OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to compare the diagnostic ability of oral added intravenous (IV) contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) versus only IV contrast-enhanced MDCT in diagnosing of acute appendicitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MDCT images of 200 patients were evaluated prospectively in this study. Patients were randomized into one of two groups: Group 1 (Gp1) patients underwent 16-MDCT performed with oral and IV contrast-enhanced and Group 2 (Gp2) subjects underwent 16-MDCT with only IV contrast-enhanced protocol. Final decision was based on histopathologic operative data and follow-up of patients. RESULTS: In Gp1, Reader1 had 96.9% and 98.5% and Reader2 had 84% and 94.7% sensitivity and specificity values respectively. For Gp2, the values for Reader1 were 81% and 94%. For Reader2 in Gp2, the values were 76% and 91%. We achieved higher sensitivity and specificity values with combined contrast administration versus only IV contrast-enhanced MDCT imaging. However, there was no statistically significant differences between two readers in the AUC values of each group for the detection of acute appendicitis. CONCLUSION: It is statistically concluded that oral contrast do not contribute to the a better accuracy. So in the routine practice, oral contrast has not to be recommended.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of our study was to compare the diagnostic ability of oral added intravenous (IV) contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) versus only IV contrast-enhanced MDCT in diagnosing of acute appendicitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MDCT images of 200 patients were evaluated prospectively in this study. Patients were randomized into one of two groups: Group 1 (Gp1) patients underwent 16-MDCT performed with oral and IV contrast-enhanced and Group 2 (Gp2) subjects underwent 16-MDCT with only IV contrast-enhanced protocol. Final decision was based on histopathologic operative data and follow-up of patients. RESULTS: In Gp1, Reader1 had 96.9% and 98.5% and Reader2 had 84% and 94.7% sensitivity and specificity values respectively. For Gp2, the values for Reader1 were 81% and 94%. For Reader2 in Gp2, the values were 76% and 91%. We achieved higher sensitivity and specificity values with combined contrast administration versus only IV contrast-enhanced MDCT imaging. However, there was no statistically significant differences between two readers in the AUC values of each group for the detection of acute appendicitis. CONCLUSION: It is statistically concluded that oral contrast do not contribute to the a better accuracy. So in the routine practice, oral contrast has not to be recommended.