Saudi Journal of Radiology
Sign UpSubmit Manuscript
Saudi Journal of Radiology

Volume 2, 2023 · Issue 1st Issue · Open Access · Double-blind Peer-review

Submit an articleJournal homepage

Original Research Article

Oral Contrast in Diagnosing Acute Appendicitis; Is It Necessar

Ebtehal Althobaiti1, Ahmed Brinji1, Nawal Barnawi1, Awdah Akbar2, Amar Akba2, Nourah ALSaleh2, Ahmed Hawsawi2 & Maher Ghazaw1

1 Al-Noor Specialist Hospital, Department of Radiology, Makkah, Saudi Arabia

2 Al-Noor Specialist Hospital, Department of General Surgery, Makkah, Saudi Arabia

Published: 11 May 2026

https://doi.org/10.55038/sjr.v2i1.120
Download PDF
Abstract

BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of acute appendicitis clinically is challenging due to variant age groups at presentation; multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) has become the standard modality with high sensitivity and specificity The American College of Radiology (ACR) appropriateness criteria evidence-based guidelines recommend the use of intravenous (IV) contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) for suspected cases of acute appendicitis but no explicit comment on the use of enteral contrast which creates diversity in the literature for the appropriate MDCT protocols worldwide. The objective of the present study is To compare the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of variant MDCT protocols in diagnosing acute appendicitis at Alnoor Specialist Hospital, Makkah, Saudi Arabia.

METHODOLOGY: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted at Alnoor Specialist Hospital – Makkah between January 2016 and December 2020. The study included all the patients who presented to the emergency department with clinical suspicion of acute appendicitis and performed preoperative MDCT scans with subsequent surgical intervention by either open or laparoscopic appendectomy. A total number of 385 MDCT scans were retrieved from the hospital Picture Archiving and Communication System (PACS). All data processing was made on exported coded Excel sheet data and analyzed by SPSS 26.0 statistical software package.

RESULTS: 385 MDCT scans with different protocols were collected (NECT, ORAL only, IV only, ORAL, and IV). Final impressions of diagnoses that were not available were excluded from the final analysis. Therefore, 355 MDCT scans were analyzed: 285 patients with positive CT findings for appendicitis were confirmed by correlating the radiological findings with histopathological findings. Radiologists’ ability to detect acute appendicitis was higher in patients administered both oral and IV contrast (sensitivity =92.44%), following IV only (89.61%), NECT (82.35%), and oral contrast (73.47%), respectively (Table 1). Diagnostic accuracy was higher in patients administered both oral and IV contrast (accuracy = 89.23%). 

CONCLUSION: The diagnostic sensitivity and accuracy utilizing IV contrast are comparable to both IV and oral contrast; therefore, oral contrast can be omitted in routine appendicitis protocol. A higher specificity was found with the use of oral contrast due to the luminal filling of the appendix. Yet, it can be reserved for contraindicated cases to IV iodinated contrast administration.

KeywordsAcute Appendicitiscomputed tomographyRadiologycontrastDiagnostic imagingabdominal imaging

License

Journal License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license

References

  1. Iwahashi N, Kitagawa Y, Mayumi T, Kohno H. Intravenous Contrast-enhanced Computed Tomography in the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis. World J Surg. 2005;29(1):83–7.
  2. Raman SS, Lu DSK, Kadell BM, Vodopich DJ, Sayre J, Cryer H. Accuracy of Nonfo- cused Helical CT for the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis: A 5-Year Review. Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178(6):1319–25.
  3. Naffaa LN, Ishak GE, Haddad MC. The value of contrast-enhanced helical CT scan with rectal contrast enema in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Clin Imaging. 2005;29(4):255–8.
  4. Glauser J, Siff J, Emerman C. Emergency Department Experience With Nonoral Con- trast Computed Tomography in the Evaluation of Patients for Appendicitis. J Patient Saf. 2014;10(3):154–8.
  5. Drake FT, Alfonso R, Bhargava P, Cuevas C, Dighe MK, Florence MG et al. Enteral Contrast in the Computed Tomography Diagnosis of Appendicitis: Comparative Effectiveness in a Prospective Surgical Cohort. Ann Surg. 2014;260(2):311–6.
  6. Tang SJ, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DU, Pooler BD. Positive Oral Contrast Solution at MDCT for Suspected Acute Appendicitis in Adults: Rate of Appendiceal Luminal Filling of Normal and Inflamed Appendixes. Am J Roentgenol. 2019;213(5):W211–7.
  7. Anderson BA, Salem L, Flum DR. A systematic review of whether oral contrast is necessary for the computed tomography diagnosis of appendicitis in adults. Am J Surg. 2005;190(3):474–8.
  8. Hershko DD, Awad N, Fischer D, Mahajna A, Guralnik L, Israelit SH et al. Focused Helical CT Using Rectal Contrast Material Only as the Preferred Technique for the Diagnosis of Suspected Acute Appendicitis: A Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Study Comparing Three Different Techniques. Dis Colon Rectum. 2007;50(8):1223– 9.
  9. Hlibczuk V, Dattaro JA, Jin Z, Falzon L, Brown MD. Diagnostic Accuracy of Non- contrast Computed Tomography for Appendicitis in Adults: A Systematic Review. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;55(1):51–59.e1.
  10. Tamburrini S, Brunetti A, Brown M, Sirlin C, Casola G. Acute appendicitis: diagnos- tic value of nonenhanced CT with selective use of contrast in routine clinical settings. Eur Radiol. 2007;17(8):2055–61.
  11. Mullins ME, Kircher MF, Ryan DP, Doody D, Mullins TC, Rhea JT et al. Evaluation of Suspected Appendicitis in Children Using Limited Helical CT and Colonic Contrast Material. Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176(1):37–41.
  12. Pinto Leite N, Pereira JM, Cunha R, Pinto P, Sirlin C. CT Evaluation of Appendici- tis and Its Complications: Imaging Techniques and Key Diagnostic Findings. Am J Roentgenol. 2005;185(2):406–17.
  13. Fefferman NR, Roche KJ, Pinkney LP, Ambrosino MM, Genieser NB. Suspected Appendicitis in Children: Focused CT Technique for Evaluation. Radiology. 2001;220(3):691–5.
  14. Kepner AM, Bacasnot JV, Stahlman BA. 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):1765–73.
  15. Farrell CR, Bezinque AD, Tucker JM, Michiels EA, Betz BW. Acute appendici- tis in childhood: oral contrast does not improve CT diagnosis. Emerg Radiol. 2018;25(3):257–63.
  16. Tarulli M, Rezende-Neto J, Vlachou PA. Focused CT for the evaluation of suspected appendicitis. Abdom Radiol. 2019;44(6):2081–8.
  17. Hekimoglu K, Yildirim UM, Karabulut E, Coskun M. Comparison of combined oral and iv contrast-enhanced versus single iv contrast-enhanced mdct for the detection of acute appendicitis. J Belg Soc Radiol. 2011;94(5):278.
  18. Ramalingam V, Bates DDB, Buch K, Uyeda J, Zhao KM, Storer LA et al. Diagnosing acute appendicitis using a nonoral contrast CT protocol in patients with a BMI of less than 25. Emerg Radiol. 2016;23(5):455–62.
  19. Saadat L, Helenowski I, Mahvi D, Boller AMM. Should Oral Contrast Be Omitted in Patients with Suspected Appendicitis? J Gastrointest Surg. 2016;20(6):1150–3.
  20. Wadhwani A, Guo L, Saude E, Els H, Lang E, McRae A et al. Intravenous and Oral Contrast vs Intravenous Contrast Alone Computed Tomography for the Visualiza- tion of Appendix and Diagnosis of Appendicitis in Adult Emergency Department Patients. Can Assoc Radiol J. 2016;67(3):234–41.
  21. Keyzer C, Cullus P, Tack D, De Maertelaer V, Bohy P, Gevenois PA. MDCT for Suspected Acute Appendicitis in Adults: Impact of Oral and IV Contrast Media at Standard-Dose and Simulated Low-Dose Techniques. Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(5):1272–81.
  22. Naeger DM, Chang SD, Kolli P, Shah V, Huang W, Thoeni RF. Neutral vs pos- itive oral contrast in diagnosing acute appendicitis with contrast-enhanced CT: sensitivity, specificity, reader confidence and interpretation time. Br J Radiol. 2011;84(1001):418–26.
  23. Horrow MM, White DS, Horrow JC. Differentiation of Perforated from Nonperfo- rated Appendicitis at CT. Radiology. 2003;227(1):46–51.