Acute appendicitis in children: Emergency department diagnosis and management

Acute Appendicitis in Infants: Still a Diagnostic Dilemma

Review question/objective The objectives of the review are to determine the best available evidence on strategies to improve pain management and factors affecting pain management in emergency departments. More specifically, the review questions are to identify: What are the best strategies to improve pain management in emergency departments? What are the factors improving pain management in emergency departments? What are the factors hindering pain management in emergency departments? Background Pain is the most common reason for seeking medical attention in the emergency department.1,2 Although it accounts for up to 78% of visits to the emergency department3,4, management of pain has not received sufficient attention from many emergency department team members.5 Unfortunately, pain may be viewed as consequence of illness and injury that must be tolerated or even in some instances as a punishment for inappropriate behavior.6 Oligoanalgesia refers to the under treatment of pain and in the emergency department is thought to be common; despite the expectation that pain relief is considered to be the emergency department top priority.2, 7-10 A study conducted by Fosnocht and colleagues revealed only 45 % of the emergency department patients received pain medication prescriptions and 70% of those who received medication reported decreased pain that met with their needs.8 Despite the fact that intravenous opioid is the drug of choice recommended for treatment of severe pain, 11 less than one third of patients with severe pain were given the medication in one study.5 Up to 74% of patients who presented at an emergency department were discharged while they were suffering from moderate to severe pain.2,7 Unrelieved pain is a major, yet avoidable, significant health problem.12 Optimal management of pain in emergency department is challenging. Untreated and undertreated pain can have serious physiological and psychological consequences. Unrelieved acute pain stimulates sympathetic activity which can cause tachycardia, hypertension and sweating.6 It may exacerbate myocardial ischemia by increased myocardial work and oxygen consumption, may impair immune function by activation of the metabolic stress response, and can cause reduction in cognitive function.6,13 In addition, untreated and undertreated pain can aggravate the patients’ discomfort and exacerbate an already-stressful situation in the emergency department.5 Pain management is truly an essential nursing and medical responsibility. In application of the ethical principles of beneficence (duty to benefit another) and non-malfeasance (duty to do no harm), health personnel have a role and obligation in providing effective pain management and comfort to all patients. Hospitals are required to inform the patients regarding their rights related to pain management as stated in the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospital Organization 2001 Guideline.6,12 Timely and appropriate pain management is an important quality indicator of emergency department performance.14 Meeting the patients’ needs for pain relief certainly influences their satisfaction with emergency department care. Efforts to improve patients’ pain management in all health care settings are supported by the collaboration between the American Society for Pain Management Nursing (ASPMN), the Emergency Nurses Association (ENA) and the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American Pain Society (APS). Over 25 years of research on pain management conducted in the United States of America, Canada, and Australia, multiple standards/guidelines on pain management and regulatory statutes on pain management have been developed.2 Despite significant efforts to enhance pain management, oligoanalgesia in emergency departments still remains an important problem for emergency professions.2 After the release of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) standards for pain management for accredited health care organizations, pain assessment and management practices in the emergency departments showed some improvements over time.15 This notion was reflected in the study by Herr and Titler.15 Medical records from hospitalised older adult patients with hip fractures admitted through the emergency department of 12 acute care hospitals (N = 1454) were reviewed. Records were categorised into 3 different periods between 2000 and 2002. Pain assessment practices and pharmacological pain treatment practices derived from an Evidence-based Guideline on Acute Pain Management in Older Adults were reviewed. Results from this study revealed improvements in pain assessment practices over time (99% of patients had pain documentation in 2002). However, up to 34% of patients in this study had no objective assessment of pain (numeric rating scale) documented. Moreover, the mean pain intensity reported remained high (6.8 to 7.2 out of 10) across the 3 time periods. By the end of the study (2002) only 60% of patients had any analgesic ordered and of these 59% had an opioid ordered. Oligoanalgesia still needs to be explored in order to be able to manage pain in a more timely and more appropriate manner. A number of studies have been conducted to elucidate factors affecting pain management in emergency departments.10,16-18 Yet, such information is still inconclusive. Berben and colleagues suggested possible barriers in current pain management in the emergency department could arise from workload, attitudes of staff, knowledge deficits and misconceptions on the need of effective pain management.10 A cross-sectional analysis of documented emergency department visits by elderly patients from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey16 suggested a potential influence of attitudes toward analgesic prescribing, and the recognition of ethnic, racial, and age differences in patients with pain on the effective pain management in the emergency department. Additionally, patients' clinical condition instability may affect the pain management of the injured patients who often experience considerable pain in the emergency department.17 Lack of communication between the patient and healthcare professional, as well as organisational limitations have also been associated with pain management.18 Despite these concerns, strategies to enhance pain management have long been developed in response to the awareness of inadequate emergency department pain management.19-24 Those strategies reported in the literature include, but are not limited to, innovative use of guidelines 22, 25, use of pain protocol 26, nurse-initiated pain management 18, 21, and staff educational interventions.24 Nevertheless, we have not reached agreement on the best strategy to enhance pain management. Improving inadequate pain control is a critical goal in emergency health care. As patients’ primary health care advocators, emergency health personnel play a vital role in resolving under-treated pain in their patients.27 Up till now, the literature shows an unresolved issue of under optimal pain management in the emergency departments, which deserves serious consideration. The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Library of Systematic Reviews and CINAHL databases have been searched and no previous systematic reviews on this specific topic were identified as being published or underway. It is anticipated that this systematic review will uncover literature encompassing factors affecting and the strategies to enhance pain management in the emergency department. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise the best available research evidence on factors that influence pain management in the emergency department, with the aim of providing timely and appropriate emergency department pain management in order to fulfil the needs for pain relief of the patients and increase their satisfaction. Inclusion criteria Types of participants This review will consider both qualitative and quantitative publications that include patients, their family members, physicians, or nurses in emergency departments. Types of intervention(s)/phenomena of interest The quantitative component of the review will consider studies that evaluate the strategies to improve pain management and factors affecting pain management in emergency departments. The qualitative component of this review will consider studies that explore the experiences of patients, family members, physicians or nurses in emergency departments regarding the pain management. Types of outcomes Quantitative: The quantitative component of this review will consider studies that include, but not limited to, the following outcome measures: patient satisfaction, relief or reduction of pain, and time to first analgesia. Types of studies The quantitative component of the review will consider any randomised controlled trials, pseudo-randomised controlled trials, before and after studies, observational analytical studies, and descriptive studies such as surveys to enable the identification of current best evidence regarding the strategies to enhance pain management and factors affecting pain management in emergency departments. The qualitative component of the review will consider qualitative studies that draw on the experiences on pain management and factors that affect pain management including, but not limited to, designs such as phenomenology, grounded theory and ethnography. Search strategy The search strategy aims to find both published and unpublished studies. The search will be limited to English language reports and will be not be limited by year of publication. A three-step search strategy will be utilised in each component of this review. An initial limited search of MEDLINE and CINAHL will be undertaken followed by analysis of the text words contained in the title and abstract, and of the index terms used to describe article. A second search using all identified keywords and index terms will then be undertaken across all included databases. Thirdly, the reference list of all identified reports and articles will be searched for additional studies. The databases to be searched include: Academic Search Elite CINAHL ProQuest Health and Medical Complete PubMed Science Direct Scopus SpringerLink Wiley InterScience The search for unpublished studies will include: Mednar, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, Dissertations Full Text, and conference proceedings. Initial keywords to be used will be: pain, pain management, strategy, strategies, factors, barriers, emergency, emergency department, emergency room, satisfaction, and pain reduction. Assessment of methodological quality Qualitative papers selected for retrieval will be assessed by two independent reviewers for methodological validity prior to inclusion in the review using standardised critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-QARI) (Appendix I). Quantitative papers selected for retrieval will be assessed by two independent reviewers for methodological validity prior to inclusion in the review using standardised critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-MAStARI) (Appendix II). Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion, or with a third reviewer. Data collection Qualitative data will be extracted from papers included in the review using the standardised data extraction tool from the JBI-QARI (Appendix III). Quantitative data will be extracted from papers included in the review using the standardised data extraction tool from JBI-MAStARI (Appendix IV). The data extracted will include specific details about the interventions, populations, study methods and outcomes of significance to the review question and specific objectives. Data synthesis Qualitative research findings will, where possible be pooled using the JBI-QARI. This will involve the aggregation or synthesis of findings to generate a set of statements that represent that aggregation, through assembling the findings (Level 1 findings) rated according to their quality, and categorising these findings on the basis of similarity in meaning (Level 2 findings). These categories are then subjected to a meta-synthesis in order to produce a single comprehensive set of synthesised findings (Level 3 findings) that can be used as a basis for evidence-based practice. Where textual pooling is not possible the findings will be presented in narrative form. Quantitative papers will, where possible be pooled in statistical meta-analysis using the JBI-MAStARI. All results will be subject to double data entry. Odds ratio (for categorical data) and weighted mean differences (for continuous data) and their 95% confidence intervals will be calculated for analysis. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the standard Chi-square. Where statistical pooling is not possible the findings will be presented in narrative form. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest in this review.

The clinical presentation of acute appendicitis in infants and young children is nonspecific. The diagnosis is often delayed and is accompanied by high rates of appendiceal perforation. The aim of the present study was to develop an early diagnostic scale for acute appendicitis in children less than 4 years of age. Results: The scale had a high discrimination index area under the ROC curve of 0.96 (95%CI 0.88-0.99), sensitivity of 95.1% (95%CI 86.3-99.0%), specificity of 90.0% (95%CI 55.7-89.5%), positive predictive value of 98.3% (95%CI 90.0-99.7%) and negative predictive value of 75.0% (95%CI 49.4-90.2). Conclusions: In this study, a risk score based on characteristics of children less than 4 years with abdominal pain was developed that may help predict a patient’s risk of developing acute appendicitis. 100 children less than 4 years of age with a presumptive diagnosis of acute appendicitis were retrospectively evaluated in 4 hospitals. The case group comprised 90 patients with histopathological diagnosis of positive appendicitis (with inflammation in the appendiceal wall) while the control group comprised 10 patients with a histopathological diagnosis of negative appendicitis (without inflammation). Epidemiological, clinical, laboratory, and ultrasound variables were screened using Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) and logistic regression to construct a predictive risk score. Accuracy of the score was measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Final model comprised 4 variables (Blumberg's sign, C-reactive protein, neutrophil-lymphocyte index and positive ultrasound). The scale had a high discrimination index area under the ROC curve of 0.96 (95%CI 0.88-0.99), sensitivity of 95.1% (95%CI 86.3-99.0%), specificity of 90.0% (95%CI 55.7-89.5%), positive predictive value of 98.3% (95%CI 90.0-99.7%) and negative predictive value of 75.0% (95%CI 49.4-90.2). In this study, a risk score based on characteristics of children less than 4 years with abdominal pain was developed that may help predict a patient’s risk of developing acute appendicitis.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of nonoperative treatment of acute nonperforated appendicitis with antibiotics in children. A pilot randomized controlled trial was performed comparing nonoperative treatment with antibiotics versus surgery for acute appendicitis in children. Patients with imaging-confirmed acute nonperforated appendicitis who would normally have had emergency appendectomy were randomized either to treatment with antibiotics or to surgery. Follow-up was for 1 year. Fifty patients were enrolled; 26 were randomized to surgery and 24 to nonoperative treatment with antibiotics. All children in the surgery group had histopathologically confirmed acute appendicitis, and there were no significant complications in this group. Two of 24 patients in the nonoperative treatment group had appendectomy within the time of primary antibiotic treatment and 1 patient after 9 months for recurrent acute appendicitis. Another 6 patients have had an appendectomy due to recurrent abdominal pain (n = 5) or parental wish (n = 1) during the follow-up period; none of these 6 patients had evidence of appendicitis on histopathological examination. Twenty-two of 24 patients (92%) treated with antibiotics had initial resolution of symptoms. Of these 22, only 1 patient (5%) had recurrence of acute appendicitis during follow-up. Overall, 62% of patients have not had an appendectomy during the follow-up period. This pilot trial suggests that nonoperative treatment of acute appendicitis in children is feasible and safe and that further investigation of nonoperative treatment is warranted.

Analysis of Emergency Department Visits for Palpitations (from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey)

BackgroundAppendectomy is considered the gold standard treatment for acute appendicitis. Recently the need for surgery has been challenged in both adults and children. In children there is growing clinician, patient...

To assess the added-value of systematic unenhanced abdominal computed tomography (CT) on emergency department (ED) diagnosis and management accuracy compared to current practice, in elderly patients with non-traumatic acute abdominal symptoms. Institutional review board approval and informed consent were obtained. This prospective study included 401 consecutive patients 75 years of age or older, admitted to the ED with acute abdominal symptoms, and investigated by early systematic unenhanced abdominal CT scan. ED diagnosis and intended management before CT, after unenhanced CT, and after contrast CT if requested, were recorded. Diagnosis and management accuracies were evaluated and compared before CT (clinical strategy) and for two conditional strategies (current practice and systematic unenhanced CT). An expert clinical panel assigned a final diagnosis and management after a 3-month follow-up. Systematic unenhanced CT significantly improved the accurate diagnosis (76.8% to 85%, p=1.1x10-6) and management (88.5% to 95.8%, p=2.6x10-6) rates compared to current practice. It allowed diagnosing 30.3% of acute unsuspected pathologies, 3.4% of which were unexpected surgical procedure requirement. Systematic unenhanced abdominal CT improves ED diagnosis accuracy and appropriate management in elderly patients presenting with acute abdominal symptoms compared to current practice. • Systematic unenhanced CT improves significantly diagnosis accuracy compared to current practice. • Systematic unenhanced CT optimizes appropriate hospitalization by increasing the number of discharged patients. • Systematic unenhanced CT allows detection of about one-third of acute unsuspected abdominal conditions. • It should allow boosting emergency department management decision-making confidence in old patients.

BackgroundPatients with severe mental illness (SMI) have a shorter life expectancy and have been considered by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a vulnerable group. As the causes for this mortality gap are complex, clarification regarding the contributing factors is crucial to improving the health care of SMI patients. Acute appendicitis is one of the most common indications for emergency surgery worldwide. A higher perforation rate has been found among psychiatric patients. This study aims to evaluate the differences in appendiceal perforation rate, emergency department (ED) management, in-hospital outcomes, and in-hospital expenditure among acute appendicitis patients with or without SMI via the use of a multi-centre database.MethodsRelying on Chang Gung Research Database (CGRD) for data, we selectively used its data from January 1st, 2007 to December 31st, 2017. The diagnoses of acute appendicitis and SMI were confirmed by combining ICD codes with relevant medical records. A non-SMI patient group was matched at the ratio of 1:3 by using the Greedy algorithm. The outcomes were appendiceal perforation rate, ED treatment, in-hospital outcome, and in-hospital expenditure.ResultsA total of 25,766 patients from seven hospitals over a span of 11 years were recruited; among them, 11,513 were excluded by criteria, with 14,253 patients left for analysis. SMI group was older (50.5 vs. 44.4 years, p < 0.01) and had a higher percentage of females (56.5 vs. 44.4%, p = 0.01) and Charlson Comorbidity Index. An analysis of the matched group has revealed that the SMI group has a higher unscheduled 72-hour revisit to ED (17.9 vs. 10.4%, p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in appendiceal perforation rate, ED treatment, in-hospital outcome, and in-hospital expenditure.ConclusionsOur study demonstrated no obvious differences in appendiceal perforation rate, ED management, in-hospital outcomes, and in-hospital expenditure among SMI and non-SMI patients with acute appendicitis. A higher unscheduled 72-hour ED revisit rate prior to the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the SMI group was found. ED health providers need to be cautious when it comes to SMI patients with vague symptoms or unspecified abdominal complaints.

Currently, the most frequently used treatment for acute appendicitis in children in the United Kingdom (UK) is an appendicectomy. However, there is increasing scientific and patient interest and research into non-operative treatment of appendicitis. Despite a number of non-randomised studies in children and randomised studies in adults, comparative outcomes of non-operative treatment and appendicectomy in comparable groups of children remain unknown. Following the successful completion of a feasibility study, we now aim to perform a UK-based multi-centre open-label randomised controlled trial (RCT) to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-operative treatment pathway of acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children compared with appendicectomy. Non-inferiority RCT with internal pilot, health economic evaluation and qualitative communication sub-study. The study is conducted in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales at both specialist children's hospitals and district general hospitals. Children (aged 4-15years inclusive) diagnosed with acute uncomplicated appendicitis that would normally be treated with an appendicectomy are eligible for the RCT. Exclusion criteria include clinical/radiological suspicion of perforated appendicitis, appendix mass or previous non-operative treatment of appendicitis. Sample size is 376 participants, recruited by surgeons and supported by research staff and randomised with a 1:1 allocation ratio to either non-operative treatment pathway (intervention) or appendicectomy (control). Participants in the intervention arm are treated with antibiotics, analgesia and regular clinical assessment to ensure clinical improvement. Participants in the control arm receive appendicectomy. Randomisation is minimised by age, sex, duration of symptoms and centre. The primary end-point is a composite outcome of treatment success at 1year following randomisation. Secondary outcomes include: duration of hospital stay, measures of recovery from acute appendicitis, complications, need for further treatment, persistent symptoms, health care resource use, quality of life and costs. Adverse events, serious adverse events and suspected unexpected serious adverse events are collected directly on the database and by paper form up to 12-month visit. Primary outcome will be analysed on a non-inferiority basis using a 20% non-inferiority margin to test the hypothesis that non-operative treatment pathway is non-inferior to appendicectomy. Children and families who are approached for the RCT will be invited to participate in the embedded qualitative sub-study. This will include recording of recruitment consultations, which will inform future interventions to optimise recruitment. We have involved children, young people and parents in study design and delivery. This RCT will allow determination of the comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness of non-operative treatment pathway compared to appendicectomy for children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis in the UK. First planned enrolment-December 2022, first actual recruit-March 2022, current status of trial-open to recruitment. ISRCTN16720026 . Registered on July 28, 2021.

The Value of the Alvarado Score for the Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective To investigate the features of physical diagnosis for acute appendicitis in the children of different age periods. Methods Four hundred and thirty-one cases with acute appendicitis (postoperative diagnosis) were enrolled in this study, and divided into newborn, infant, preschool, and school age-groups.The clinical physical diagnosis of each group was retrospectively analyzed to summarize the features. Results Three newborns(accounting for about 0.70%) were characterized by abdominal distention, bad spirit, weak bowel sounds, and so on.Thirty-one infants′ (7.19%) physical diagnosis were mainly percussion pain, positive speed humps test, rebound tenderness.The features of preschool group (162 cases, 37.59%) were mainly percussion pain, rebound tenderness, bowel sounds changing.The features of school age group (235 cases, 54.52%) were principally percussion pain, speed humps test positive, rebound tenderness. Conclusions There are discrepancies between four age-groups in the features of acute appendicitis.Detailed and accurate physical diagnosis can provide important diagnostic evidences of acute appendicitis in children. Key words: Child; Appendicitis; Physical examination; Diagnosis

Background: Most studies addressing non-operative management for acute appendicitis have focused on adults, and there are limited data available for children. We aimed to evaluate the results of successful non-operative management in children with acute uncomplicated appendicitis with our “additional criteria” and find which factors could be affecting the success rate and which cases could be candidates for non-operative management.Materials and methods: A total of 54 patients who were diagnosed with acute uncomplicated appendicitis and received non-operative management were re-evaluated retrospectively. Defining uncomplicated appendicitis was based on the duration of symptoms (<24 hours), clinical history, and radiologic findings. The radiologic evaluation was based on ultrasonography and computed tomography. The patients received an intravenous antibiotic combination (sulbactam/ampicillin, gentamicin, clindamycin) for five days at the hospital; the treatment was completed after 10 days with an oral antibiotic combination (amoxicillin/clavulanate, metronidazole). The cases have a follow-up period of up to two years.Results: The mean patient age and follow-up time were 13.0 ± 4 years and 41.6 ± 13 months, respectively. The mean leukocyte count, C-reactive protein (CRP), and appendix diameter values were 15.48 ± 6.4 × 109/L, 11.79 ± 24.5 mg/dL, and 7.76 ± 1.4 mm on admission, and 6.86 ± 12.4 × 109/L, 4.17 ± 10.3 mg/dL, and 5.82 ± 1.6 mm on the second day, respectively. This decrease in WBC/CRP values and appendix diameter was statistically significant (p < 0.001). None of the patients had an early failure, complication, or adverse event. Recurrent appendicitis occurred in only five cases (9%) that were treated by laparoscopic appendectomy during the follow-up.Conclusion: Non-operative management for acute uncomplicated appendicitis in children regarding long-term outcomes with our criteria was satisfactory and initial success rates were excellent.

Objective. To assess the predictive value of procalcitonin in detecting acute appendicitis (AP) in children, and to determine a cutoff value of procalcitonin which can safely include/exclude the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in children with acute abdominal pain. Methods. Prospective cohort study of children aged 5–17 years presenting to the emergency room with right lower quadrant (RLQ) tenderness and strong suspicion for acute AP. In addition to standard diagnostic workup for acute AP, a quantitative procalcitonin level was measured using immunoluminometric assay. Recursive partitioning model was used to assess the usefulness of procalcitonin in the diagnosis of appendicitis. Results. Of the 50 children studied, 48% were diagnosed to have AP. The mean procalcitonin level was higher among the children with appendicitis (P = 0.3). Using the recursive partitioning model, we identified a cutoff value of procalcitonin level of 0.39 with a likelihood ratio presence of appendicitis 3.25 and absence of appendicitis 0.8. None of the study subjects with procalcitonin level <0.39 and WBC count of <6.76 K had appendicitis. Conclusions. In conjunction with the clinical symptoms, a procalcitonin level and WBC count could be a strong predictor of acute appendicitis in children.

Background Several efforts have been made to find out a valuable marker to assist the diagnosis and differentiation of gangrenous/perforated appendicitis. We aimed to determine the diagnostic capacity of soluble B7H3 (sB7H3) in acute appendicitis (AA) and its accuracy as a predictor of the severity of appendicitis. Methods 182 children were allocated into four groups as follows: control group (CG, 90), simple appendicitis (SA, 12), purulent appendicitis (PA, 49), and gangrenous appendicitis (GA, 31). Prior to appendectomy, blood was collected and sent for analysis of routine examination and cytokines (sB7H3 and TNF-α). We compared values of all measured parameters according to histological findings. Furthermore, we assigned AA patients into the nonperforated appendicitis group and the perforated appendicitis group. The diagnostic effects of significant markers were assessed by ROC curves. Results Only the levels of CRP, FIB, and sB7H3 had a remarkable rising trend in AA-based groups, while differences in the levels of CRP and FIB between simple appendicitis and purulent appendicitis were not statistically significant. In addition, sB7H3 was found as the only marker in children with AA, which was markedly associated with the degree of histological findings of the appendix. Furthermore, sB7H3 had a high diagnostic value in predicting AA and complex appendicitis (PA+GA) in children. However, the diagnostic performance of sB7H3 for distinguishing PA from GA was not remarkable. Additionally, only the levels of CRP and sB7H3 were statistically different between the nonperforated appendicitis group and the perforated appendicitis group. The diagnostic performance of CRP and sB7H3 could not merely predict perforation of AA in children; however, the diagnostic performance was improved after combination. Conclusions sB7H3 could be used as a valuable marker to predict the presence of AA and complex AA in children. However, the diagnostic value of sB7H3 to predict gangrenous/perforated appendicitis was not found to be remarkable. The combination of sB7H3 and CRP might improve the prediction of perforated appendicitis.

Background: The clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis(AA) in children and adolescents is still problematic. Objectives: To evaluate the role of Mean Platelet Volume(MPV) in acute appendicitis in children and adolescents. Materials and methods: A retrospective study involving 52 test and 51 control individuals. The statistical analysis expressed as mean MPV ± standard deviation, independent ‘t’ test for calculating p values. Results: In the Group ‘T’ mean MPV was 7.48 and in Group ‘C’ was 8.02. The p value was 0.027 which is less than 0.05 indicating it was statistically significantly lower than the Group ‘C’. Conclusion: Current study indicated that MPV decreases significantly in AA group of children and adolescents. Hence we believe taking MPV into consideration will help in the diagnosis of suspected acute appendicitis in children and adolescents. Keywords: Mean platelet volume, Acute appendicitis, Children, Adolescents