Stratified computed tomography findings improve diagnostic accuracy for appendicitis

Table 2 Reevaluations of computed tomography scans preoperatively interpreted as indeterminate for appendicitis n (%)

	Total population	Negative appendicitis	Pathologically proven appendicitis	P value
	(n = 224)	(n = 46)	(n = 178)
Appendiceal visualization				1.000
No	6 (2.7)	1 (2.2)	5 (2.8)
Yes	218 (97.3)	45 (97.8)	173 (97.2)
Appendiceal diameter				< 0.001
< 6.0 mm	89 (39.7)	29 (63.0)	60 (33.7)
≥ 6.0 mm	135 (60.3)	17 (37.0)	118 (66.3)
Thickness of appendiceal wall				0.175
< 2.0 mm	54 (24.1)	15 (32.6)	39 (21.9)
≥ 2.0 mm	170 (75.9)	31 (67.4)	139 (78.1)
Appendiceal wall enhancement				0.059
No	138 (63.3)	34 (75.6)	104 (63.3)
Yes	80 (36.7)	11 (24.4)	69 (39.9)
Presence of intraluminal air				0.024
No	139 (63.8)	22 (48.9)	117 (67.6)
Yes	79 (36.2)	23 (51.1)	56 (32.4)
Presence of appendicolith				1.000
No	206 (94.5)	43 (95.6)	163 (94.2)
Yes	12 (5.5)	2 (4.4)	10 (5.8)
Presence of periappendiceal fat stranding				0.001
No	155 (71.1)	41 (91.1)	114 (65.9)
Yes	63 (28.9)	4 (8.9)	59 (34.1)
Presence of periappendiceal fluid collection				0.669
No	216 (96.4)	44 (95.7)	172 (96.6)
Yes	8 (3.6)	2 (4.3)	6 (3.4)
Presence of periappendiceal lymphadenopathy				1.000
No	200 (89.3)	41 (89.1)	159 (89.3)
Yes	24 (10.7)	5 (10.9)	19 (10.7)
Presence of coexisting lesions				0.084
No	169 (75.4)	30 (65.2)	139 (78.1)
Yes	55 (24.6)	16 (34.8)	39 (21.9)