Comparison of CT Protocols in Diagnosing Acute Appendicitis: A Systematic Review of Diagnostic Performance and Operational Efficiency

Abstract

Background

Computed tomography (CT) is the preferred imaging modality for diagnosing acute appendicitis in adults. However, the optimal contrast protocol remains debated, balancing diagnostic accuracy, operational efficiency, and patient safety.

Objective

To systematically compare the diagnostic accuracy and operational efficiency of different CT contrast protocols—oral, intravenous (IV), combined oral + IV, and non-contrast—in adult patients with suspected acute appendicitis.

Methods

A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to April 2025. Eligible studies compared CT contrast protocols in adults (≥18 years) and reported diagnostic or operational outcomes. Two independent reviewers screened articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 tool. Primary outcomes were sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value; secondary outcomes included time to CT completion and emergency department (ED) length of stay.

Results

Seventeen studies involving 5033 patients met inclusion criteria. Non-contrast CT demonstrated sensitivity of 82.4-90.5% and specificity of 75-100%. Oral contrast-only protocols showed sensitivity of 73.5% and specificity of 80%. Combined oral + IV protocols achieved sensitivity of 89.4-100% and specificity of 54.5-98.5%. IV-only protocols provided sensitivity of 77.8-100% and specificity of 87-100%. Across studies, eliminating oral contrast reduced ED length of stay by 29-91 minutes without compromising diagnostic accuracy.

Conclusions

IV-only or non-contrast CT protocols offer comparable diagnostic accuracy to oral contrast approaches while significantly improving workflow efficiency. Protocol selection should consider clinical setting and patient factors, reserving oral contrast for select groups such as oncology patients or those with prior abdominal surgery.

Keywords

acute appendicitis computed tomography contrast protocols diagnostic accuracy oral contrast intravenous contrast emergency department length of stay sensitivity specificity operational efficiency patient safety systematic review

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Addiss

Shaffer

Fowler

Tauxe

. The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. Am J Epidemiol. 1990;132(5):910-925.

Körner

Söndenaa

Söreide

, et al. Incidence of acute nonperforated and perforated appendicitis: age-specific and sex-specific analysis. World J Surg. 1997;21(3):313-317.

Flum

Koepsell

. The clinical and economic correlates of misdiagnosed appendicitis: nationwide analysis. Arch Surg. 2002;137(7):799-804.

Rao

Rhea

Novelline

. Sensitivity and specificity of the individual CT signs of appendicitis: experience with 200 helical appendiceal CT examinations. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1997;21(5):686-692.

Terasawa

Blackmore

Bent

Kohlwes

. Systematic review: computed tomography and ultrasonography to detect acute appendicitis in adults and adolescents. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(7):537-546.

Rao

Rhea

Novelline

, et al. Helical CT technique for the diagnosis of appendicitis: prospective evaluation of a focused appendix CT examination. Radiology. 1997;202(1):139-144.

Anderson

Soto

Lucey

, et al. Abdominal 64-MDCT for suspected appendicitis: the use of oral and IV contrast material versus IV contrast material only. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(5):1282-1288.

Laituri

Fraser

Aguayo

, 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.

Kepner

Bacasnot

Stahlman

. Intravenous contrast alone vs intravenous and oral contrast computed tomography for the diagnosis of appendicitis in adult ED patients. Am J Emerg Med. 2012;30(9):1765-1773.

10.

Drake

Alfonso

Bhargava

, et al. Enteral contrast in the computed tomography diagnosis of appendicitis: comparative effectiveness in a prospective surgical cohort. Ann Surg. 2014;260(2):311-316.

11.

Uyeda

Ramalingam

Devalapalli

Soto

Anderson

. Evaluation of acute abdominal pain in the emergency setting using computed tomography without oral contrast in patients with body mass index greater than 25. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2015;39(5):681-686.

12.

Kielar

Macdonald

Krishna

. Use of oral contrast in abdominal/pelvic CT scans. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2020;71(3):364-365.

13.

Page

McKenzie

Bossuyt

, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.

14.

Whiting

Rutjes

Westwood

, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529-536.

15.

Dowling

Johal

Morris

, et al. Reducing unnecessary oral contrast in patients undergoing enhanced abdomen/pelvis computed tomography in the emergency department: a multicentre project. CJEM. 2020;22(S1):S53-S53.

16.

Basile

Kenny

Khodorkovsky

, et al. Effects of eliminating routine use of oral contrast for computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis: a pilot study. Clin Imaging. 2018;50:96-98.

17.

Berg

Mehta

Mitchell

Soto

Oyama

Ulrich

. Length of stay by route of contrast administration for diagnosis of appendicitis by computed-tomography scan. Acad Emerg Med. 2006;13(10):1040-1045.

18.

Shankar

Parikh

Heilbrun

, et al. Cost implications of oral contrast administration in the emergency department: a time-driven activity-based costing analysis. J Am Coll Radiol. 2019;16(1):30-38.

19.

Althobaiti

Mirza

Brinji

, et al.

Oral contrast in diagnosing acute appendicitis; is it necessary?

Saudi J Radiol. 2023;7(1):33-39.

20.

Harrison

Lizotte

Holmes

Kenney

Buckner

Shah

. Does high body mass index obviate the need for oral contrast in emergency department patients? West J Emerg Med. 2013;14(6):595-597.

21.

Hekimoğlu

Yıldırım

Karabulut

Coşkun

. Comparison of combined oral and i.v. contrast-enhanced versus single i.v. contrast-enhanced MDCT for the detection of acute appendicitis. J Belg Radiol. 2011;94(5):278-282.

22.

Jensen

Blair

, et al. Utility of CT oral contrast administration in the emergency department of a Quaternary oncology hospital: diagnostic implications, turnaround times, and assessment of ED physician ordering. Abdom Radiol. 2017;42(9):2345-2353.

23.

Naeger

Chang

Kolli

Shah

Huang

Thoeni

. Neutral vs positive oral contrast in diagnosing acute appendicitis with contrast-enhanced CT: sensitivity, specificity, reader confidence and interpretation time. Br J Radiol. 2011;84(1006):999-1004.

24.

Thompson

. Contrast radiography and intestinal obstruction. Ann Surg. 2002;236(1):7-8.

25.

Chen

Yang

Cong

, et al. Comparison of contrast-enhanced versus non-enhanced helical computed tomography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: a meta-analysis. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2023;33(2):163-168.

26.

Kaewlai

Wongveerasin

Lekanamongkol

, et al. CT of appendicoliths in adult appendicitis: clinical significance and characteristics of overlooked cases. Eur Radiol. 2023;33(9):6160-6170.

27.

Güneş

Aktürk

Yılmaz

. The efficacy of nonenhanced computed tomography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Ortadoğu Tıp Derg. 2018;10(3):270-274.

28.

Chiu

Chen

Wang

, et al.

Whether intravenous contrast is necessary for CT diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adult ED patients?

Acad Radiol. 2013;20(1):73-78.

29.

Sutiratchaichan

Kamphan

. Diagnosis of appendicitis: comparison of computed tomography (CT) scans using oral contrast material alone versus oral and intravenous (IV) contrast media. J Med Assoc Thail. 2014;97(7):743-748.

30.

Hubail

. A review of radiological investigations in cases of acute appendicitis in a tertiary care hospital. Cureus. 2023;15(1):e36916.

31.

Eurboonyanun

Rungwiriyawanich

Chamadol

Promsorn

Eurboonyanun

Srimunta

. Accuracy of nonenhanced CT vs contrast-enhanced CT for diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adults. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2020;49(5):341-345.

32.

Stafford

McGonigal

Weigelt

Johnson

. Oral contrast solution and computed tomography for blunt abdominal trauma: a randomized study. Arch Surg. 1999;134(6):622-626.

33.

Glauser

Siff

Emerman

. Emergency department experience with nonoral contrast computed tomography in the evaluation of patients for appendicitis. J Patient Saf. 2014;10(3):154-158.

34.

Alabousi

Patlas

Sne

Katz

. Is oral contrast necessary for multidetector computed tomography imaging of patients with acute abdominal pain? Can Assoc Radiol J. 2015;66(4):318-322.

35.

Tang

Pickhardt

Kim

Pooler

. Positive oral contrast solution at MDCT for suspected acute appendicitis in adults: rate of appendiceal luminal filling of normal and inflamed appendixes. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019;213(6):1212-1218.

36.

Golikhatir

Sazgar

Jahanian

, et al. Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of CT scan with oral and intravenous contrast versus CT scan with intravenous contrast alone in the diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma. Chin J Traumatol (Engl Ed). 2022;25(4):197-201.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.18 MB

0.00 MB