Daniel G Rosenbaum1, Gulce Askin2, Debra M Beneck3, Arzu Kovanlikaya4. 1. Division of Pediatric Radiology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medicine, 525 E. 68th St, New York, NY, 10065, USA. dgr2001@med.cornell.edu. 2. Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 3. Department of Pathology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA. 4. Division of Pediatric Radiology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medicine, 525 E. 68th St, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pediatric appendicitis is increasing; MRI findings predictive of appendiceal perforation have not been specifically evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of MRI in differentiating perforated from non-perforated appendicitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of pediatric patients undergoing contrast-enhanced MRI and subsequent appendectomy was performed, with surgicopathological confirmation of perforation. Appendiceal diameter and the following 10 MRI findings were assessed: appendiceal restricted diffusion, wall defect, appendicolith, periappendiceal free fluid, remote free fluid, restricted diffusion within free fluid, abscess, peritoneal enhancement, ileocecal wall thickening and ileus. Two-sample t-test and chi-square tests were used to analyze continuous and discrete data, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity for individual MRI findings were calculated and optimal thresholds for measures of accuracy were selected. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients (mean age: 12.2 years) with appendicitis were included, of whom 22 had perforation. The perforated group had a larger mean appendiceal diameter and mean number of MRI findings than the non-perforated group (12.3 mm vs. 8.6 mm; 5.0 vs. 2.0, respectively). Abscess, wall defect and restricted diffusion within free fluid had the greatest specificity for perforation (1.00, 1.00 and 0.96, respectively) but low sensitivity (0.36, 0.25 and 0.32, respectively). The receiver operator characteristic curve for total number of MRI findings had an area under the curve of 0.92, with an optimal threshold of 3.5. A threshold of any 4 findings had the best ability to accurately discriminate between perforated and non-perforated cases, with a sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 85%. CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced MRI can differentiate perforated from non-perforated appendicitis. The presence of multiple findings increases diagnostic accuracy, with a threshold of any four findings optimally discriminating between perforated and non-perforated cases. These results may help guide management decisions as MRI assumes a greater role in the work-up of pediatric appendicitis.
BACKGROUND: The role of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pediatric appendicitis is increasing; MRI findings predictive of appendiceal perforation have not been specifically evaluated. OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of MRI in differentiating perforated from non-perforated appendicitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of pediatric patients undergoing contrast-enhanced MRI and subsequent appendectomy was performed, with surgicopathological confirmation of perforation. Appendiceal diameter and the following 10 MRI findings were assessed: appendiceal restricted diffusion, wall defect, appendicolith, periappendiceal free fluid, remote free fluid, restricted diffusion within free fluid, abscess, peritoneal enhancement, ileocecal wall thickening and ileus. Two-sample t-test and chi-square tests were used to analyze continuous and discrete data, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity for individual MRI findings were calculated and optimal thresholds for measures of accuracy were selected. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients (mean age: 12.2 years) with appendicitis were included, of whom 22 had perforation. The perforated group had a larger mean appendiceal diameter and mean number of MRI findings than the non-perforated group (12.3 mm vs. 8.6 mm; 5.0 vs. 2.0, respectively). Abscess, wall defect and restricted diffusion within free fluid had the greatest specificity for perforation (1.00, 1.00 and 0.96, respectively) but low sensitivity (0.36, 0.25 and 0.32, respectively). The receiver operator characteristic curve for total number of MRI findings had an area under the curve of 0.92, with an optimal threshold of 3.5. A threshold of any 4 findings had the best ability to accurately discriminate between perforated and non-perforated cases, with a sensitivity of 82% and specificity of 85%. CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced MRI can differentiate perforated from non-perforated appendicitis. The presence of multiple findings increases diagnostic accuracy, with a threshold of any four findings optimally discriminating between perforated and non-perforated cases. These results may help guide management decisions as MRI assumes a greater role in the work-up of pediatric appendicitis.
Entities:
Keywords:
Appendicitis; Children; Gadolinium-based contrast medium; Magnetic resonance imaging; Perforation
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: Peter C Minneci; Justin B Mahida; Daniel L Lodwick; Jason P Sulkowski; Kristine M Nacion; Jennifer N Cooper; Erica J Ambeba; R Lawrence Moss; Katherine J Deans Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2016-05-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Jan F Svensson; Barbora Patkova; Markus Almström; Hussein Naji; Nigel J Hall; Simon Eaton; Agostino Pierro; Tomas Wester Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: John D Mathews; Anna V Forsythe; Zoe Brady; Martin W Butler; Stacy K Goergen; Graham B Byrnes; Graham G Giles; Anthony B Wallace; Philip R Anderson; Tenniel A Guiver; Paul McGale; Timothy M Cain; James G Dowty; Adrian C Bickerstaffe; Sarah C Darby Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-05-21
Authors: Salomone Di Saverio; Mauro Podda; Belinda De Simone; Marco Ceresoli; Goran Augustin; Alice Gori; Marja Boermeester; Massimo Sartelli; Federico Coccolini; Antonio Tarasconi; Nicola De' Angelis; Dieter G Weber; Matti Tolonen; Arianna Birindelli; Walter Biffl; Ernest E Moore; Michael Kelly; Kjetil Soreide; Jeffry Kashuk; Richard Ten Broek; Carlos Augusto Gomes; Michael Sugrue; Richard Justin Davies; Dimitrios Damaskos; Ari Leppäniemi; Andrew Kirkpatrick; Andrew B Peitzman; Gustavo P Fraga; Ronald V Maier; Raul Coimbra; Massimo Chiarugi; Gabriele Sganga; Adolfo Pisanu; Gian Luigi De' Angelis; Edward Tan; Harry Van Goor; Francesco Pata; Isidoro Di Carlo; Osvaldo Chiara; Andrey Litvin; Fabio C Campanile; Boris Sakakushev; Gia Tomadze; Zaza Demetrashvili; Rifat Latifi; Fakri Abu-Zidan; Oreste Romeo; Helmut Segovia-Lohse; Gianluca Baiocchi; David Costa; Sandro Rizoli; Zsolt J Balogh; Cino Bendinelli; Thomas Scalea; Rao Ivatury; George Velmahos; Roland Andersson; Yoram Kluger; Luca Ansaloni; Fausto Catena Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 5.469
Authors: Jyotsna Bhattacharya; Ellen J Silver; Einat Blumfield; Dominique M Jan; Betsy C Herold; David L Goldman Journal: Front Pediatr Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 3.418
Authors: Heike E Daldrup-Link; Ashok J Theruvath; Ali Rashidi; Michael Iv; Robbie G Majzner; Sheri L Spunt; Stuart Goodman; Michael Moseley Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2021-05-27