ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Right Lower Quadrant Pain: 2022 Update

Imaging of Acute Abdominopelvic Pain in Pregnancy and Puerperium-Part II: Non-Obstetric Complications

Emergency imaging in pregnancy and puerperium poses unique challenges both for clinicians and radiologists, requiring timely and accurate diagnosis. Delay in treatment may result in poor outcomes for both the patient and the foetus. Pregnant and puerperal patients may present in the emergency setting with acute abdominopelvic pain for various complications that can be broadly classified into obstetric and non-obstetric related diseases. Ultrasonography (US) is the primary diagnostic imaging test; however, it may be limited due to the patient's body habitus and the overlapping of bowel loops. Computed tomography (CT) carries exposure to ionising radiation to the foetus, but may be necessary in selected cases. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a valuable complement to US in the determination of the etiology of acute abdominal pain and can be used in most settings, allowing for the identification of a broad spectrum of pathologies with a limited protocol of sequences. In this second section, we review the common non-obstetric causes for acute abdominopelvic pain in pregnancy and post partum, offering a practical approach for diagnosis and pointing out the role of imaging methods (US, MRI, CT) with the respective imaging findings.

Appendiceal wall thickness and Alvarado score are predictive of acute appendicitis in the patients with equivocal computed tomography findings

Around 8-13% of the patients who underwent CT scan for diagnosis of appendicitis had equivocal CT results. About one-third of these patients had acute appendicitis and this caused diagnostic challenge to the clinicians. This study was conducted to identify clinical and imaging features that were predictive of acute appendicitis in patients who had equivocal CT findings. During January 2015 to June 2021, we retrospectively included 103 consecutive CT scans of adult patients (22 men and 81 women; mean age, 39.1 ± 17.5 years) who had equivocal CT findings of acute appendicitis. Two readers, blinded to the clinical data, independently assessed CT images for the relevant CT findings of appendicitis. Any disagreement between the readers was solved by consensus. The clinical parameters and CT findings were analyzed and compared between the patients who had appendicitis and patients who did not have appendicitis. Thirty-one (30.1%) patients had appendicitis, all of which were non-complicated. The appendiceal wall thickness of ≥ 2 mm and the Alvarado score of ≥ 7 were independent predictors of appendicitis with adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of 2.76 (95% CI, 1.09-7.02) and 1.47 (95% CI, 1.12-1.94), respectively. The maximal appendiceal diameter was higher in the appendicitis group (7.2 ± 1.2 mm vs. 6.5 ± 1.0 mm), but not predictive of appendicitis. The rest of the clinical parameters and CT findings, including mucosal hyperenhancement, periappendiceal fat reticulation, thickening of peritoneal reflection, appendicolith, focal cecal thickening, and content in appendiceal lumen showed no significant difference between two groups. The appendiceal wall thickness and the Alvarado score were able to predict appendicitis in patients who had equivocal CT findings.