Pregnant Patients Suspected of Having Acute Appendicitis: Effect of MR Imaging on Negative Laparotomy Rate and Appendiceal Perforation Rate

Purpose: To investigate the effect of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging on the negative laparotomy rate (NLR) and the perforation rate (PR) in pregnant patients suspected of having acute appendicitis (AA) and to assess the need for computed tomography (CT) in this setting.

Materials and Methods: The data of 148 consecutive pregnant patients (mean age, 29 years; age range, 15–42 years; mean gestational age, 20 weeks; gestational age range, 4–37 weeks) who were clinically suspected of having AA and examined with MR imaging between March 2002 and August 2007 were retrospectively analyzed in an institutional review board–approved HIPAA-compliant protocol. One hundred forty patients underwent ultrasonography (US) before MR imaging. The clinical and laboratory data and the findings of the initial US and MR image interpretations were recorded and analyzed at Student t and Fisher exact testing. The NLR and PR were calculated.

Results: Fourteen (10%) patients had AA, and perforation occurred in three (21%) of them. US results were positive for AA in five (36%) patients with proved AA. MR results were positive in all 14 patients with AA. MR results were negative in 125 of the 134 patients without AA; there were nine false-positive cases (two positive, seven inconclusive). Among the patients without AA, the normal appendix could be visualized on US images in less than 2% (two of 126) of cases and on MR images in 87% (116 of 134) of cases (P < .0001). Twenty-seven (18%) patients underwent surgical exploration, and eight of them had negative laparotomy results, yielding an NLR of 30% and a PR of 21% (three of 14 patients). Only four (3%) patients underwent CT.

Conclusion: For pregnant patients clinically suspected of having AA, use of MR imaging yields favorable combinations of NLR and PR compared with previously reported values. The radiation exposure associated with CT examination can be avoided in most cases.

© RSNA, 2009


  • 1 Mayer IE, Hussain H. Abdominal pain during pregnancy. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 1998; 27: 1–36. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hee P, Viktrup L. The diagnosis of appendicitis during pregnancy and maternal and fetal outcome after appendectomy. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 1999;65:129–135. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Mourad J, Elliott JP, Erickson L, Lisboa L. Appendicitis in pregnancy: new information that contradicts long-held clinical beliefs. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2000;182:1027–1029. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Bailey LE, Finley RK Jr, Miller SF, Jones LM. Acute appendicitis during pregnancy. Am Surg 1986;52:218–221. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Andersen B, Nielsen TF. Appendicitis in pregnancy: diagnosis, management and complications. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 1999;78:758–762. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Velanovich V, Satava R. Balancing the normal appendectomy rate with the perforated appendicitis rate: implications for quality assurance. Am Surg 1992;58:264–269. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Berry J Jr, Malt RA. Appendicitis near its centenary. Ann Surg 1984;200:567–575. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Balthazar EJ, Rofsky NM, Zucker R. Appendicitis: the impact of computed tomography imaging on negative appendectomy and perforation rates. Am J Gastroenterol 1998;93:768–771. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bendeck SE, Nino-Murcia M, Berry GJ, Jeffrey RB Jr. Imaging for suspected appendicitis: negative appendectomy and perforation rates. Radiology 2002;225:131–136. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Togawa A, Kimura F, Chiku T, Sano W, Tashiro T, Miyazaki M. Simple way to improve accuracy in diagnosis of quadrant inflammatory disease: how to avoid adverse laparotomy by using plain CT. Hepatogastroenterology 2005;52:135–138. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Wallace CA, Petrov MS, Soybel DI, Ferzoco SJ, Ashley SW, Tavakkolizadeh A. Influence of imaging on the negative appendectomy rate in pregnancy. J Gastrointest Surg 2008;12:46–50. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Tracey M, Fletcher HS. Appendicitis in pregnancy. Am Surg 2000;66:555–559. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Lim HK, Bae SH, Seo GS. Diagnosis of acute appendicitis in pregnant women: value of sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;159:539–542. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Birnbaum BA, Wilson SR. Appendicitis at the millennium. Radiology 2000;215:337–348. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Jeffrey RB Jr, Laing FC, Townsend RR. Acute appendicitis: sonographic criteria based on 250 cases. Radiology 1988;167:327–329. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Puylaert JB, Rutgers PH, Lalisang RI, et al. A prospective study of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of appendicitis. N Engl J Med 1987;317:666–669. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ralls PW, Balfe DM, Bree RL, et al. Evaluation of acute right lower quadrant pain: American College of Radiology—ACR appropriateness criteria. Radiology 2000;215(suppl):159–166. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Lazarus E, Mayo-Smith WW, Mainiero MB, Spencer PK. CT in the evaluation of nontraumatic abdominal pain in pregnant women. Radiology 2007;244:784–790. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Cobben LP, Groot I, Haans L, Blickman JG, Puylaert J. MRI for clinically suspected appendicitis during pregnancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:671–675. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Oto A, Ernst RD, Shah R, et al. Right-lower-quadrant pain and suspected appendicitis in pregnant women: evaluation with MR imaging—initial experience. Radiology 2005;234:445–451. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Pedrosa I, Levine D, Eyvazzadeh AD, Siewert B, Ngo L, Rofsky NM. MR imaging evaluation of acute appendicitis in pregnancy. Radiology 2006;238:891–899. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Puylaert JB. Acute appendicitis: US evaluation using graded compression. Radiology 1986;158:355–360. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Pedrosa I, Zeikus EA, Levine D, Rofsky NM. MR imaging of acute right lower quadrant pain in pregnant and nonpregnant patients. RadioGraphics 2007;27:721–743. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Gwynn LK. Appendiceal enlargement as a criterion for clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis: is it reliable and valid? J Emerg Med 2002;23:9–14. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Daly CP, Cohan RH, Francis IR, Caoili EM, Ellis JH, Nan B. Incidence of acute appendicitis in patients with equivocal CT findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:1813–1820. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Ganguli S, Raptopoulos V, Komlos F, Siewert B, Kruskal JB. Right lower quadrant pain: value of the nonvisualized appendix in patients at multidetector CT. Radiology 2006;241:175–180. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Nikolaidis P, Hwang CM, Miller FH, Papanicolaou N. The nonvisualized appendix: incidence of acute appendicitis when secondary inflammatory changes are absent. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:889–892. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 28 McGory ML, Zingmond DS, Tillou A, Hiatt JR, Ko CY, Cryer HM. Negative appendectomy in pregnant women is associated with a substantial risk of fetal loss. J Am Coll Surg 2007;205:534–540. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Flum DR, Morris A, Koepsell T, Dellinger EP. Has misdiagnosis of appendicitis decreased over time? a population-based analysis. JAMA 2001;286:1748–1753. Google Scholar
  • 30 in't Hof KH, van Lankeren W, Krestin GP, et al. Surgical validation of unenhanced helical computed tomography in acute appendicitis. Br J Surg 2004;91:1641–1645. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Antevil J, Rivera L, Langenberg B, Brown CV. The influence of age and gender on the utility of computed tomography to diagnose acute appendicitis. Am Surg 2004;70:850–853. MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2277–2284. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Hurwitz LM, Yoshizumi T, Reiman RE, et al. Radiation dose to the fetus from body MDCT during early gestation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186:871–876. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 34 McCollough CH, Schueler BA, Atwell TD, et al. Radiation exposure and pregnancy: when should we be concerned? RadioGraphics 2007;27:909–917. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 35 ACOG Committee on Obstetric Practice. ACOG Committee opinion: number 299, September 2004 (replaces no. 158, September 1995)—guidelines for diagnostic imaging during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol 2004;104:647–651. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Barloon TJ, Brown BP, Abu-Yousef MM, Warnock N, Berbaum KS. Sonography of acute appendicitis in pregnancy. Abdom Imaging 1995;20:149–151. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Kessler N, Cyteval C, Gallix B, et al. Appendicitis: evaluation of sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of US, Doppler US, and laboratory findings. Radiology 2004;230:472–478. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Johansson EP, Rydh A, Riklund KA. Ultrasound, computed tomography, and laboratory findings in the diagnosis of appendicitis. Acta Radiol 2007;48:267–273. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Oto A, Srinivasan PN, Ernst RD, et al. Revisiting MRI for appendix location during pregnancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186:883–887. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Balthazar EJ, Megibow AJ, Siegel SE, Birnbaum BA. Appendicitis: prospective evaluation with high-resolution CT. Radiology 1991;180:21–24. LinkGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Bickell NA, Aufses AH Jr, Rojas M, Bodian C. How time affects the risk of rupture in appendicitis. J Am Coll Surg 2006;202:401–406. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Lee SL, Walsh AJ, Ho HS. Computed tomography and ultrasonography do not improve and may delay the diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis. Arch Surg 2001;136:556–562. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Riesenman PJ, Riesenman KP, Stone TJ, Beidler SK, Douillet CD, Rich PB. Nonfocused enhanced CT evaluation of acute appendicitis increases length of stay in the emergency department but does not increase perforation rate. Am Surg 2008;74:488–492. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Birchard KR, Brown MA, Hyslop WB, Firat Z, Semelka RC. MRI of acute abdominal and pelvic pain in pregnant patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:452–458. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Oto A, Ernst RD, Ghulmiyyah LM, et al. MR imaging in the triage of pregnant patients with acute abdominal and pelvic pain. Abdom Imaging doi:10.1007/s00261-008-9381-y. Published online March 11, 2008. Accessed August 11, 2008. Google Scholar
  • 46 Israel GM, Malguria N, McCarthy S, Copel J, Weinreb J. MRI vs ultrasound for suspected appendicitis during pregnancy. J Magn Reson Imaging 2008;28:428–433. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Kanal E. Pregnancy and the safety of magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 1994;2:309–317. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 48 De Wilde JP, Rivers AW, Price DL. A review of the current use of magnetic resonance imaging in pregnancy and safety implications for the fetus. Prog Biophys Mol Biol 2005;87:335–353. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Levine D, Zuo C, Faro CB, Chen Q. Potential heating effect in the gravid uterus during MR HASTE imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 2001;13:856–861. Crossref, MedlineGoogle Scholar

Article History

Published in print: 2009