Mi Sung Kim1, Heon-Ju Kwon1, Kyung A Kang1, In-Gu Do2, Hee-Jin Park1, Eun Young Kim1, Hyun Pyo Hong1, Yoon Jung Choi1, Young Hwan Kim3. 1. 1 Department of Radiology , Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University, School of Medicine , Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. 2 Department of Pathology , Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University, School of Medicine , Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. 3 Department of Nuclear Medicine , Kangbuk Samsung Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University, School of Medicine , Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of ultrasound and to determine which ultrasound findings are useful to differentiate appendicitis from non-appendicitis in patients who underwent ultrasound re-evaluation owing to equivocal CT features of acute appendicitis. METHODS: 62 patients who underwent CT examinations for suspected appendicitis followed by ultrasound re-evaluation owing to equivocal CT findings were included. Equivocal CT findings were considered based on the presence of only one or two findings among the CT criteria, and ultrasound re-evaluation was done based on a predefined structured report form. The diagnostic performance of ultrasound and independent variables to discriminate appendicitis from non-appendicitis were assessed. RESULTS: There were 27 patients in the appendicitis group. The overall diagnostic performance of ultrasound re-evaluation was sensitivity of 96.3%, specificity of 91.2% and accuracy of 91.9%. In terms of the performance of individual ultrasound findings, probe-induced tenderness showed the highest accuracy (86.7%) with sensitivity of 74% and specificity of 97%, followed by non-compressibility (accuracy 71.7%, sensitivity 85.2% and specificity 60.6%). The independent ultrasound findings for discriminating appendicitis were non-compressibility (p = 0.002) and increased flow on the appendiceal wall (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Ultrasound re-evaluation can be used to improve diagnostic accuracy in cases with equivocal CT features for diagnosing appendicitis. The presence of non-compressibility and increased vascular flow on the appendix wall are useful ultrasound findings to discriminate appendicitis from non-appendicitis. Advances in knowledge: Ultrasound re-evaluation is useful to discriminate appendicitis from non-appendicitis when CT features are inconclusive.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of ultrasound and to determine which ultrasound findings are useful to differentiate appendicitis from non-appendicitis in patients who underwent ultrasound re-evaluation owing to equivocal CT features of acute appendicitis. METHODS: 62 patients who underwent CT examinations for suspected appendicitis followed by ultrasound re-evaluation owing to equivocal CT findings were included. Equivocal CT findings were considered based on the presence of only one or two findings among the CT criteria, and ultrasound re-evaluation was done based on a predefined structured report form. The diagnostic performance of ultrasound and independent variables to discriminate appendicitis from non-appendicitis were assessed. RESULTS: There were 27 patients in the appendicitis group. The overall diagnostic performance of ultrasound re-evaluation was sensitivity of 96.3%, specificity of 91.2% and accuracy of 91.9%. In terms of the performance of individual ultrasound findings, probe-induced tenderness showed the highest accuracy (86.7%) with sensitivity of 74% and specificity of 97%, followed by non-compressibility (accuracy 71.7%, sensitivity 85.2% and specificity 60.6%). The independent ultrasound findings for discriminating appendicitis were non-compressibility (p = 0.002) and increased flow on the appendiceal wall (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Ultrasound re-evaluation can be used to improve diagnostic accuracy in cases with equivocal CT features for diagnosing appendicitis. The presence of non-compressibility and increased vascular flow on the appendix wall are useful ultrasound findings to discriminate appendicitis from non-appendicitis. Advances in knowledge: Ultrasound re-evaluation is useful to discriminate appendicitis from non-appendicitis when CT features are inconclusive.
Authors: Caroline P Daly; Richard H Cohan; Isaac R Francis; Elaine M Caoili; James H Ellis; Bin Nan Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: J E Jacobs; B A Birnbaum; M Macari; A J Megibow; G Israel; D D Maki; A M Aguiar; C P Langlotz Journal: Radiology Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: M J Weyant; S R Eachempati; M A Maluccio; D E Rivadeneira; S R Grobmyer; L J Hydo; P S Barie Journal: Surgery Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 3.982
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