Literature DB >> 24646110

Prospective comparison of MR imaging and US for the diagnosis of pediatric appendicitis.

Robert C Orth1, R Paul Guillerman, Wei Zhang, Prakash Masand, George S Bisset.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To prospectively compare nonenhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and ultrasonography (US) for the diagnosis of pediatric appendicitis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the institutional review board, and written informed consent was obtained from the patient's parent or guardian. Eighty-one patients (34 male, 47 female; mean age, 12.3 years ± 3.5 [standard deviation]; range, 4-17 years) were enrolled in this prospective study. All patients underwent right lower quadrant US and nonenhanced, nonsedated abdominopelvic MR imaging examinations. Two pediatric radiologists blinded to US results independently reviewed the MR images. MR imaging and US findings were designated positive, negative, or equivocal for acute appendicitis. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated for MR imaging and US and compared by using two-sided McNemar test or the score statistics specified by Leisenring. Kappa statistics were generated to determine intertechnique agreement between MR imaging and US and interobserver agreement between the two primary MR imaging readers.
RESULTS: Thirty (37%) patients had pathologically proved acute appendicitis. When equivocal interpretations were designated positive, sensitivity was 93.3% for MR imaging (95% confidence interval [CI]: 77.9%, 99.2%) and 90.0% for US (95% CI: 73.5%, 97.9%), P > .99; specificity was 98% for MR imaging (95% CI: 89.6%, 100%) and 86.3% for US (95% CI:73.7%, 94.3%), P = .03; PPV was 96.5% for MR imaging (95% CI: 82.2%, 99.9%) and 79.4% for US (95% CI: 62.1%, 91.3%), P = .007; and NPV was 96.2% for MR imaging (95% CI: 86.8%, 99.5%) and 93.6% for US (95% CI: 82.4%, 98.7%), P = .45, with substantial intertechnique (κ = 0.77; 95% CI: 0.63, 0.90) and interobserver (κ = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.91) agreement. When equivocal interpretations were designated negative, MR imaging sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were unchanged. For US, sensitivity was 86.7% (95% CI: 69.3%, 96.2%), P = .5; specificity was 100% (95% CI: 93.0%, 100%), P > .99; PPV was 100% (95% CI: 86.8%, 100%), P = .31; and NPV was 92.7% (95% CI: 82.4%, 98.0%), P = .16, with almost perfect intertechnique (κ = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.83, 1.00) and substantial interobserver (κ = 0.72; 95% CI: 0.58, 0.87) agreement.
CONCLUSION: Nonenhanced MR imaging demonstrates high diagnostic performance similar to that of US for suspected pediatric appendicitis. © RSNA, 2014.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24646110     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14132206

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  20 in total

1.  Performance characteristics of magnetic resonance imaging without contrast agents or sedation in pediatric appendicitis.

Authors:  Ryne A Didier; Katharine L Hopkins; Fergus V Coakley; Sanjay Krishnaswami; David M Spiro; Bryan R Foster
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2017-06-19

Review 2.  Pediatric appendicitis: state of the art review.

Authors:  Rebecca M Rentea; Shawn D St Peter; Charles L Snyder
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2016-10-14       Impact factor: 1.827

3.  Ultrasound-ultrasound image overlay fusion improves real-time control of radiofrequency ablation margin in the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma.

Authors:  Yasunori Minami; Tomohiro Minami; Satoru Hagiwara; Hiroshi Ida; Kazuomi Ueshima; Naoshi Nishida; Takamichi Murakami; Masatoshi Kudo
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 5.315

4.  Ultrasound, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging - which is preferred for acute appendicitis in children? A Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Hanfei Zhang; Meiyan Liao; Jie Chen; Dongyong Zhu; Sama Byanju
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2016-11-04

5.  Diagnostic utility of intravenous contrast for MR imaging in pediatric appendicitis.

Authors:  Gray R Lyons; Pooja Renjen; Gulce Askin; Ashley E Giambrone; Debra Beneck; Arzu Kovanlikaya
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2017-01-21

6.  Pediatric appendiceal ultrasound: accuracy, determinacy and clinical outcomes.

Authors:  Larry A Binkovitz; Kyle M L Unsdorfer; Prabin Thapa; Amy B Kolbe; Nathan C Hull; Shannon N Zingula; Kristen B Thomas; James L Homme
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2015-08-18

7.  Development and validation of an ultrasound scoring system for children with suspected acute appendicitis.

Authors:  Sara C Fallon; Robert C Orth; R Paul Guillerman; Martha M Munden; Wei Zhang; Simone C Elder; Andrea T Cruz; Mary L Brandt; Monica E Lopez; George S Bisset
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2015-08-18

8.  Secondary imaging for suspected appendicitis after equivocal ultrasound: time to disposition of MRI compared to CT.

Authors:  James F Martin; David J Mathison; Paul C Mullan; Hansel J Otero
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2017-12-16

9.  Searching for certainty: findings predictive of appendicitis in equivocal ultrasound exams.

Authors:  Morgan E Telesmanich; Robert C Orth; Wei Zhang; Monica E Lopez; Jennifer L Carpenter; Nadia Mahmood; Siddharth P Jadhav; R Paul Guillerman
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2016-06-09

Review 10.  Magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric appendicitis: a systematic review.

Authors:  Michael M Moore; Afif N Kulaylat; Christopher S Hollenbeak; Brett W Engbrecht; Jonathan R Dillman; Sosamma T Methratta
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2016-05-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.