Literature DB >> 27797677

Diagnostic Performance of US for Differentiating Perforated from Nonperforated Pediatric Appendicitis: A Prospective Cohort Study.

Jennifer L Carpenter1, Robert C Orth1, Wei Zhang1, Monica E Lopez1, Kate L Mangona1, R Paul Guillerman1.   

Abstract

Purpose To prospectively evaluate the diagnostic performance of ultrasonography (US) for differentiating perforated from nonperforated pediatric appendicitis and to investigate the association between specific US findings and perforation. Materials and Methods This HIPAA-compliant study had institutional review board approval, and the need for informed consent was waived. All abdominal US studies performed for suspected pediatric appendicitis at one institution from July 1, 2013, to July 9, 2014, were examined prospectively. US studies were reported by using a risk-stratified scoring system (where a score of 1 indicated a normal appendix; a score of 2, an incompletely visualized normal appendix; a score of 3, a nonvisualized appendix; a score of 4, equivocal; a score of 5a, nonperforated appendicitis; and a score of 5b, perforated appendicitis). The diagnostic performance of US studies designated 5a and 5b was calculated. The following US findings were correlated with perforation at multivariate analysis: maximum appendiceal diameter, wall thickness, loss of mural stratification, hyperemia, periappendiceal fat inflammation, periappendiceal fluid, lumen contents, and appendicolith presence. The number of symptomatic days prior to presentation was recorded. Surgical diagnosis and clinical follow-up served as reference standards. Results A total of 577 patients with a diagnosis of appendicitis at US met the study criteria (468 with a score of 5a; 109 with a score of 5b). Appendicitis was correctly identified in 573 (99.3%) of 577 patients. US performance in the detection of perforated appendicitis (5b) was as follows: a sensitivity of 44.0% (80 of 182), a specificity of 93.1% (364 of 391), a positive predictive value of 74.8% (80 of 107), and a negative predictive value of 78.1% (364 of 466). Statistically significant associations with perforated appendicitis were longer duration of symptoms (odds ratio [OR] = 1.46, P < .0001), increased maximum diameter (OR = 1.29, P < .0001), simple periappendiceal fluid (OR = 2.08, P = .002), complex periappendiceal fluid (OR = 18.5, P < .0001), fluid-filled lumen (OR = 0.34, P = .002), and appendicolith (OR = 1.67, P = .02). Conclusion US is highly specific but nonsensitive for perforated pediatric appendicitis. Several US findings are significantly associated with perforation, especially the presence of complex periappendiceal fluid. © RSNA, 2016.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27797677     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2016160175

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


  13 in total

Review 1.  Ultrasound of the pediatric appendix.

Authors:  Preetam Gongidi; Richard D Bellah
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2017-08-04

Review 2.  The state of structured reporting: the nuance of standardized language.

Authors:  Lindsey A G Shea; Alexander J Towbin
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2019-03-29

3.  Diagnostic performance of standardized ultrasound protocol for detecting perforation in pediatric appendicitis.

Authors:  Erica L Riedesel; Blake C Weber; Matthew W Shore; Randi S Cartmill; Daniel J Ostlie; Charles M Leys; Kara G Gill; Jonathan E Kohler
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2019-07-24

4.  Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound in diagnosing acute appendicitis in pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Maryam Nakhaie Moghadam; Morteza Salarzaei; Zahra Shahraki
Journal:  Emerg Radiol       Date:  2022-02-12

5.  Combining Ultrasound with a Pediatric Appendicitis Score to Distinguish Complicated from Uncomplicated Appendicitis in a Pediatric Population.

Authors:  Tran Kiem Hao; Nguyen Tien Chung; Huynh Quang Huy; Nguyen Thi My Linh; Nguyen Thanh Xuan
Journal:  Acta Inform Med       Date:  2020-06

6.  Sonographic differentiation of complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis.

Authors:  Tanja Rawolle; Marc Reismann; Maximiliane I Minderjahn; Christian Bassir; Kathrin Hauptmann; Karin Rothe; Josephine Reismann
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2019-05-29       Impact factor: 3.039

7.  Accuracy of ultrasonography for differentiating between simple and complex appendicitis in children.

Authors:  David J Nijssen; Paul van Amstel; Joost van Schuppen; Laurens D Eeftinck Schattenkerk; Ramon R Gorter; Roel Bakx
Journal:  Pediatr Surg Int       Date:  2021-03-07       Impact factor: 1.827

8.  Comparison of the appendicitis inflammatory response and Alvarado scoring systems in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in children.

Authors:  Mohammad Vaziri; Nahid Nafissi; Fariba Jahangiri; Mohammad Nasiri
Journal:  J Med Life       Date:  2021 Jan-Mar

9.  Improving diagnostic accuracy in clinically ambiguous paediatric appendicitis: a retrospective review of ultrasound and pathology findings with focus on the non-visualised appendix.

Authors:  B S Kelly; S M Bollard; A Weir; C O'Brien; D Mullen; M Kerin; P McCarthy
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-09-12       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 10.  Falling through the worm hole: an exploration of the imaging workup of the vermiform appendix in the pediatric population.

Authors:  Cassandra Sams; Rama S Ayyala; David W Swenson
Journal:  BJR Open       Date:  2019-09-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.