David W Swenson1, Gary R Schooler2, Catherine Stamoulis3, Edward Y Lee3. 1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Alpert Medical School of Brown University and Rhode Island Hospital, 593 Eddy St., Providence, RI, 02903, USA. swenson.david.w@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA. 3. Department of Radiology, Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) might prove useful in the diagnostic evaluation of pediatric appendicitis in the effort to avoid exposing children to the ionizing radiation of CT, yet there is a paucity of literature describing the normal range of appearances of the pediatric appendix on MRI. OBJECTIVE: To investigate MRI characteristics of the normal appendix to aid in establishing a reference standard in the pediatric population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of children and young adults (≤18 years of age) who underwent lumbar spine or pelvis MRI between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2013, for indications unrelated to appendicitis. Two board-certified radiologists independently reviewed all patients' MRI examinations for appendix visualization, diameter, intraluminal content signal, and presence of periappendiceal inflammation or free fluid. We used the Cohen kappa statistic and Spearman correlation coefficient to assess reader agreement on qualitative and quantitative data, respectively. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-six patients met inclusion criteria. Both readers visualized the appendix in 192/346 (55.5%) patients (kappa = 0.88, P < 0.0001). Estimated median appendix diameter was 5 mm for reader 1 and 6 mm for reader 2 ([25th, 75th] quartiles = [5, 6] mm; range, 2-11 mm; r = 0.81, P < 0.0001). Appendix intraluminal signal characteristics were variable. Periappendiceal inflammation was present in 0/192 (0%) and free fluid in 6/192 (3.1%) MRI examinations (kappa = 1.0). CONCLUSION: The normal appendix was seen on MRI in approximately half of pediatric patients, with a mean diameter of ~5-6 mm, variable intraluminal signal characteristics, no adjacent inflammatory changes, and rare surrounding free fluid.
BACKGROUND: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) might prove useful in the diagnostic evaluation of pediatric appendicitis in the effort to avoid exposing children to the ionizing radiation of CT, yet there is a paucity of literature describing the normal range of appearances of the pediatric appendix on MRI. OBJECTIVE: To investigate MRI characteristics of the normal appendix to aid in establishing a reference standard in the pediatric population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study of children and young adults (≤18 years of age) who underwent lumbar spine or pelvis MRI between Jan. 1, 2013, and Dec. 31, 2013, for indications unrelated to appendicitis. Two board-certified radiologists independently reviewed all patients' MRI examinations for appendix visualization, diameter, intraluminal content signal, and presence of periappendiceal inflammation or free fluid. We used the Cohen kappa statistic and Spearman correlation coefficient to assess reader agreement on qualitative and quantitative data, respectively. RESULTS: Three hundred forty-six patients met inclusion criteria. Both readers visualized the appendix in 192/346 (55.5%) patients (kappa = 0.88, P < 0.0001). Estimated median appendix diameter was 5 mm for reader 1 and 6 mm for reader 2 ([25th, 75th] quartiles = [5, 6] mm; range, 2-11 mm; r = 0.81, P < 0.0001). Appendix intraluminal signal characteristics were variable. Periappendiceal inflammation was present in 0/192 (0%) and free fluid in 6/192 (3.1%) MRI examinations (kappa = 1.0). CONCLUSION: The normal appendix was seen on MRI in approximately half of pediatric patients, with a mean diameter of ~5-6 mm, variable intraluminal signal characteristics, no adjacent inflammatory changes, and rare surrounding free fluid.
Entities:
Keywords:
Appendix; Children; Magnetic resonance imaging; Normal reference standard
Authors: Alisa K Johnson; Christopher G Filippi; Trevor Andrews; Timothy Higgins; Judy Tam; David Keating; Takamaru Ashikaga; Steven P Braff; Janice Gallant Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Lucila A Rosines; Daniel S Chow; Brooke S Lampl; Susie Chen; Samantha Gordon; Leonora W Mui; Gudrun Aspelund; Carrie B Ruzal-Shapiro Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Samantha Matz; Mary Connell; Madhumita Sinha; Christopher S Goettl; Palak C Patel; David Drachman Journal: J Ultrasound Med Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 2.153
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
Authors: Nattinee Leelakanok; Andrew S Phelps; Matthew A Zapala; Kambrie Kato; Michael Ohliger; Yi Li; Jesse Courtier Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2017-07-19