis. J Pediatr. 2011;158(1):112-118. (Prospective; 263 patients)
Goldin AB, Khanna P, Thapa M, et al. Revised ultrasound criteria for appendicitis in children improve diagnostic accuracy. Pediatr Radiol. 2011;41(8):993-999. (Retrospecitve; 304 patients)
Worrell JA, Drolshagen LF, Kelly TC, et al. Graded compression ultrasound in the diagnosis of appendicitis. A comparison of diagnostic criteria. J Ultrasound Med. 1990;9(3):145-150. (Retrospective; 200 patients)
Vignault F, Filiatrault D, Brandt ML, et al. Acute appendicitis in children: evaluation with US. Radiology. 1990;176(2):501-504. (Prospective; 70 patients)
Partain KN, Patel A, Travers C, et al. Secondary signs may improve the diagnostic accuracy of equivocal ultrasounds for suspected appendicitis in children. J Pediatr Surg. 2016;51(10):1655-1660. (Retrospecitve; 825 patients)
Hahn HB, Hoepner FU, Kalle T, et al. Sonography of acute appendicitis in children: 7 years experience. Pediatr Radiol. 1998;28(3):147-151. (Retrospective; 3859)
Wiersma F, Toorenvliet BR, Bloem JL, et al. US examination of the appendix in children with suspected appendicitis: the additional value of secondary signs. Eur Radiol. 2009;19(2):455-461. (Retrospective; 212 patients)
Partain KN, Patel AU, Travers C, et al. Improving ultrasound for appendicitis through standardized reporting of secondary signs. J Pediatr Surg. 2016. (Quality improvement; 870 patients)
Nielsen JW, Boomer L, Kurtovic K, et al. Reducing computed tomography scans for appendicitis by introduction of a standardized and validated ultrasonography report template. J Pediatr Surg. 2015;50(1):144-148. (Quality improvement)
Williamson K, Sherman JM, Fishbein JS, et al. Outcomes for children with a nonvisualized appendix on ultrasound. Pediatr Emerg Care. 2018. (Retrospective; 3245 ultrasounds)
Lowe LH, Perez R Jr, Scheker LE, et al. Appendicitis and alternate diagnoses in children: findings on unenhanced limited helical CT. Pediatr Radiol. 2001;31(8):569-577. (Review)
Sivit CJ, Applegate KE, Stallion A, et al. Imaging evaluation of suspected appendicitis in a pediatric population: effectiveness of sonography versus CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000;175(4):977-980. (Prospective; 386 patients)
Kharbanda AB, Taylor GA, Bachur RG. Suspected appendicitis in children: rectal and intravenous contrast-enhanced versus intravenous contrast-enhanced CT. Radiology. 2007;243(2):520-526. (Retrospective; 416 patients)
Laituri CA, Fraser JD, Aguayo P, et al. The lack of efficacy for oral contrast in the diagnosis of appendicitis by computed tomography. J Surg Res. 2011;170(1):100-103. (Retrospective; 1561 patients)
Bachur RG, Dayan PS, Bajaj L, et al. The effect of abdominal pain duration on the accuracy of diagnostic imaging for pediatric appendicitis. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;60(5):582-590. (Prospective; 1810 patients)
Miglioretti DL, Johnson E, Williams A, et al. The use of computed tomography in pediatrics and the associated radiation exposure and estimated cancer risk. JAMA Pediatr. 2013;167(8):700-707. (Retrospective observational; 5,857,736 child years)
Yu YR, Shah SR. Can the diagnosis of appendicitis be made without a computed tomography scan? Adv Surg. 2017;51(1):11-28. (Review)
Kim JR, Suh CH, Yoon HM, et al. Performance of MRI for suspected appendicitis in pediatric patients and negative appendectomy rate: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2018;47(3):767-778. (Systematic review and meta-analysis; 13 studies, 1946 patients)
Moore MM, Kulaylat AN, Hollenbeak CS, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric appendicitis: a systematic review. Pediatr Radiol. 2016;46(6):928-939. (Systematic review)
Duke E, Kalb B, Arif-Tiwari H, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of MRI for evaluation of acute appendicitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206(3):508-517. (Systematic review and meta-analysis; 30 studies, 2665 patients)
Aspelund G, Fingeret A, Gross E, et al. Ultrasonography/MRI versus CT for diagnosing appendicitis. Pediatrics. 2014;133(4):586-593. (Retrospective; 662 patients)
Dibble EH, Swenson DW, Cartagena C, et al. Effectiveness of a staged US and unenhanced MR imaging algorithm in the diagnosis of pediatric appendicitis. Radiology. 2018;286(3):1022-1029. (Retrospective; 1982 patients)
Flood TF, Stence NV, Maloney JA, et al. Pediatric brain: repeated exposure to linear gadolinium-based contrast material is associated with increased signal intensity at unenhanced T1-weighted MR imaging. Radiology. 2017;282(1):222-228. (Retrospective; 46 patients)
Kharbanda AB, Christensen EW, Dudley NC, et al. Economic analysis of diagnostic imaging in pediatric patients with suspected appendicitis. Acad Emerg Med. 2018;25(7):785-794. (Prospective; 2300 patients)
Fullerton K, Depinet H, Iyer S, et al. Association of hospital resources and imaging choice for appendicitis in pediatric emergency departments. Acad Emerg Med. 2017;24(4):400-409. (Retrospective; 1090 patients)
Gregory S, Kuntz K, Sainfort F, et al. Cost-effectiveness of integrating a clinical decision rule and staged imaging protocol for diagnosis of appendicitis. Value Health. 2016;19(1):28-35. (Conceptual model)
Green R, Bulloch B, Kabani A, et al. Early analgesia for children with acute abdominal pain. Pediatrics. 2005;116(4):978-983. (Prospective randomized controlled; 108 patients)
Poonai N, Paskar D, Konrad SL, et al. Opioid analgesia for acute abdominal pain in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Acad Emerg Med. 2014;21(11):1183-1192. (Systematic review and meta-analysis; 342 patients)
Robb AL, Ali S, Poonai N, et al. Pain management of acute appendicitis in Canadian pediatric emergency departments. Cjem. 2017;19(6):417-423. (Retrospective; 619 patients)
Solomkin JS, Mazuski JE, Bradley JS, et al. Diagnosis and management of complicated intra-abdominal infection in adults and children: guidelines by the Surgical Infection Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2010;11(1):79-109. (Executive summary of guidelines)
Bhangu A. Safety of short, in-hospital delays before surgery for acute appendicitis: multicentre cohort study, systematic review, and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2014;259(5):894-903. (Review)
Cameron DB, Williams R, Geng Y, et al. Time to appendectomy for acute appendicitis: a systematic review. J Pediatr Surg. 2018;53(3):396-405. (Review)
Stevenson MD, Dayan PS, Dudley NC, et al. Time from emergency department evaluation to operation and appendiceal perforation. Pediatrics. 2017;139(6). (Prospective; 955 patients)
Bachur RG, Lipsett SC, Monuteaux MC. Outcomes of nonoperative management of uncomplicated appendicitis. Pediatrics. 2017;140(1):e20170048. (Retrospective; 99,001 patients)
Mourad J, Elliott JP, Erickson L, et al. Appendicitis in pregnancy: new information that contradicts long-held clinical beliefs. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182(5):1027-1029. (Retrospective; 66,993 deliveries)
Richards C, Daya S. Diagnosis of acute appendicitis in pregnancy. Can J Surg. 1989;32(5):358-360. (Case control; 28 patients)
Barloon TJ, Brown BP, Abu-Yousef MM, et al. Sonography of acute appendicitis in pregnancy. Abdom Imaging. 1995;20(2):149-151. (Case series; 22 sonograms)
Kanal E, Barkovich AJ, Bell C, et al. ACR guidance document for safe MR practices: 2007. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(6):1447-1474. (Clinical guidelines)
Theilen LH, Mellnick VM, Longman RE, et al. Utility of magnetic resonance imaging for suspected appendicitis in pregnant women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015;212(3):345.e341-346. (Retrospective; 171 patients)
Bickell NA, Aufses AH Jr, Rojas M, et al. How time affects the risk of rupture in appendicitis. J Am Coll Surg. 2006;202(3):401-406. (Retrospective; 219 patients)
Yilmaz HG, Akgun Y, Bac B, et al. Acute appendicitis in pregnancy--risk factors associated with principal outcomes: a case control study. Int J Surg. 2007;5(3):192-197. (Case control; 52 patients)
McGory ML, Zingmond DS, Tillou A, et al. Negative appendectomy in pregnant women is associated with a substantial risk of fetal loss. J Am Coll Surg. 2007;205(4):534-540. (Retrospective; 94,789 patients)
Huang L, Yin Y, Yang L, et al. Comparison of antibiotic therapy and appendectomy for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children: a meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatr. 2017;171(5):426-434. (Meta-analysis; 404 patients)
Georgiou R, Eaton S, Stanton MP, et al. Efficacy and safety of nonoperative treatment for acute appendicitis: a meta-analysis. Pediatrics. 2017;139(3):e20163003. (Meta-analysis; 413 patients)
Hall NJ, Eaton S, Abbo O, et al. Appendectomy versus non-operative treatment for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children: study protocol for a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial. BMJ Paediatr Open. 2017;1(1):bmjpo-2017-000028. (Randomized controlled trial; 978 planned patients)
Wesson DE BM. Acute appendicitis in children: management. UpToDate. Accessed August 15, 2019. (Review)
We hope you enjoyed this free preview.
To learn more about this topic and to earn CME credit,
Studies in adults with appendicitis show that abdominal pain almost always precedes vomiting. This typical sequence is less common in preschool-aged children; they can present with vomiting that precedes abdominal pain.
Fever is the most suggestive sign of appendicitis in patients with undifferentiated abdominal pain. Rovsing sign is the examination finding that is most suggestive of acute appendicitis. Other signs include cough/hop pain and right iliac fossa tenderness.
Basilar pneumonia should be considered for all children presenting with abdominal pain.
Consider ordering a pelvic ultrasound for girls of childbearing age, as pelvic pathology can be confused with appendicitis.
Enjoy this free podcast, thanks to Chip Lange and our friends of Total EM
We return with our second podcast featuring EB Medicine content. Our partnership with them allows us to access their content and share it with you through the power of #FOAMed and this time we are tackling an all too common emergency: appendicitis. Specifically, we discuss the pediatric population given their most recent evidence-based review article on the same.
Many of the patients we see in acute care settings complain of abdominal pain. Often, especially at this time of year, it can be associated with vague symptoms. There may have been a fever, some nausea and/or vomiting, along with some URI symptoms. In children, this can be even more challenging to discern if this is a secondary symptom or the main problem. As we start to evaluate the patient and talk with their caregivers the story of right lower quadrant (RLQ) pain is mentioned. Does this mean it is appendicitis?
Keeping a broad differential in mind when someone mentions RLQ pain, now we need to move on to the history and physical. There are many teachings with evaluating appendicitis, but how accurate are these different assessments? The honest answer is that no single finding is enough. There are some scoring systems which can assist our decision making. Two of the most common, the Pediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS) and the Alvarado Scoring System, are shown above and can also be found at sites like MDCalc. There are even newer systems such as the Pediatric Appendicitis Risk Calculator (pARC) but it is worth noting that all of them require labs.
There are mainstays that we see across scoring systems that we should focus on: anorexia, nausea and/or vomiting, pain to the RLQ, this pain usually having migrated over time, pain with certain activities (walking, coughing, hopping, percussion, etc), and an evaluation of the CBC including a neutrophil count.
A history and physical have been performed and you order labs including a CBC, metabolic panel, CRP (optional), pregnancy test for any female of potential child bearing age, and urinalysis. What else can you do to care for this patient? They should have nothing by mouth (NPO), receive IV hydration as needed, antiemetics such as IV ondansetron (0.15 mg/kg/dose up to 8 mg every 8 hours), and pain control. Despite the dogma, their is evidence both in RCT and meta-analysis form to support treatment without impeding the diagnosis.
Now that the labs are returning, you can use the scoring method of your choice and follow the appropriate recommendations. Often, this is not a slam dunk case. Many times, imaging is recommended. In most cases this means ultrasound given its benefits in evaluation without radiation. We recently covered the use of point of care ultrasound (POCUS) in appendicitis on Podcast #161. As a quick reminder, below are the common findings.
About The Podcast
Get quick-hit summaries of hot topics in emergency medicine. EMplify summarizes evidence-based reviews in a monthly podcast. Highlights of the latest research published in EB Medicine's peer-reviewed journals educate and arm you for life in the ED.
The pediatric appendicitis score predicts the likelihood of a diagnosis of appendicitis in pediatric patients with abdominal pain. The Alvarado score for acute appendicitis predicts the likelihood of a diagnosis of appendicitis. The pediatric appendicitis risk calculator quantifies appendicitis risk in pediatric patients with abdominal pain, possibly better than the pediatric appendicitis score.
The pediatric appendicitis score (PAS) predicts the likelihood of appendicitis in patients aged 3 to 18 years who present with abdominal pain with a duration of ≤ 4 days.
The PAS stratifies patients as low risk, high risk, or equivocal for appendicitis.
The score includes findings from the history, physical examination, and laboratory testing.
The PAS should not be used in patients who have known gastrointestinal disease, are pregnant, or have had abdominal surgery previously.
Why and When to Use, and Next Steps
Why to Use
The PAS has been validated in multicenter studies and may be as good as clinician gestalt at identifying patients who are at low risk for appendicitis versus patients with appendicitis.
When to Use
Use the PAS for children and adolescents who present with acute abdominal pain in whom appendicitis is suspected, especially if the pain is localized to the right lower quadrant.
Next Steps
Low Risk PAS (< 4 points)
Patients with low-risk PAS scores have a low likelihood of acute appendicitis. Imaging is usually not warranted in these patients.
There is a higher negative predictive value (95%) with the absence of right lower quadrant pain, the absence of pain with walking, jumping, or coughing, and an ANC of < 6750 cells/mcL.
Other causes of acute abdominal pain should be considered in patients with low-risk scores.
Equivocal PAS (4-6 points)
Imaging can be helpful in this group of patients. Ultrasound or MRI are preferred for pediatric patients.
Surgical consultation is warranted for patients with equivocal scores.
High Risk PAS (≥ 7 points)
Surgical consultation is warranted for patients with high-risk scores.
Imaging may be pursued for this group of patients, but patients should undergo only ultrasound prior to a surgical consultation.
Patients who are identified as not low risk (eg, equivocal or high risk) for appendicitis by the PAS should receive nothing by mouth, and the next steps should include administration of intravenous fluids and analgesia, ordering imaging, and/or surgical consultation.
Critical Action
Patients in the low risk group according to the PAS do not have no risk for appendicitis. Emergency clinicians should use clinical discretion to determine if imaging or surgical consultation would help with diagnosis for these patients.
Evidence Appraisal
The PAS was developed in 2002 by Dr. Madan Samuel in a prospective cohort study of 1170 patients
aged 4 to 15 years who presented with abdominal pain. Clinical history, physical examination, and laboratory data for these patients were analyzed to identify 8 variables that showed statistical significance for acute appendicitis. A 10-point scoring system was created using these variables.
The PAS has been validated in multiple prospective studies. Bhatt et al (2009) studied 246 children aged 4 to 18 years and found a sensitivity of 97.6%, with a negative predictive value of 97.7%, at a cutoff PAS of ≤ 4 points. When a PAS of ≥ 8 points was used to determine that appendectomy was needed, the specificity was 95.1% and the positive predictive value was 85.2%. In this cohort, 41% of computed tomography scans would have been avoided using the PAS. Goldman et al (2008) evaluated the PAS in 849 children aged 1 to 17 years; the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.95, although the study used more con-servative cutoffs of ≤ 2 points and ≥ 7 points.
Schneider et al (2007) evaluated both the PAS and the Alvarado score and found that they had similar sensitivity and specificity, but concluded that neither score was sufficient to be relied on as the only method to determine whether appendectomy is needed. Shah et al (2016) developed a diagnostic algorithm and used it prospectively in 840 patients, 267 of whom were ultimately diagnosed with appendicitis. The algorithm was found to have a sensitivity of 98.6% and specificity of 94.4%, with a decrease in utilization of computed tomography from 75.4% to 24.2%.
The Alvarado score is more accurate at the extremes than for equivocal scores, so it is unclear whether the score is better than clinical gestalt.
Symptoms of appendicitis may overlap with other diseases (ie, higher scores can be found in patients with nonappendiceal inflammatory conditions, such as diverticulitis or acute pelvic inflammatory disease). Therefore, it is important to consider the whole clinical picture in making the diagnosis of appendicitis.
There are several modifications of the Alvarado score in use; these modifications may be appropriate in specific settings, such as for children, pregnant patients, or in low-resource facilities with limited or no laboratory testing capability, but the original score remains the best studied and validated in a general population.
Why and When to Use, and Next Steps
Why to Use
Acute appendicitis is a common surgical emergency in the United States. Diagnostic accuracy for appendicitis is increased with the use of CT scanning; however, there are risks and disadvantages associated with CT scans, including radiation exposure, contrast-related complications, and cost. The Alvarado score is a well-established and widely used clinical decision tool that may help reduce the need for CT scans when diagnosing appendicitis.
When to Use
The Alvarado score can be used for patients with suspected acute appendicitis (typically, patients presenting with right lower quadrant pain).
Next Steps
Cutoffs differ by study, but one validated stratification assigns the highest risk to Alvarado scores ≥ 9 in men and a score of 10 in women; the lowest-risk scores were ≤ 1 in men and ≤ 2 in women (Coleman 2018).
In patients whose score indicates high risk, treatment without obtaining CT imaging should be considered. Alternative diagnoses should be considered in patients whose score indicates low risk. In patients with equivocal scores, CT scanning should be considered to help clarify the diagnosis.
Abbreviation: CT, computed tomography.
Calculator Review Authors
Ayomide Loye, MD
Department of Emergency Medicine, Philadelphia
University/Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA
Xiao Chi Zhang, MD, MS
Department of Emergency Medicine, Philadelphia
University/Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA
Critical Action
Clinicians should use clinical judgment in nonclassic presentations of appendicitis.
Evidence Appraisal
The Alvarado score was initially described in 1986 by Dr. Alfredo Alvarado in a retrospective study at a single center in Philadelphia. For 305 patients aged 4 to 80 years, 8 predictive factors were identified to stratify the risk of acute appendicitis. Increasing scores were found to correlate with increasing risk for appendicitis, as determined by final surgical pathology.
In 2007, McKay et al studied a retrospective cohort of 150 patients (aged ≥ 7 years) presenting with abdominal pain, with the aim of stratifying risk specifically for the use of computed tomography (CT) scanning for diagnosis. They found 35.6% sen-sitivity for appendicitis based on equivocal Alvarado scores (defined as scores of 4-6) compared with 90.4% sensitivity based on CT scan in this group. They concluded that patients with equivocal scores would benefit from CT scanning.
Similarly, Coleman et al (2018) conducted a retrospective review in which the Alvarado score was applied to a cohort of 492 patients (median age, 33 years), and found that 20% of the patients scores ≥ 9 in men or a score of 10 in women) or the low-risk group (scores ≤ 1 in men and ≤ 2 in women). These patients spent a cumulative total of > 170 hours awaiting CT scanning that was ultimately unnecessary. The authors found that scores of 0 or 1 had 0% incidence of acute appendicitis and that 100% of men with a score ≥ 9 and 100% of women with a score of 10 had acute appendicitis confirmed on surgical pathology.
Pogorelić et al (2015) prospectively studied 311 pediatric patients and applied both the Alvarado score and the pediatric appendicitis score (Samuel 2002). Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed similar accuracy between the scores, with area under the receiver operating characteristics of 0.74 (95% confidence interval, 0.66-0.82) for the Alvarado score and 0.73 (95% confidence interval, 0.65-0.81) for the pediatric appendicitis score. The authors concluded that the scores may be useful in emergency settings, but neither score is superior to the clinical gestalt of a pediatric surgeon.
The pediatric appendicitis risk calculator quantifies appendicitis risk in pediatric patients with abdominal pain, possibly better than the pediatric appendicitis score.
The patients in the pediatric appendicitis risk calculator (pARC) study were aged 5 to 18 years. Appendicitis is relatively rare in children aged < 5 years and when it does occur in that age group, it is more likely to present with atypical features not captured by the pARC.
Cases of appendicitis among patients in the lowest-risk groups (< 5% or 5%-14% risk as determined by the pARC) were missed only 0.4% of the time in each group. The sensitivity of the pARC was 100% in patients with < 5% risk of appendicitis; the sensitivity was 97.2% in patients determined to have a 5% to 14% risk.
The specificity of the pARC was 99.7% for patients determined to be at highest risk of appendicitis (> 85% risk) and the specificity was 97.5% for patients in the high-intermediate risk group (75%-84%).
Why and When to Use, and Next Steps
Why to Use
The pARC may help determine the need for advanced imaging such as formal ultrasound or CT scan. It can identify low-risk patients who can be observed in the ED or discharged from the ED with follow-up or return precautions. In a validation study, the pARC formula performed better than the PAS by placing fewer patients into equivocal risk categories, making the pARC potentially more useful than the PAS for aiding clinical decision-making.
When to Use
Use the pARC in children aged ≥ 5 years who present to the ED or outpatient setting with acute abdominal pain with a duration < 96 hours. Patients with the following conditions were excluded from the pARC study:
Pregnancy
Previous abdominal surgery
Inflammatory bowel disease
Chronic pancreatitis
Sickle cell anemia
Cystic fibrosis
Any medical condition affecting the ability to obtain an accurate history
History of abdominal trauma within the previous 7 days
Next Steps
Patients determined by the pARC to be at low risk for appendicitis can be considered candidates for safe discharge or observation in the ED without advanced imaging such as ultrasound or CT scan, based on the discretion of the emergency clinician and the comfort level of the patient’s family. Given the specificity of the pARC, patients who are classified as high or high-intermediate risk for appendicitis may not need advanced imaging. In the high-risk group, 1.2% of appendectomy specimens were negative for appendicitis on pathology analysis and in the high-intermediate risk group, 2.6% of the specimens were negative.
Department of Pediatrics, Maimonides Medical Center,
Brooklyn, NY
Hector Vazquez, MD
Department of Emergency Medicine, Maimonides
Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY
Critical Actions
Critically ill patients or patients with emergent “surgical abdomens” (rigidity, visible ecchymosis or hematoma, etc) should not be considered for delayed surgical consultation or imaging. These patients will likely benefit from early consultation with pediatric surgeons and from imaging, if they are able to be transported to radiology.
Evidence Appraisal
The pARC formula was derived from a dataset of 2423 patients with an interquartile age range of 8 to 14 years. Candidate predictors with > 10% missing data were not included. Patients with certain comorbid conditions were also excluded (Kharbanda 2018).
While absolute neutrophil count (ANC) was used in the pARC formula, ANC values were missing for 216 (9%) of the patients in the derivation data set. For patients missing the ANC value, it was imputed as ANC = (-0.8783 + 1.1008 x sqrt(WBC))^2. For patients missing both ANC and white blood cell count values, the ANC value was imputed as 7 x 103/mcL, which was the mean ANC value in the derivation cohort. The proportion of missing values was less than the 10% cutoff point chosen by the study authors; however, imputation of missing values has the potential to introduce bias into the equation.
An independent validation study was conducted at different centers and demonstrated the ability of the pARC to outperform the pediatric appendicitis score (Cotton 2019). This study demonstrated a superior area under the receiver operating characteristic curve with nonoverlapping 95% confidence intervals as compared to the pediatric appendicitis score.
Upon completion of this article, you should be able to:
Obtain essential components of the history and physical examination to accurately diagnose appendicitis in the pediatric population
Discuss clinical decision rules that can help guide clinical management
Identify appropriate diagnostic laboratory evaluations and imaging studies for the workup of patients with acute appendicitis
Determine appropriate treatment options for appendicitis (operative vs nonoperative management)
CME Information
Date of Original Release: September 1, 2019. Date of most recent review: August 15, 2019. Termination date: September 1, 2022.
Accreditation: EB Medicine is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) to provide continuing medical education for physicians. This activity has been planned and implemented in accordance with the accreditation requirements and policies of the ACCME.
Credit Designation: EB Medicine designates this enduring material for a maximum of 4 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditsTM. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.
Specialty CME: For more information, please call Customer Service at 1-800-249-5770.
ACEP Accreditation: Pediatric Emergency Medicine Practice is also approved by the American College of Emergency Physicians for 48 hours of ACEP Category I credit per annual subscription.
AAP Accreditation: This continuing medical education activity has been reviewed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and is acceptable for a maximum of 48 AAP credits per year. These credits can be applied toward the AAP CME/CPD Award available to Fellows and Candidate Fellows of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
AOA Accreditation: Pediatric Emergency Medicine Practice is eligible for up to 48 American Osteopathic Association Category 2-A or 2-B credit hours per year.
Needs Assessment: The need for this educational activity was determined by a survey of medical staff, including the editorial board of this publication; review of morbidity and mortality data from the CDC, AHA, NCHS, and ACEP; and evaluation of prior activities for emergency physicians.
Target Audience: This enduring material is designed for emergency medicine physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and residents.
Goals: Upon completion of this activity, you should be able to: (1) demonstrate medical decision-making based on the strongest clinical evidence; (2) cost-effectively diagnose and treat the most critical ED presentations; and (3) describe the most common medicolegal pitfalls for each topic covered.
Discussion of Investigational Information: As part of the journal, faculty may be presenting investigational information about pharmaceutical products that is outside Food and Drug Administration approved labeling. Information presented as part of this activity is intended solely as continuing medical education and is not intended to promote off-label use of any pharmaceutical product.
Faculty Disclosures: It is the policy of EB Medicine to ensure objectivity, balance, independence, transparency, and scientific rigor in all CME-sponsored educational activities. All faculty participating in the planning or implementation of a sponsored activity are expected to disclose to the audience any relevant financial relationships and to assist in resolving any conflict of interest that may arise from the relationship. Presenters must also make a meaningful disclosure to the audience of their discussions of unlabeled or unapproved drugs or devices. In compliance with all ACCME Essentials, Standards, and Guidelines, all faculty for this CME activity were asked to complete a full disclosure statement. The information received is as follows: Dr. Becker, Dr. Kharbanda, Dr. Goldman, Dr. Williamson, Dr. Mishler, Dr. Skrainka, Dr. Claudius, Dr. Horeczko, and their related parties report no significant financial interest or other relationship with the manufacturer(s) of any commercial product(s) discussed in this educational presentation.
Commercial Support: This issue of Pediatric Emergency Medicine Practice did not receive any commercial support.
Earning Credit: Two Convenient Methods: (1) Go online to www.ebmedicine.net/CME and click on the title of this article. (2) Mail or fax the CME Answer And Evaluation Form with your June and December issues to Pediatric Emergency Medicine Practice.
Hardware/Software Requirements: You will need a Macintosh or PC with internet capabilities to access the website.
Additional Policies: For additional policies, including our statement of conflict of interest, source of funding, statement of informed consent, and statement of human and animal rights, visit https://www.ebmedicine.net/policies.