Geon Park1, Sang Chul Lee1, Byung-Jo Choi1, Say-June Kim1. 1. Geon Park, Department of Radiology, Daejeon St. Mary's Hospital, The Catholic University of Korea, Daejeon 301-723, South Korea.
Abstract
AIM: To improve the diagnostic accuracy in patients with symptoms and signs of appendicitis, but without confirmative computed tomography (CT) findings. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the database of 224 patients who had been operated on for the suspicion of appendicitis, but whose CT findings were negative or equivocal for appendicitis. The patient population was divided into two groups: a pathologically proven appendicitis group (n = 177) and a non-appendicitis group (n = 47). The CT images of these patients were re-evaluated according to the characteristic CT features as described in the literature. The re-evaluations and baseline characteristics of the two groups were compared. RESULTS: The two groups showed significant differences with respect to appendiceal diameter, and the presence of periappendiceal fat stranding and intraluminal air in the appendix. A larger proportion of patients in the appendicitis group showed distended appendices larger than 6.0 mm (66.3% vs 37.0%; P < 0.001), periappendiceal fat stranding (34.1% vs 8.9%; P = 0.001), and the absence of intraluminal air (67.6% vs 48.9%; P = 0.024) compared to the non-appendicitis group. Furthermore, the presence of two or more of these factors increased the odds ratio to 6.8 times higher than baseline (95%CI: 3.013-15.454; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Appendiceal diameter and wall thickening, fat stranding, and absence of intraluminal air can be used to increased diagnostic accuracy for appendicitis with equivocal CT findings.
AIM: To improve the diagnostic accuracy in patients with symptoms and signs of appendicitis, but without confirmative computed tomography (CT) findings. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the database of 224 patients who had been operated on for the suspicion of appendicitis, but whose CT findings were negative or equivocal for appendicitis. The patient population was divided into two groups: a pathologically proven appendicitis group (n = 177) and a non-appendicitis group (n = 47). The CT images of these patients were re-evaluated according to the characteristic CT features as described in the literature. The re-evaluations and baseline characteristics of the two groups were compared. RESULTS: The two groups showed significant differences with respect to appendiceal diameter, and the presence of periappendiceal fat stranding and intraluminal air in the appendix. A larger proportion of patients in the appendicitis group showed distended appendices larger than 6.0 mm (66.3% vs 37.0%; P < 0.001), periappendiceal fat stranding (34.1% vs 8.9%; P = 0.001), and the absence of intraluminal air (67.6% vs 48.9%; P = 0.024) compared to the non-appendicitis group. Furthermore, the presence of two or more of these factors increased the odds ratio to 6.8 times higher than baseline (95%CI: 3.013-15.454; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Appendiceal diameter and wall thickening, fat stranding, and absence of intraluminal air can be used to increased diagnostic accuracy for appendicitis with equivocal CT findings.
Authors: Vassilios Raptopoulos; Georgia Katsou; Max P Rosen; Bettina Siewert; S Nahum Goldberg; Jonathan B Kruskal Journal: Radiology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 11.105
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: J E Jacobs; B A Birnbaum; M Macari; A J Megibow; G Israel; D D Maki; A M Aguiar; C P Langlotz Journal: Radiology Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Thomas A Foley; Frank Earnest; Mark A Nathan; David M Hough; Henry J Schiller; Tanya L Hoskin Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-03-04 Impact factor: 11.105