Literature DB >> 27519916

The clinical value of pathology tests and imaging study in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

Ko-Chin Chen1, Alon Arad2, Ko-Chien Chen3, Jonathan Storrar4, Andrew G Christy5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explore the diagnostic accuracy of acute appendicitis among different patient groups and evaluate the statistical diagnostic values of common pathology and imaging tests for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. MAIN MEASURES: Proportions of histology-proven appendicitis in different patient groups. Statistical parameters including sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (-LR) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) between the histology-proven appendicitis and abnormal results of U/S, CT, WCC, CRP, bilirubin, pancreatic, and combined test results of WCC and CRP.
RESULTS: Our data showed that up to 25.7% of patients underwent appendectomy has normal appendix. Appendicitis is often accurately diagnosed among male patients, up to 90.3% of the time, while misdiagnosis of appendicitis among young females (<40 years old) is significantly high, up to 30.9%. CT has high diagnostic performance index for appendicitis, sensitivity > 90%, and no individual pathology test out of those examined can rival the sensitivity of CT. Nevertheless, by examining the combined results of WCC and CRP, we found that abnormal results in one or both these yields sensitivity similar to CT scans in detecting acute appendicitis, up to 95%.
CONCLUSION: Young female patients have highest risk of being falsely diagnosed with acute appendicitis and hence unnecessary surgery. Bilirubin and lipase exhibit no correlations with acute appendicitis. Combined interpretation of WCC or CRP abnormal results yields competitive sensitivity as CT. Hencewe would suggest that, under the appropriate clinical context, one can use both WCC and CRP as a simple tool to support the diagnosis of appendicitis. If both tests show normal results, we would highly recommend considering alternative diagnosis. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/

Entities:  

Keywords:  Abdominal Pain; Appendicitis; Diagnosis of Appendicitis; Imaging for appendicitis; Pathology test for appendicitis

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27519916     DOI: 10.1136/postgradmedj-2015-133865

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Postgrad Med J        ISSN: 0032-5473            Impact factor:   2.401


  4 in total

1.  Factors associated with delayed diagnosis of appendicitis in adults: A single-center, retrospective, observational study.

Authors:  Taku Harada; Yukinori Harada; Juichi Hiroshige; Taro Shimizu
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-10-20       Impact factor: 3.752

2.  Computed tomography for diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adults.

Authors:  Bo Rud; Thomas S Vejborg; Eli D Rappeport; Johannes B Reitsma; Peer Wille-Jørgensen
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-11-19

Review 3.  Laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis: How to discourage surgeons using inadequate therapy.

Authors:  Tomohide Hori; Takafumi Machimoto; Yoshio Kadokawa; Toshiyuki Hata; Tatsuo Ito; Shigeru Kato; Daiki Yasukawa; Yuki Aisu; Yusuke Kimura; Maho Sasaki; Yuichi Takamatsu; Taku Kitano; Shigeo Hisamori; Tsunehiro Yoshimura
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2017-08-28       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Computerized tomography scan in acute appendicitis with eventual negative appendectomy.

Authors:  Ming Li Chia; Kwan Justin; Hui Terrence Chi Hong; G Shelat Vishal
Journal:  J Clin Transl Res       Date:  2021-05-27
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.