Skip to main content
Appendicectomy without confirmation of appendicitis

Appendicectomy without confirmation of appendicitis

Best practice guidance


Appendicitis is the most common cause of abdominal pain requiring surgical intervention.

In children appendicitis can often be diagnosed clinically, if there is diagnostic uncertainty, an ultrasound can confirm appendicitis. CT is not recommended in children given the risks of ionising radiation; MRI can be used in centres with appropriate expertise.

In adults negative appendicectomy can occur in up to 30% of cases where appendicitis is suspected on clinical grounds but imaging is not performed. In patients with typical symptoms, diagnosis can generally be made based on history, physical examination and blood analysis. The ‘triple-screen’ (CRP<10, WCC <10.5 and a neutrophil percentage <75%) has a negative predictive value >99% in excluding appendicitis, and imaging for appendicitis is not recommended in this setting.

Recent studies have shown there is a potential role for non-operative management of acute appendicitis, imaging can help identify which patients could be managed conservatively.

Where patients present with atypical or equivocal symptoms, imaging should be sought to reduce the negative appendicectomy rate. While both ultrasound and computed tomography (CT) are effective, ultrasound is preferred as a first-line investigation. This is particularly important in young patients or in female patients when there is a significant incidence of a gynaecological differential diagnosis (where US is superior to CT). CT may be more appropriate in obese patients where ultrasound is more challenging, or for older patients in whom the differential diagnosis may be broad and where CT is usually of more value.

The diagnostic accuracy of MRI to diagnose appendicitis is similar to CT. Where specialist MRI is available it can be considered if CT is contraindicated, it is particularly useful for pregnant patients.

 This guidance applies to adults and children.


Consider the imaging of patients with the suspicion of acute appendicitis in a defined clinical pathway.

Where patients present with a high clinical suspicion of appendicitis, then imaging may not be necessary, but imaging can help identify which patients can be managed conservatively. If there is clinical doubt then imaging can reduce the negative appendicectomy rate. Most patients should have an ultrasound as the first-line investigation. If the diagnosis remains equivocal, a contrast-enhanced CT (CECT, preferably low dose) can be performed to give a definitive diagnosis prior to the patient returning to the surgical unit for a decision on management.

A pathway like this is dependent on the availability of an adequately skilled Radiologist (Consultant or Registrar) or Sonographer to perform the ultrasound assessment in a timely fashion. If this is not possible discretion should be used to proceed directly to limited dose CECT of the abdomen and pelvis.

Rationale for recommendation

Appendicitis is a common surgical emergency. In many cases, typical history and physical examination are sufficient to reach a clinical diagnosis of appendicitis. However, patients can have a negative appendicectomy so there is a role for imaging if there is any diagnostic doubt (some reports suggest this is a more cost-effective way of managing suspected appendicitis), imaging can also help identify which patients can be managed conservatively. Where imaging is indicated, ultrasound is considered the preferred first-line diagnostic intervention followed by a conditional CECT after an inconclusive ultrasound. MRI, while having a comparable accuracy to CECT, has played a limited role in diagnosis of appendicitis due to scanner access. However, the lack of ionising radiation makes it a safer option for younger or pregnant patients with an inconclusive ultrasound (where there is appropriate access and expertise).

Patient information

There is no specific EBI patient guidance for this intervention.

However, we recommend using the BRAN principles (Benfits, Risks, Alternatives and do Nothing) when speaking with patients about this.

Further information on patient involvement in EBI can be found on the EBI for patients section.


Code Script

WHEN LEFT(Der.spell_dominant_procedure,4) in ('H011','H012','H013','H018','H019’) 
AND not (apcs.der_diagnosis_all like '%K35[238]%’
OR apcs.der_diagnosis_all like '%K3[67]%’)
THEN '2R_CTappendicitis'

Code Definitions

Procedure codes (OPCS)

H011 Emergency excision of abnormal appendix and drainage HFQ
H012 Emergency excision of abnormal appendix NEC
H013 Emergency excision of normal appendix
H018 Other specified emergency excision of appendix
H019 Unspecified emergency excision of appendix
H011 Emergency excision of abnormal appendix and drainage HFQ
H012 Emergency excision of abnormal appendix NEC
H013 Emergency excision of normal appendix
H018 Other specified emergency excision of appendix
H019 Unspecified emergency excision of appendix

Diagnosis codes (ICD)

K352 Acute appendicitis with generalized peritonitis
K353 Acute appendicitis with localized peritonitis
K358 Acute appendicitis, other and unspecified
K36X Other appendicitis
K37X Unspecified appendicitis

Additional Exclusions
apcs.der_diagnosis_all not like '%C[0-9][0-9]%' and 
apcs.der_diagnosis_all not like '%D0%' and 
apcs.der_diagnosis_all not like '%D3[789]%' and
apcs.der_diagnosis_all not like '%D4[012345678]%’

This code captures code in the ranges C00-C99, D00-D09 and D37-D48.
Age range: the codes use the following age ranges 0-18 for children and 19-120
for adults.

–Private Appointment Exclusion
AND apcs.Administrative_Category<>’02’


  1. Royal College of Surgeons of England (2014) Commissioning Guide: Emergency general surgery (acute abdominal pain).
  2. Bachur RG, Levy JA, Callahan MJ, Rangel SJ, Monuteaux MC. Effect of reduction in the use of computed tomography on clinical outcomes of appendicitis. JAMA Pediatr 2015; 169:755-760.
  3. Frush DP, Frush KS, Oldham KT. Imaging of acute appendicitis in children: EU versus US … or US versus CT? A North American perspective. Pediatr Radiol 2009; 39:500-505.
  4. Garcia K, Hernanz Schulman M, Bennett DL, Morrow SE, Yu C, Kan JH. Suspected appendicitis in children: diagnostic importance of normal abdominopelvic CT findings with nonvisualized appendix. Radiology 2009;250:531-537.
  5. Kharbanda AB, Stevenson MD, Macias CG, Sinclair K, Dudley NC, Bennett J et al. Interrater reliability of clinical findings in children with possible appendicitis. Pediatrics 2012; 129:695-700.
  6. Kotagal M, Richards MK, Chapman T, Finch L, McCann B, Ormazabal A et al. Improving ultrasound quality to reduce computed tomography use in pediatric appendicitis: The Safe and Sound campaign. Am J Surg 2015; 209:896-900.
  7. Krishnamoorthi R, Ramarajan N, Wang NE, Newman B, Rubesova E, Mueller CM et al. Effectiveness of a staged US and CT protocol for the diagnosis of pediatric appendicitis: Reducing radiation exposure in the age of ALARA. Radiology 2011; 259: 231-239.
  8. Malik HT, Marti J, Darzi A, Mossialos E. Savings from reducing low value general surgical interventions. Br J Surg 2018; 105(1):13-25.
  9. Schok T, Simons PC, Janssen Heijnen ML, Peters NA, Konsten JL. Prospective evaluation of the added value of imaging within the Dutch National Diagnostic Appendicitis Guideline do we forget our clinical eye? Dig Surg 2014; 31:436-4143.
  10. Leeuwenburgh MM, Wiarda BM, Wiezer MJ, Vrouenraets BC, Gratama JW, Spilt A,Richir MC, Bossuyt PM, Stoker J, Boermeester MA; OPTIMAP Study Group. Comparison of imaging strategies with conditional contrast-enhanced CT and unenhanced MR imaging in patients suspected of having appendicitis: a multicenter diagnostic performance study. 2013 Jul;268(1):135-43.
  11. Ivan C, Al-Nowfal A, Hudson S, Osma A, Verma R Stephenson JÁ. Cost effectiveness of imaging in the assessment of appendicitis. Insights Imaging. 2019; 10(2):16.
  12. Pickhardt PJ, Lawrence EM, Pooler BD, Bruce RJ. Diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomography for suspected acute appendicitis. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Jun 21. 154(12):789-96.
  13. Javanmard-Emamghissi, H., Boyd-Carson, H., Hollyman, M. et al. The management of adult appendicitis during the COVID-19 pandemic: an interim analysis of a UK cohort study. Tech Coloproctol (2020): doi:
  14. Mostbeck G, Adam EJ, Nielsen MB, et al. How to diagnose acute appendicitis: ultrasound first. Insights Imaging. 2016;7(2):255-263. doi:10.1007/s13244-016-0469-6.
  15. Mushtaq R et al. First-line diagnostic evaluation with MRI of children suspected of having acute appendicitis. Radiology 2019 Feb 12; [e-pub].
  16. James K, Duffy P, Kavanagh RG, Carey BW, Power S, Ryan D, Joyce S, Feeley A, Murphy P, Andrews E, McEntee MF, Moore M, Bogue C, Maher MM, O’ Connor OJ. Fast acquisition abdominal MRI study for the investigation of suspected acute appendicitis in paediatric patients. Insights Imaging. 2020 Jun 16;11(1):78. doi: 10.1186/s13244-020-00882-7.
  17. Mervak BM, Wilson SB, Handly BD, Altun E, Burke LM. MRI of acute appendicitis. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2019;50(5):1367-1376. doi:10.1002/jmri.26709.

How up to date is this information?

Last revised December 2023


December 2023 - Coding updated August 2022 - Coding updated