Diverticulitis
Acute diverticulitis can mimic benign adnexal pathology, such as torsion, ovarian cysts, abscesses, or malignant pathology of either gynecologic or colorectal origin. Perhaps the most useful means of distinguishing diverticulitis from these diagnoses is a history of radiographically or endoscopically diagnosed diverticular disease or a prior acute episode resulting in emergency department presentation or inpatient hospitalization. In patients without a diagnosis of diverticular disease, arriving at the correct diagnosis may be difficult, especially in the absence of absolute indications for exploration (e.g., free intra-abdominal perforation, uncontrollable hemorrhage, or obstruction). In these cases, the diagnosis relies on the combined efforts of an astute radiologist and clinician, with an abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT) scan being the most useful diagnostic maneuver.
In most cases, pericolonic inflammation, abscess, or colonic wall thickening in association with left lower quadrant pain and normal-appearing ovaries and uterus is sufficient to establish a diagnosis of diverticulitis. Based on CT findings, diverticulitis can then be subcategorized into complicated or uncomplicated diverticulitis. Nonoperative therapy through bowel rest and antibiotics is successful in 70% to 100% of patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis. A CT scan demonstrating uncomplicated diverticulitis is shown in
Figure 47.17. More recently, prospective randomized data have brought the routine use of antibiotics in uncomplicated diverticulitis into question. Complicated diverticulitis—as manifested by obstruction, abscess, perforation, or fistula—may be managed with percutaneous drainage with a low threshold for surgical exploration in the setting of progressive peritonitis or in high-risk patients (i.e., older, deconditioned, or immunocompromised patients).
Distinguishing diverticulitis from colorectal malignancy in both complicated and uncomplicated diverticulitis is critical and can be challenging. Missing or delaying the latter diagnosis may have devastating consequences for the patient and, as soon as clinically feasible, a limited endoscopic evaluation should be undertaken to rule out a mucosal-based lesion. This can be safely undertaken as early as 2 to 6 weeks after the acute inflammatory phase has resolved (normal white blood cell count, afebrile, resolved left lower quadrant pain, and
resumption of normal bowel activity). At initial presentation, if the suspicion for cancer is high, then surgical exploration with Hartmann procedure (i.e., resection, end colostomy, rectal pouch) is the safest and most effective diagnostic and therapeutic intervention (
Fig. 47.18).
Acute Appendicitis
Due to the profound overlap in presenting symptoms, age, and prodrome illness in a patient, acute appendicitis is the gastrointestinal diagnosis most difficult to distinguish from gynecologic pathology. Pregnancy, especially in the second and third trimesters, may further confound the diagnosis as the gravid uterus displaces not only the appendix but also the focal point of pain. Delayed diagnosis of appendicitis due to pregnancy is a source of significant added morbidity. Although female patients are slightly less likely to develop acute appendicitis than are males, the high prevalence of this disease in the third decade of life continues to make this a diagnostic challenge.
The classic presentation consists of three fundamental components: periumbilical pain migrating to the right lower quadrant, anorexia, and nausea/vomiting. Most surgeons trained prior to the CT-scan era relied heavily on the presence of fever and/or leukocytosis to establish the diagnosis of appendicitis. More recently, several scoring systems have been established that assign a relative numeric value to those presenting signs and symptoms most predictive of appendicitis. These scoring systems are designed to avoid axial imaging in patients with a high probability of acute appendicitis based on clinical presentation alone.
The Alvarado score is the most popular of these scoring systems and takes into account leukocytosis (2 points), iliac fossa tenderness (2 points), migratory pain, anorexia, nausea/vomiting, rebound pain, and fever (all 1 point). A high Alvarado score (≥7) generally supports exploration without further diagnostic studies, while lower scores, especially in diagnostically challenging subgroups (e.g., children younger than 3 years, adults older than 60 years, and pregnant women in the second and third trimesters) supports further diagnostic imaging such as CT scan. In one recent review in 71 patients with appendicitis and 167 patients with alternative diagnoses, CT findings consistent with appendicitis identified enlarged appendix (93% sensitive/92% specific), appendiceal wall thickening (66% sensitive/96% specific), periappendiceal fat stranding (87% sensitive/74% specific), and appendiceal wall enhancement (75% sensitive/85% specific).
Ultrasound is similarly useful in establishing the diagnosis with sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive value all as high as 99% in some series. Sonographic findings consistent with appendicitis include diameter greater than 6 mm, noncompressibility, presence of appendicolith, periappendiceal fat changes, or nonvisualization of the appendix (i.e., negative finding). In patients whose diagnosis remains uncertain despite all imaging modalities, early engagement of the general surgery team for serial abdominal exam is essential.