Emphasizing the Clinical Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis Amidst Technological Advancements

Cureus. 2024 May 18;16(5):e60555. doi: 10.7759/cureus.60555. eCollection 2024 May.

Abstract

Background The clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis (AA) can be challenging. This study aimed to evaluate the significance of this diagnosis amidst technological progress. It compared clinical diagnosis to radiology-aided diagnostic outcomes and negative appendicectomy rates (NAR). Methodology This study conducted a single-center retrospective and prospective cohort observational study on all adult patients presenting with suspected AA in 2018 at a major tertiary teaching hospital in Perth, Western Australia. Key demographics, clinicopathological, radiology, and operative reports were reviewed. Data were analyzed using SPSS v.27. Results Of 418 patients with suspected AA, 234 (56%) were in the retrospective group. The median age was 35 (IQR=26), and 224 (54%) were female. The overall NAR was 18.6% (95% CI (14.8-22.4)) and 20.8% for clinical diagnosis. Notably, the NAR for ultrasound (USS)-reported AA (false positive) was 17.6% (95% CI (10.6-27.4)). Three-quarters of the patients, 298 (71.3%), had radiological imaging. The most common modality was CT 176 (59.1%), and 33 (7.9%) had both CT and USS imaging performed. Compared with final histopathology, no significant difference was found in the accuracy of clinically diagnosed and USS-diagnosed cases, with rates of 83.5% and 82.5%, respectively (p=0.230). CT had the best positive predictive value at 82.1%. Single-modality imaging did not cause a significant surgical delay (p=0.914), but multi-modal imaging showed a non-significant trend toward delay (p=0.065). When surgeons assessed an appendix as normal, 54 (12.9%), the histopathological assessment revealed pathology in 28 (51.9%). The inter-observer agreement was only fair to moderate, Kappa=0.46 (95% CI (0.33-0.58); p<0.001). The intraoperative identification of a normal appendix inversely correlated to the grade of the primary surgeon, which was likely related to the number of surgical personnel in the theater (p<0.001). Conclusion This study showed that clinical diagnosis matches the diagnostic accuracy of imaging technologies. Utilizing diagnostic imaging methods promptly and appropriately did not lead to considerable delays in surgery. Surgeons' capability to diagnose appendicitis during surgery is moderately accurate. Most patients underwent imaging, with CT scans being the most common. Moving forward, practitioners must minimize excessive reliance on imaging techniques as this can be resource-intensive, especially in developing countries. Future clinical practice should balance embracing technological advancements and preserving essential clinical diagnostic expertise, for medicine is both a science and an art.

Keywords: appendicitis; clinical diagnosis; contrast-enhanced computed tomography; negative appendicectomy; radiological imaging; ultrasound scan.