PURPOSE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of modified focused appendiceal computed tomography (CT) to exclude or confirm appendicitis in patients who presented with equivocal symptoms and signs of appendicitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred patients (age range, 14-81 years; mean age, 30.6 years) with equivocal symptoms and signs of acute appendicitis were included in this prospective study. Patients were given 30 mL of diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium and 60 mL of sorbitol mixed in 1 L of water orally over 1 hour. CT was performed 1.5 hours after the commencement of oral contrast material administration. The criteria used for the diagnosis of appendicitis were (a) appendix greater than 6 mm in maximum diameter, (b) no contrast material in the appendiceal lumen, and (c) inflammatory changes in the periappendiceal fat. CT results were compared with histopathologic findings at appendectomy. Patients with negative CT findings were followed up by telephone or clinically. RESULTS: Of 100 cases, 30 were positive at CT and 70 were negative. There were 28 true-positive cases; two false-positive cases, one cecal diverticulitis and one pelvic peritonitis with periappendicitis; and two false-negative cases, one perforated appendix and one mucosal and submucosal inflammation of the appendix but no transmural inflammation. Sensitivity was 93%, specificity was 97%, and accuracy was 96%. CONCLUSION: Focused appendiceal CT in which oral contrast material is used alone yields high levels of accuracy in clinically equivocal cases of acute appendicitis.
PURPOSE: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of modified focused appendiceal computed tomography (CT) to exclude or confirm appendicitis in patients who presented with equivocal symptoms and signs of appendicitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred patients (age range, 14-81 years; mean age, 30.6 years) with equivocal symptoms and signs of acute appendicitis were included in this prospective study. Patients were given 30 mL of diatrizoate meglumine and diatrizoate sodium and 60 mL of sorbitol mixed in 1 L of water orally over 1 hour. CT was performed 1.5 hours after the commencement of oral contrast material administration. The criteria used for the diagnosis of appendicitis were (a) appendix greater than 6 mm in maximum diameter, (b) no contrast material in the appendiceal lumen, and (c) inflammatory changes in the periappendiceal fat. CT results were compared with histopathologic findings at appendectomy. Patients with negative CT findings were followed up by telephone or clinically. RESULTS: Of 100 cases, 30 were positive at CT and 70 were negative. There were 28 true-positive cases; two false-positive cases, one cecal diverticulitis and one pelvic peritonitis with periappendicitis; and two false-negative cases, one perforated appendix and one mucosal and submucosal inflammation of the appendix but no transmural inflammation. Sensitivity was 93%, specificity was 97%, and accuracy was 96%. CONCLUSION: Focused appendiceal CT in which oral contrast material is used alone yields high levels of accuracy in clinically equivocal cases of acute appendicitis.
Authors: Alexandra Platon; Helmi Jlassi; Olivier T Rutschmann; Christoph D Becker; Francis R Verdun; Pascal Gervaz; Pierre-Alexandre Poletti Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 5.315