Hyun Cheol Kim1, Dal Mo Yang, Sang Won Kim, Seong Jin Park. 1. Department of Radiology, Kyung Hee University Hospital at Gangdong, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, 149 Sangil-dong, Gangdong-gu, Seoul 134-727, Republic of Korea. khcppp@khu.ac.kr
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To identify CT features that discriminate individuals with and without acute appendicitis in patients with equivocal CT findings, and to assess whether knowledge of these findings improves diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: 53 patients that underwent appendectomy with an indeterminate preoperative CT interpretation were selected and allocated to an acute appendicitis group or a non-appendicitis group. The 53 CT examinations were reviewed by two radiologists in consensus to identify CT findings that could aid in the discrimination of those with and without appendicitis. In addition, two additional radiologists were then requested to evaluate independently the 53 CT examinations using a 4-point scale, both before and after being informed of the potentially discriminating criteria. RESULTS: CT findings found to be significantly different in the two groups were; the presence of appendiceal wall enhancement, intraluminal air in appendix, a coexistent inflammatory lesion, and appendiceal wall thickening (P < 0.05). Areas under the curves of reviewers 1 and 2 significantly increased from 0.516 and 0.706 to 0.677 and 0.841, respectively, when reviewers were told which CT variables were significant (P = 0.0193 and P = 0.0397, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of the identified CT findings was found to improve diagnostic accuracy for acute appendicitis in patients with equivocal CT findings. KEY POINTS: • Numerous patients with clinically equivocal appendicitis do not have acute appendicitis • Computed tomography (CT) helps to reduce the negative appendectomy rate • CT is not always infallible and may also demonstrate indeterminate findings • However knowledge of significant CT variables can further reduce negative appendectomy rate • An equivocal CT interpretation of appendicitis should be reassessed with this knowledge.
OBJECTIVES: To identify CT features that discriminate individuals with and without acute appendicitis in patients with equivocal CT findings, and to assess whether knowledge of these findings improves diagnostic accuracy. METHODS: 53 patients that underwent appendectomy with an indeterminate preoperative CT interpretation were selected and allocated to an acute appendicitis group or a non-appendicitis group. The 53 CT examinations were reviewed by two radiologists in consensus to identify CT findings that could aid in the discrimination of those with and without appendicitis. In addition, two additional radiologists were then requested to evaluate independently the 53 CT examinations using a 4-point scale, both before and after being informed of the potentially discriminating criteria. RESULTS: CT findings found to be significantly different in the two groups were; the presence of appendiceal wall enhancement, intraluminal air in appendix, a coexistent inflammatory lesion, and appendiceal wall thickening (P < 0.05). Areas under the curves of reviewers 1 and 2 significantly increased from 0.516 and 0.706 to 0.677 and 0.841, respectively, when reviewers were told which CT variables were significant (P = 0.0193 and P = 0.0397, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge of the identified CT findings was found to improve diagnostic accuracy for acute appendicitis in patients with equivocal CT findings. KEY POINTS: • Numerous patients with clinically equivocal appendicitis do not have acute appendicitis • Computed tomography (CT) helps to reduce the negative appendectomy rate • CT is not always infallible and may also demonstrate indeterminate findings • However knowledge of significant CT variables can further reduce negative appendectomy rate • An equivocal CT interpretation of appendicitis should be reassessed with this knowledge.
Authors: T Rettenbacher; A Hollerweger; P Macheiner; L Rettenbacher; R Frass; B Schneider; N Gritzmann Journal: Radiology Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Pierre-Alexandre Poletti; Alexandra Platon; Thomas De Perrot; Francois Sarasin; Elisabeth Andereggen; Olivier Rutschmann; Elise Dupuis-Lozeron; Thomas Perneger; Pascal Gervaz; Christoph D Becker Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-07-30 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Caroline P Daly; Richard H Cohan; Isaac R Francis; Elaine M Caoili; James H Ellis; Bin Nan Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: M J Weyant; S R Eachempati; M A Maluccio; D E Rivadeneira; S R Grobmyer; L J Hydo; P S Barie Journal: Surgery Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Benjamin D Godwin; Frederick T Drake; Vlad V Simianu; Jabi E Shriki; Daniel S Hippe; Manjiri Dighe; Sarah Bastawrous; Carlos Cuevas; David Flum; Puneet Bhargava Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Atalie C Thompson; Eric W Olcott; Peter D Poullos; R Brooke Jeffrey; Matthew O Thompson; Jarrett Rosenberg; Lewis K Shin Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2015-02-17
Authors: Vlad V Simianu; Anna Shamitoff; Daniel S Hippe; Benjamin D Godwin; Jabi E Shriki; Frederick T Drake; Ryan B O'Malley; Suresh Maximin; Sarah Bastawrous; Mariam Moshiri; Jean H Lee; Carlos Cuevas; Manjiri Dighe; David Flum; Puneet Bhargava Journal: Curr Probl Diagn Radiol Date: 2016-08-02
Authors: Ji Ye Sim; Hyuk Jung Kim; Jae Woo Yeon; Byoung Sun Suh; Ki Ho Kim; Young Rock Ha; So Ya Paik Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-02-08 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Marc-Olivier Sauvain; Sandra Tschirky; Michael A Patak; Pierre-Alain Clavien; Dieter Hahnloser; Markus K Muller Journal: Patient Saf Surg Date: 2016-05-17
Authors: Hye-Suk Hong; Hyun Suk Cho; Ji Young Woo; Yul Lee; Ik Yang; Ji-Young Hwang; Han Myun Kim; Jeong Won Kim Journal: Korean J Radiol Date: 2016-01-06 Impact factor: 3.500