| Literature DB >> 29075917 |
S T van Dijk1, L Daniels1, C Y Nio2, I Somers2, A A W van Geloven3, M A Boermeester4.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Since outpatient treatment and omitting antibiotics for uncomplicated acute colonic diverticulitis have been proven to be safe in the majority of patients, selection of patients that may not be suited for this treatment strategy becomes an important topic. The aim of this study is to identify computed tomography (CT) imaging predictors for a complicated disease course of initially uncomplicated acute diverticulitis.Entities:
Keywords: Acute diverticulitis; CT imaging; Complicated; Disease progression; Uncomplicated
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29075917 PMCID: PMC5691097 DOI: 10.1007/s00384-017-2919-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Colorectal Dis ISSN: 0179-1958 Impact factor: 2.571
Fig. 1CT slide showing pericolic inflammation secondary to acute diverticulitis. Pericolic inflammation is measured using a mean region of interest (ROI) resulting in an area of inflammation of 23.65 cm2 with a mean Hounsfield unit of + 17.40
Comparison of CT-scan characteristics in uncomplicated acute diverticulitis patients remaining without complications vs. patients developing complications after an at first uncomplicated episode
| Without complications ( | Developed complications ( | |
|---|---|---|
| Tube kilovoltage (kVp)† | 120 (120–120) | 120 (120–120) |
| Tube current milliampere second (mAs)† | 165 (108–202) | 177 (115–238) |
| Slice thickness (mm)† | 5.00 (3.00–5.00) | 4.00 (3.00–5.00) |
| Multiplanar reconstruction—no (%) | ||
| Axial | 32 (100%) | 16 (100%) |
| Coronal | 30 (94%) | 12 (75%) |
| Sagittal | 11 (34%) | 4 (25%) |
| Image quality—no (%) | ||
| Good | 27 (84%) | 14 (87%) |
| Moderate | 5 (16%) | 2 (13%) |
| Contrast—no (%) | ||
| Intravenous | 27 (84%) | 15 (94%) |
| Oral | 17 (53%) | 9 (56%) |
| Deepest level reached | ||
| Small intestine | 3 (18%) | 4 (44%) |
| Caecum/transverse colon | 2 (12%) | 4 (44%) |
| Descending colon/sigmoid | 6 (35%) | 0 (0%) |
| Rectum | 6 (35%) | 1 (12%) |
| Rectal | 2 (6%) | 0 (0%) |
†Median and interquartile ranges
Comparison of radiological findings in uncomplicated acute diverticulitis patients remaining without complications vs. patients developing complications after an at first uncomplicated episode
| Without complications | Developed complications | P value | Interrater reliability# | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consensus | No consensus | Consensus | No consensus | |||
| Extraluminal air present—no (%) | 8 (25) | 1 (3) | 5 (31) | 3 (19) | 0.735 | 0.81 |
| Location | ||||||
| Pericolic | 7 | 1 | 4 | 2 | ||
| Distant | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | ||
| Free fluid present—no (%) | 3 (9) | 3 (9) | 4 (25) | 1 (6) | 0.201 | 0.68 |
| Location | ||||||
| Pericolic | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Anterior of the rectum | 0 | 4 | 3 | 3 | ||
| Paracolic/subphrenic | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Fluid collection present—no (%) | 0 (0) | 2 (6) | 4 (25) | 1 (6) | 0.009 | 0.70 |
| Location | ||||||
| Pericolic | 0 | 2 | 4 | 0 | ||
| Anterior of the rectum | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Paracolic/subphrenic | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Entrapped air | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | ||
| Enhancing wall | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 | ||
| Largest axial diameter (mm)‡ | 30,0 ± 9,9 | 35,0 ± 9,9 | ||||
| Colonic diverticula present—no (%) | 31 (97) | 1 (3) | 16 (100) | 0 (0) | 1.000 | N/A** |
| Location | ||||||
| Only in inflamed segment—no (%) | 0 | 8 | 3 | 1 | ||
| Total number in entire colon | ||||||
| < 5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 1 | ||
| 5–10 | 2 | 9 | 2 | 3 | ||
| 10–20 | 3 | 10 | 3 | 4 | ||
| > 20 | 13 | 5 | 6 | 2 | ||
| Diameter largest diverticulum (mm)‡ | 11.5 ± 2.3 | 10.2 ± 2.2 | 0.154 | 0.42$ | ||
| Inflamed colon segment present—no (%) | 32 (100) | 0 (0) | 16 (100) | 0 (0) | ||
| Location | ||||||
| Descending colon | 7 | 6 | 0 | 2 | ||
| Sigmoid | 19 | 6 | 14 | 2 | ||
| Length of inflamed segment (mm)‡ | 65.2 ± 21.0 | 85.0 ± 25.6 | 0.007 | 0.46$ | ||
| Pericolic inflammation present¶—no(%) | 3 (9) | 7 (22) | 0.097 | 0.47 | ||
| Area of inflammation (cm2)‡ | 10.7 ± 5.1 | 13.4 ± 5.5 | 0.378 | 0.67$ | ||
| Colonic wall | ||||||
| Maximal colonic wall thickness | 11.7 ± 3.0 | 13.5 ± 2.9 | 0.060 | 0.58$ | ||
| Enhancing colonic wall*—no (%) | 5 (19) | 11 (41) | 4 (27) | 5 (33) | 0.698 | 0.46 |
| Lymph nodes enlarged—no (%) | 0 (0) | 10 (31) | 2 (13) | 1 (6) | 0.106 | 0.19 |
| Size > 1 cm | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Multiple small | 0 | 10 | 2 | 1 | ||
‡Mean and standard deviation
¶ROI average greater than 0 Hounsfield unit
*6 CTs performed without intravenous contrast
#Interrater reliability is calculated as Cohen’s kappa value unless indicated otherwise
$Interrater reliability is calculated as intra-class correlation coefficient
**Cohen’s kappa could not be calculated because one of the radiologists rated all patients positively
Consensus: only patients that both radiologists independently agreed upon
No consensus: only patients that were designated for that outcome by one radiologist