Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Omental infarction mimicking acute appendicitis with negative radiological findings
  1. Kelvin Miu,
  2. Mohammad Yousef and
  3. Arifa Siddika
  1. General Surgery, Homerton University Hospital, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Kelvin Miu; kelvin.miu{at}


A male in his 30s presented to the emergency department with a 1-day history of supra-umbilical pain migrating to the right iliac fossa. On examination, his abdomen was soft but tender with localised guarding in the right iliac fossa and a positive Rovsing’s sign. The patient was admitted under a presumptive diagnosis of acute appendicitis. A CT scan and ultrasound scan of the abdomen and pelvis showed no acute intra-abdominal pathology. He stayed in hospital for 2 days for observation without improvement of symptoms. A diagnostic laparoscopy was therefore performed that revealed an infarcted omentum adherent to the abdominal wall and ascending colon causing congestion of the appendix. The infarcted omentum was resected, and the appendix was removed. The CT images were reviewed by multiple consultant radiologists, but no positive findings were appreciated. This case report demonstrates the potential difficulty in diagnosing omental infarction clinically and radiologically.

  • Gastrointestinal surgery

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Contributors KM: conception and writing of the paper. MY: conception and editing of the paper. AS: editing of the paper and the final approval of the version to be submitted.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Case reports provide a valuable learning resource for the scientific community and can indicate areas of interest for future research. They should not be used in isolation to guide treatment choices or public health policy.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.