|
1
|
Bonomo RA, Tamma PD, Abrahamian FM, Bessesen M, Chow AW, Dellinger EP, Edwards MS, Goldstein E, Hayden MK, Humphries R, Kaye KS, Potoski BA, Rodríguez-Baño J, Sawyer R, Skalweit M, Snydman DR, Donnelly K, Loveless J. 2024 Clinical Practice Guideline Update by the Infectious Diseases Society of America on Complicated Intra-abdominal Infections: Diagnostic Imaging of Suspected Acute Appendicitis in Adults, Children, and Pregnant People. Clin Infect Dis 2024; 79:S94-S103. [PMID: 38963819 DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciae348] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/19/2024] [Accepted: 06/27/2024] [Indexed: 07/06/2024] Open
Abstract
This paper is part of a clinical practice guideline update on the risk assessment, diagnostic imaging, and microbiological evaluation of complicated intra-abdominal infections in adults, children, and pregnant people, developed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA). In this paper, the panel provides recommendations for diagnostic imaging of suspected acute appendicitis. The panel's recommendations are based on evidence derived from systematic literature reviews and adhere to a standardized methodology for rating the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendation according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert A Bonomo
- Medical Service, Louis Stokes Cleveland Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
- Clinician Scientist Investigator, Research Service, Louis Stokes Cleveland Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
- Departments of Medicine, Pharmacology, Molecular Biology and Microbiology, Biochemistry, and Proteomics and Bioinformatics, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
- CWRU-Cleveland VAMC Center for Antimicrobial Resistance and Epidemiology (Case VA CARES) Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - Pranita D Tamma
- Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
| | - Fredrick M Abrahamian
- Department of Emergency Medicine, Olive View-University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Medical Center, Sylmar, California, USA
- David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA
| | - Mary Bessesen
- Department of Medicine, Veterans Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care, Aurora, Colorado, USA
- Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA
| | - Anthony W Chow
- Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | | | - Morven S Edwards
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
| | | | - Mary K Hayden
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, USA
| | - Romney Humphries
- Division of Laboratory Medicine, Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | - Keith S Kaye
- Division of Allergy, Immunology and Infectious Diseases, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA
| | - Brian A Potoski
- Department of Pharmacy and Therapeutics, University of Pittsburgh School of Pharmacy, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA
| | - Jesús Rodríguez-Baño
- Division of Infectious Diseases and Microbiology, Department of Medicine, Hospital Universitario Virgen Macarena, University of Seville, Biomedicines Institute of Seville-Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Seville, Spain
| | - Robert Sawyer
- Department of Surgery, Western Michigan University Homer Stryker MD School of Medicine, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
| | - Marion Skalweit
- Department of Medicine and Biochemistry, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Cleveland, Ohio, USA
| | - David R Snydman
- Division of Geographic Medicine and Infectious Diseases, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Katelyn Donnelly
- Clinical Affairs and Practice Guidelines, Infectious Diseases Society of America, Arlington, Virginia, USA
| | - Jennifer Loveless
- Clinical Affairs and Practice Guidelines, Infectious Diseases Society of America, Arlington, Virginia, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Lamm R, Kumar SS, Collings AT, Haskins IN, Abou-Setta A, Narula N, Nepal P, Hanna NM, Athanasiadis DI, Scholz S, Bradley JF, Train AT, Pucher PH, Quinteros F, Slater B. Diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Surg Endosc 2023; 37:8933-8990. [PMID: 37914953 DOI: 10.1007/s00464-023-10456-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2023] [Accepted: 09/07/2023] [Indexed: 11/03/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The optimal diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis remains controversial. This systematic review details the evidence and current best practices for the evaluation and management of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis in adults and children. METHODS Eight questions regarding the diagnosis and management of appendicitis were formulated. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane and clinicaltrials.gov/NLM were queried for articles published from 2010 to 2022 with key words related to at least one question. Randomized and non-randomized studies were included. Two reviewers screened each publication for eligibility and then extracted data from eligible studies. Random effects meta-analyses were performed on all quantitative data. The quality of randomized and non-randomized studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 or Newcastle Ottawa Scale, respectively. RESULTS 2792 studies were screened and 261 were included. Most had a high risk of bias. Computerized tomography scan yielded the highest sensitivity (> 80%) and specificity (> 93%) in the adult population, although high variability existed. In adults with uncomplicated appendicitis, non-operative management resulted in higher odds of readmission (OR 6.10) and need for operation (OR 20.09), but less time to return to work/school (SMD - 1.78). In pediatric patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, non-operative management also resulted in higher odds of need for operation (OR 38.31). In adult patients with complicated appendicitis, there were higher odds of need for operation following antibiotic treatment only (OR 29.00), while pediatric patients had higher odds of abscess formation (OR 2.23). In pediatric patients undergoing appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, higher risk of reoperation at any time point was observed in patients who had drains placed at the time of operation (RR 2.04). CONCLUSIONS This review demonstrates the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis remains nuanced. A personalized approach and appropriate patient selection remain key to treatment success. Further research on controversies in treatment would be useful for optimal management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ryan Lamm
- Department of Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA
| | - Sunjay S Kumar
- Department of Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
- Thomas Jefferson University, 1015 Walnut Street, 613 Curtis, Philadelphia, PA, 19107, USA.
| | - Amelia T Collings
- Hiram C. Polk, Jr Department of Surgery, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA
| | - Ivy N Haskins
- Department of Surgery, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, NE, USA
| | - Ahmed Abou-Setta
- Centre for Healthcare Innovation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada
| | - Nisha Narula
- Department of Surgery, Rutgers, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA
| | - Pramod Nepal
- Division of Colon and Rectal Surgery, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
| | - Nader M Hanna
- Department of Surgery, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada
| | | | - Stefan Scholz
- Division of General and Thoracic Pediatric Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
| | - Joel F Bradley
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA
| | - Arianne T Train
- Department of Surgery, Penn Medicine Lancaster General Health, Lancaster, PA, USA
| | - Philip H Pucher
- Department of Surgery, Queen Alexandra Hospital, Portsmouth Hospitals University NHS Trust, Portsmouth, UK
| | - Francisco Quinteros
- Division of Colorectal Surgery, Advocate Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, IL, USA
| | - Bethany Slater
- Division of Pediatric Surgery, University of Chicago Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
3
|
Kermanian V, Taheri A, Raeisi E, Aazami MH, Dayani MA, Shahbazi-Gahrouei D. The Rationality to Requesting in-ward Magnetic Resonance Imaging Investigation. J Biomed Phys Eng 2023; 13:367-376. [PMID: 37609509 PMCID: PMC10440405 DOI: 10.31661/jbpe.v0i0.2009-1192] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2020] [Accepted: 10/04/2020] [Indexed: 08/24/2023]
Abstract
Background Magnetic Resonance imaging (MRI) is a valuable diagnostic tool by its non-invasive/non-ionizing nature. Objective This study aims to determine justification of MRI in hospitalized patients at a tertiary provincial referent medical center in a one-year period. Material and Methods In the present retrospective and descriptive cross-sectional study, 438 admitted patients referred for MRI during 2017 were selected using systematic random sampling. The age, gender, investigated organ, the specialty of requesting physician, MRI with and without contrast, MRI diagnostic outcome were collected using checklists. Descriptive statistics and chi-square test were used for data analysis. Results The mean age of the patients was 42±26 years-old and female represented 53% of enrolled patients. The most and less prevalent investigated organs were the cerebrum and the orbit. After excluding cancer diagnosis, cancer staging, and therapeutic follow-up exams, MRI request was oriented in 64.3% and 77.2% of positive results was concordant with aforementioned diagnostic orientation (P<0.001). Oriented diagnostic MRI requesting is influenced by age, medical specialists and, investigated organ (P<0.001). The positive MRI is influenced significantly by oriented MRI request, gender, medical specialists and investigated organ (P<0.001). The diagnosis concordance of MRI is influenced significantly by oriented MRI request, medical specialists and investigated organ (P<0.001). Conclusion Appropriate implementation of medical imaging requires boosting employed rationality by the concerned physicians. The current suboptimal results to requesting MRI rationality should mandate supplementary educational programs as to incite the medical corpus more closely implementing the published medical practice guidelines.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vahid Kermanian
- Department of Clinical Radiology, Kashani and Hajar University Hospitals, School of Medicine, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran
| | - Abdolmajid Taheri
- Department of Clinical Radiology, Kashani and Hajar University Hospitals, School of Medicine, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran
| | - Elham Raeisi
- Department of Medical Physics and Radiology, School of Allied Medical Sciences, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran
| | - Mathias Hossain Aazami
- Department of Cardiology and Cardiac Surgery, Kashani and Hajar University Hospitals, School of Medicine, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran
| | - Mohamad-Ali Dayani
- Department of Clinical Radiology, Kashani and Hajar University Hospitals, School of Medicine, Shahrekord University of Medical Sciences, Shahrekord, Iran
| | - Daryoush Shahbazi-Gahrouei
- Department of Medical Physics, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
| |
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Aziz O, Nevin S, Serhan Y, Hakan B, Abdulkadir A. What is the margin of error of surgeons and radiological imaging in diagnosing acute appendicitis? Niger J Clin Pract 2023; 26:881-888. [PMID: 37635570 DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_284_22] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/29/2023]
Abstract
Background Acute appendicitis is the most common emergency requiring surgical intervention in general surgery. Negative appendectomy is defined as the removal of a pathologically normal appendix. Aim In this study, we aimed to show our negative appendectomy rate. Materials and Methods This study was carried out among 2990 patients who were operated on for appendicitis between 2015-2020 at the Health Sciences University, İstanbul Kanuni Sultan Suleyman Training, and Research Hospital. Accrual and historical records of the patients were analyzed using NCSS (Number Cruncher Statistical System) 2007 Statistical Software (Utah, USA) package program. The results were evaluated at the significance level of P < 0.05. Results The mean age of all patients was 33. Of the patients, 1011 were women and 1979 were men. 27 of the women patients were pregnant. We requested a blood test (WBC count) and an abdominal ultrasound for all our patients who came with the complaint of abdominal pain in the right lower quadrant. Negative appendectomy was performed with ultrasonography in 622 patients with pathological diagnoses of lymphoid hyperplasia and fibrous obliteration (20.8%). We had abdominal computerized tomography (CT) for 285 patients and abdominal magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for 16 of 27 pregnant women (59.25%) due to unclear clinical picture. Diagnostic laparoscopy was performed in 36 of the patients who underwent CT and 4 of the patients who underwent MRI since the diagnosis could not be made. We performed unnecessary appendectomy in 21.2% of the patients. Conclusion With the increasing clinical follow-up experience of surgeons and developing technology in radiology, our aim is to minimize the negative appendectomy rate as much as possible.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- O Aziz
- General Surgery Department, Health Sciences University, İstanbul Kanuni Sultan Suleyman Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - S Nevin
- General Surgery Department, İstanbul Medipol University, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - Y Serhan
- General Surgery Department, Health Sciences University, İstanbul Kanuni Sultan Suleyman Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - B Hakan
- General Surgery Department, Health Sciences University, İstanbul Kanuni Sultan Suleyman Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| | - A Abdulkadir
- Radiology Department, Medipol Bahcelievler Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
|
5
|
Kambadakone AR, Santillan CS, Kim DH, Fowler KJ, Birkholz JH, Camacho MA, Cash BD, Dane B, Felker RA, Grossman EJ, Korngold EK, Liu PS, Marin D, McCrary M, Pietryga JA, Weinstein S, Zukotynski K, Carucci LR. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Right Lower Quadrant Pain: 2022 Update. J Am Coll Radiol 2022; 19:S445-S461. [PMID: 36436969 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2022.09.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2022] [Accepted: 09/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/27/2022]
Abstract
This document focuses on imaging in the adult and pregnant populations with right lower quadrant (RLQ) abdominal pain, including patients with fever and leukocytosis. Appendicitis remains the most common surgical pathology responsible for RLQ abdominal pain in the United States. Other causes of RLQ pain include right colonic diverticulitis, ureteral stone, and infectious enterocolitis. Appropriate imaging in the diagnosis of appendicitis has resulted in decreased negative appendectomy rate from as high as 25% to approximately 1% to 3%. Contrast-enhanced CT remains the primary and most appropriate imaging modality to evaluate this patient population. MRI is approaching CT in sensitivity and specificity as this technology becomes more widely available and utilization increases. Unenhanced MRI and ultrasound remain the diagnostic procedures of choice in the pregnant patient. MRI and ultrasound continue to perform best in the hands of the experts. The ACR Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer-reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances in which peer-reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Avinash R Kambadakone
- Division Chief, Abdominal Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Medical Director, Martha's Vineyard Hospital Imaging.
| | - Cynthia S Santillan
- Vice Chair of Clinical Operations, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, California
| | - David H Kim
- Panel Chair; Vice Chair of Education, Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin Hospital & Clinics, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Kathryn J Fowler
- Panel Vice-Chair, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, California. ACR LI-RADS; Division Chief, SAR Portfolio Director; RSNA Radiology Senior DE
| | - James H Birkholz
- Divisional Director, Quality and Safety (Abdominal Imaging), Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Hershey, Pennsylvania. Radiology Representative to the Interdisciplinary Dysmotility (GIMIG) Conference
| | - Marc A Camacho
- The University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, Florida; Committee on Emergency Radiology-GSER
| | - Brooks D Cash
- Chief of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition Division, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston and McGovern Medical School, Houston, Texas; American Gastroenterological Association
| | - Bari Dane
- Director of Body CT, Abdominal Imaging; Director of Quality and Safety Outpatient Imaging, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, New York
| | - Robin A Felker
- Associate Clerkship Director for Internal Medicine, Georgetown University; Primary care physician, Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia
| | - Eric J Grossman
- Medical Director, Multi-Specialty Clinic, Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, Santa Barbara, California; American College of Surgeons
| | - Elena K Korngold
- Section Chief, Body Imaging, Chair, Department of Radiology Promotion and Tenure Committee, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon
| | - Peter S Liu
- Section Head, Abdominal Imaging, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio
| | - Daniele Marin
- Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Marion McCrary
- Associate Director of Duke GME Coaching, Duke Signature Care, Durham, North Carolina; American College of Physicians; Governor-Elect, American College of Physicians North Carolina Chapter
| | | | | | - Katherine Zukotynski
- Co-Associate Chair for Research, Department of Radiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Commission on Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging
| | - Laura R Carucci
- Specialty Chair; Section Chief Abdominal Imaging, Director of MRI and CT, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia
| |
Collapse
|
|
6
|
D'Souza N, Hicks G, Beable R, Higginson A, Rud B. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 12:CD012028. [PMID: 34905621 PMCID: PMC8670723 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd012028.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Appendicitis remains a difficult disease to diagnose, and imaging adjuncts are commonly employed. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is an imaging test that can be used to diagnose appendicitis. It is not commonly regarded as a first-line imaging test for appendicitis, but the reported diagnostic accuracy in some studies is equivalent to computed tomography (CT) scans. As it does not expose patients to radiation, it is an attractive imaging modality, particularly in women and children. OBJECTIVES The primary objective was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of MRI for detecting appendicitis in all patients. Secondary objectives: To investigate the accuracy of MRI in subgroups of pregnant women, children, and adults. To investigate the potential influence of MRI scanning variables such as sequences, slice thickness, or field of view. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase until February 2021. We searched the references of included studies and other systematic reviews to identify further studies. We did not exclude studies that were unpublished, published in another language, or retrospective. SELECTION CRITERIA We included studies that compared the outcome of an MRI scan for suspected appendicitis with a reference standard of histology, intraoperative findings, or clinical follow-up. Three study team members independently filtered search results for eligible studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We independently extracted study data and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy - Revised (QUADAS-2) tool. We used the bivariate model to calculate pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity. MAIN RESULTS We identified 58 studies with sufficient data for meta-analysis including a total of 7462 participants (1980 with and 5482 without acute appendicitis). Estimates of sensitivity ranged from 0.18 to 1.0; estimates of specificity ranged from 0.4 to 1.0. Summary sensitivity was 0.95 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 0.97); summary specificity was 0.96 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.97). Sensitivity and specificity remained high on subgroup analysis for pregnant women (sensitivity 0.96 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99); specificity 0.97 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.98); 21 studies, 2282 women); children (sensitivity 0.96 (95% CI 0.95 to 0.97); specificity 0.96 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.98); 17 studies, 2794 children); and adults (sensitivity 0.96 (95% CI 0.93 to 0.97); specificity 0.93 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.98); 9 studies, 1088 participants), as well as different scanning techniques. In a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients, there would be 12 false-positive results and 30 false-negative results. Methodological quality of the included studies was poor, and the risk of bias was high or unclear in 53% to 83% of the QUADAS-2 domains. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS MRI appears to be highly accurate in confirming and excluding acute appendicitis in adults, children, and pregnant women regardless of protocol. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally low due to incomplete and low standards of follow-up, so summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity may be biased. We could not assess the impact and direction of potential bias given the very low number of high-quality studies. Studies comparing MRI protocols were few, and although we found no influence of MRI protocol variables on the summary estimates of accuracy, our results do not rule out that some MRI protocols are more accurate than others.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Bo Rud
- Gastrounit, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre , Hvidovre, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
|
7
|
James K, Duffy P, Kavanagh RG, Carey BW, Power S, Ryan D, Joyce S, Feeley A, Murphy P, Andrews E, McEntee MF, Moore M, Bogue C, Maher MM, O' Connor OJ. Fast acquisition abdominal MRI study for the investigation of suspected acute appendicitis in paediatric patients. Insights Imaging 2020; 11:78. [PMID: 32548771 PMCID: PMC7297877 DOI: 10.1186/s13244-020-00882-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2020] [Accepted: 05/13/2020] [Indexed: 02/08/2023] Open
Abstract
Objectives To assess the diagnostic accuracy of fast acquisition MRI in suspected cases of paediatric appendicitis presenting to a tertiary referral hospital. Materials and methods A prospective study was undertaken between May and October 2017 of 52 children who presented with suspected appendicitis and were referred for an abdominal ultrasound. All patients included in this study received both an abdominal ultrasound and five-sequence MRI consisting of axial and coronal gradient echo T2 scans, fat-saturated SSFSE and a diffusion-weighted scan. Participants were randomised into groups of MRI with breath-holds or MRI with free breathing. A patient satisfaction survey was also carried out. Histopathology findings, where available, were used as a gold standard for the purposes of data analysis. Statistical analysis was performed, and p values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Results Ultrasound had a sensitivity and specificity of 25% and 92.9%, respectively. MRI with breath-hold had a sensitivity and specificity of 81.8% and 66.7%, respectively, whilst MRI with free breathing was superior with sensitivity and specificity of 92.3% and 84.2%, respectively. MRI with free breathing was also more time efficient (p < 0.0001). Group statistics were comparable (p < 0.05). Conclusions The use of fast acquisition MRI protocols, particularly free breathing sequences, for patients admitted with suspected appendicitis can result in faster diagnosis, treatment and discharge. It also has a statistically significant diagnostic advantage over ultrasound. Additionally, the higher specificity of MR can reduce the number of negative appendectomies performed in tertiary centres.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karl James
- Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
| | - Patrick Duffy
- Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
| | - Richard G Kavanagh
- Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.,Department of Radiology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
| | - Brian W Carey
- Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.,Department of Radiology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
| | - Stephen Power
- Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
| | - David Ryan
- Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
| | - Stella Joyce
- Department of Radiology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
| | - Aoife Feeley
- School of Medicine, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
| | - Peter Murphy
- PET/CT-MRI Unit, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
| | - Emmet Andrews
- Department of Surgery, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
| | - Mark F McEntee
- Department of Radiography, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
| | - Michael Moore
- Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
| | - Conor Bogue
- Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland
| | - Michael M Maher
- Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland.,Department of Radiology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
| | - Owen J O' Connor
- Department of Radiology, Cork University Hospital, Cork, Ireland. .,Department of Radiology, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
| |
Collapse
|
|
8
|
Alvarado Scores Predict Additive Value of Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Workup of Suspected Appendicitis in Children. J Surg Res 2019; 244:42-49. [PMID: 31279262 DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2019.06.038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/01/2019] [Revised: 05/03/2019] [Accepted: 06/07/2019] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
|
|
9
|
Agathis AZ, Miller M, Divino CM. National Trends in Diagnostic Imaging for Appendicitis: A Cross-Sectional Analysis Using NSQIP. Am Surg 2019. [DOI: 10.1177/000313481908500627] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
Prior studies elucidate a high predictive value of imaging to diagnose appendicitis in small, regional cohorts. This cross-sectional study uniquely analyzes diagnostic imaging in a national appendectomy population. Using the 2016 ACS NSQIP database, positive predictive values (PPVs) for CT, ultrasound (US), and MRI were evaluated using chi-squared tests. Univariate and multivariate analyses considered patient-specific factors. Imaging was performed in 94.63 per cent of 11,841 appendectomy cases; most frequently via CT (78.69%), then combination CT and US (7.52%), US (7.15%), and MRI (0.30%). CT PPV was higher in overweight (98.70%) versus underweight patients (94.85%) ( P = 0.01). Gender and age did not impact CT PPV. Imaging from a referral site did not change CTor US PPV. Our study describes imaging frequencies and confirms high PPV. We found imaging equally predictive in women of childbearing age and elderly individuals compared with the general population. Furthermore, repeat scanning is unnecessary with prior positive imaging at outside sites.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alexandra Z. Agathis
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Michael Miller
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| | - Celia M. Divino
- Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, New York
| |
Collapse
|
|
10
|
Abstract
Acute abdominopelvic pain, a common symptom in emergency department patients, is challenging given the spectrum of differential diagnoses encompassing multiple organ systems, ranging from benign self-limiting to life-threatening and emergent. Diagnostic imaging is critical given its high accuracy and management guidance. A contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) scan is preferred given its widespread availability and speed of acquisition. MR imaging may be appropriate, usually performed for specific indications with tailored protocols. It is accurate for diagnosis and may be an alternative to CT. This article discusses the advantages and disadvantages, protocols, and appearances of MR imaging of common diagnoses.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer W Uyeda
- Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
| |
Collapse
|
|
11
|
Garcia EM, Camacho MA, Karolyi DR, Kim DH, Cash BD, Chang KJ, Feig BW, Fowler KJ, Kambadakone AR, Lambert DL, Levy AD, Marin D, Moreno C, Peterson CM, Scheirey CD, Siegel A, Smith MP, Weinstein S, Carucci LR. ACR Appropriateness Criteria ® Right Lower Quadrant Pain-Suspected Appendicitis. J Am Coll Radiol 2019; 15:S373-S387. [PMID: 30392606 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2018.09.033] [Citation(s) in RCA: 65] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/21/2018] [Accepted: 09/07/2018] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Appendicitis remains the most common surgical pathology responsible for right lower quadrant (RLQ) abdominal pain presenting to emergency departments in the United States, where the incidence continues to increase. Appropriate imaging in the diagnosis of appendicitis has resulted in decreased negative appendectomy rate from as high as 25% to approximately 1% to 3%. Contrast-enhanced CT remains the primary and most appropriate imaging modality to evaluate this patient population. MRI is approaching CT in sensitivity and specificity as this technology becomes more widely available and utilization increases. Unenhanced MRI and ultrasound remain the diagnostic procedures of choice in the pregnant patient. MRI and ultrasound continue to perform best in the hands of experts. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Evelyn M Garcia
- Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, Virginia.
| | - Marc A Camacho
- The University of South Florida Morsani College of Medicine, Tampa, Florida
| | | | - David H Kim
- Panel Chair, University of Wisconsin Hospital & Clinics, Madison, Wisconsin
| | - Brooks D Cash
- University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, McGovern Medical School, Houston, Texas; American Gastroenterological Association
| | | | - Barry W Feig
- The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas; American College of Surgeons
| | | | | | - Drew L Lambert
- University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, Virginia
| | - Angela D Levy
- Medstar Georgetown University Hospital, Washington, District of Columbia
| | - Daniele Marin
- Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
| | | | | | | | - Alan Siegel
- Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Martin P Smith
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
| | | | - Laura R Carucci
- Specialty Chair, Virginia Commonwealth University Medical Center, Richmond, Virginia
| |
Collapse
|
|
12
|
Eng KA, Abadeh A, Ligocki C, Lee YK, Moineddin R, Adams-Webber T, Schuh S, Doria AS. Acute Appendicitis: A Meta-Analysis of the Diagnostic Accuracy of US, CT, and MRI as Second-Line Imaging Tests after an Initial US. Radiology 2018; 288:717-727. [DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2018180318] [Citation(s) in RCA: 60] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
|
|
13
|
Suspicion of appendicitis in pregnant women: emergency evaluation by sonography and low-dose CT with oral contrast. Eur Radiol 2018; 29:345-352. [PMID: 29948087 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-018-5573-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/15/2018] [Revised: 05/07/2018] [Accepted: 05/29/2018] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate non-intravenously enhanced low-dose computed tomography with oral contrast (LDCT) for the assessment of pregnant women with right lower quadrant pain, when magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is not immediately available. METHODS One hundred and thirty-eight consecutive pregnant women with acute abdominal pain were admitted in our emergency centre. Thirty-seven (27%) of them, with clinical suspicion of acute appendicitis, underwent abdominal ultrasonography (US). No further examination was recommended when US was positive for appendicitis, negative with low clinical suspicion or showed an alternative diagnosis which explained the clinical presentation. All other patients underwent LDCT (<2.5 mSv). Standard intravenously enhanced CT or MRI was performed when LDCT was indeterminate. RESULTS Eight (22%) of 37 US exams were reported normal, 25 (67%) indeterminate, 1 (3%) positive for appendicitis, 3 (8%) positive for an alternative diagnosis. LDCT was obtained in 29 (78%) patients. It was reported positive for appendicitis in 9 (31%), for alternative diagnosis in 2 (7%), normal in 13 (45%) and indeterminate in 5 (17%). Further imaging (standard CT or MRI) showed appendicitis in 2 of these 5 patients, was truly negative in 1, indeterminate in 1 and falsely positive in 1. An appendicitis was confirmed at surgery in 12 (32%) of the 37 patients. The sensitivity and the specificity of the algorithm for appendicitis were 100% (12/12) and 92% (23/25), respectively. CONCLUSIONS The proposed algorithm is very sensitive and specific for detection of acute appendicitis in pregnant women; it reduces the need of standard CTs when MRI is not available as second-line imaging. KEY POINTS • In pregnant women, US is limited by an important number of indeterminate results • Low-dose CT can be used after an inconclusive US for the diagnosis of appendicitis in pregnant women • An algorithm integrating US and low-dose CT is highly sensitive and specific for appendicitis in pregnant women.
Collapse
|
|
14
|
D'Souza N, Marsden M, Bottomley S, Nagarajah N, Scutt F, Toh S. Cost-effectiveness of routine imaging of suspected appendicitis. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2018; 100:47-51. [PMID: 29046077 PMCID: PMC5838669 DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2017.0132] [Citation(s) in RCA: 22] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/05/2017] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction The misdiagnosis of appendicitis and consequent removal of a normal appendix occurs in one in five patients in the UK. On the contrary, in healthcare systems with routine cross-sectional imaging of suspected appendicitis, the negative appendicectomy rate is around 5%. If we could reduce the rate in the UK to similar numbers, would this be cost effective? This study aimed to calculate the financial impact of negative appendicectomy at the Queen Alexandra Hospital and to explore whether a policy of routine imaging of such patients could reduce hospital costs. Materials and methods We performed a retrospective analysis of all appendicectomies over a 1-year period at our institution. Data were extracted on outcomes including appendix histology, operative time and length of stay to calculate the negative appendicectomy rate and to analyse costs. Results A total of 531 patients over 5 years of age had an appendicectomy. The negative appendicectomy rate was 22% (115/531). The additional financial costs of negative appendicectomy to the hospital during this period were £270,861. Universal imaging of all patients with right iliac fossa pain that could result in a 5% negative appendicectomy rate would cost between £67,200 and £165,600 per year but could save £33,896 (magnetic resonance imaging), £105,896 (computed tomography) or £132,296 (ultrasound) depending on imaging modality used. Conclusions Negative appendicectomy is still too frequent and results in additional financial burden to the health service. Routine imaging of patients with suspected appendicitis would not only reduce the negative appendicectomy rate but could lead to cost savings and a better service for our patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- N D'Souza
- Department of General Surgery, Queen Alexandra Hospital , Portsmouth , UK
| | - M Marsden
- Department of General Surgery, Queen Alexandra Hospital , Portsmouth , UK
- Academic Department of Military Surgery and Trauma, Royal Centre for Defence Medicine , London , UK
| | - S Bottomley
- Department of General Surgery, Queen Alexandra Hospital , Portsmouth , UK
| | - N Nagarajah
- Department of General Surgery, Queen Alexandra Hospital , Portsmouth , UK
| | - F Scutt
- Department of General Surgery, Queen Alexandra Hospital , Portsmouth , UK
| | - S Toh
- Department of General Surgery, Queen Alexandra Hospital , Portsmouth , UK
| |
Collapse
|
|
15
|
Rosenbaum DG, Askin G, Beneck DM, Kovanlikaya A. Differentiating perforated from non-perforated appendicitis on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Pediatr Radiol 2017; 47:1483-1490. [PMID: 28578474 DOI: 10.1007/s00247-017-3900-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2017] [Revised: 04/01/2017] [Accepted: 05/09/2017] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel G Rosenbaum
- Division of Pediatric Radiology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medicine, 525 E. 68th St, New York, NY, 10065, USA.
| | - Gulce Askin
- Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA
| | - Debra M Beneck
- Department of Pathology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY, USA
| | - Arzu Kovanlikaya
- Division of Pediatric Radiology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medicine, 525 E. 68th St, New York, NY, 10065, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
16
|
Badru F, Piening N, To A, Xu P, Fitzpatrick C, Chatoorgoon K, Villalona G, Greenspon J. Imaging for acute appendicitis at nonpediatric centers exposes children to excess radiation. J Surg Res 2017; 216:201-206. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2017.04.029] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2016] [Revised: 04/04/2017] [Accepted: 04/27/2017] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
|
|
17
|
Mattson B, Dulaimy K. The 4 Quadrants: Acute Pathology in the Abdomen and Current Imaging Guidelines. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2017; 38:414-423. [DOI: 10.1053/j.sult.2017.02.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/26/2022]
|
|
18
|
Imler D, Keller C, Sivasankar S, Wang NE, Vasanawala S, Bruzoni M, Quinn J. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Versus Ultrasound as the Initial Imaging Modality for Pediatric and Young Adult Patients With Suspected Appendicitis. Acad Emerg Med 2017; 24:569-577. [PMID: 28207968 DOI: 10.1111/acem.13180] [Citation(s) in RCA: 29] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2016] [Revised: 02/08/2017] [Accepted: 02/08/2017] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND While ultrasound (US), given its lack of ionizing radiation, is currently the recommended initial imaging study of choice for the diagnosis of appendicitis in pediatric and young adult patients, it does have significant shortcomings. US is time-intensive and operator dependent and results in frequent inconclusive studies, thus necessitating further imaging and admission for observation or repeat clinical visits. A rapid focused magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for appendicitis has been shown to have definitive sensitivity and specificity, similar to computed tomography but without radiation and offers a potential alternative to US. OBJECTIVE In this single-center prospective cohort study, we sought to determine the difference in total length of stay and charges between rapid MRI and US as the initial imaging modality in pediatric and young adult patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with suspected appendicitis. We hypothesized that rapid MRI would be more efficient and cost-effective than US as the initial imaging modality in the ED diagnosis of appendicitis. METHODS A prospective randomized cohort study of consecutive patients was conducted in patients 2 to 30 years of age in an academic ED with access to both rapid MRI and US imaging modalities 24/7. Prior to the start of the study, the days of the week were randomized to either rapid MRI or US as the initial imaging modality. Physicians evaluated patients with suspected appendicitis per their usual manner. If the physician decided to obtain radiologic imaging, the predetermined imaging modality for the day of the week was used. All decisions regarding other diagnostic testing and/or further imaging were left to the physician's discretion. Time intervals (minutes) between triage, order placement, start of imaging, end of imaging, image result, and disposition (discharge vs. admission), as well as total charges (diagnostic testing, imaging, and repeat ED visits) were recorded. RESULTS Over a 100-day period, 82 patients were imaged to evaluate for appendicitis; 45 of 82 (55%) of patients were in the US-first group, and 37 of 82 (45%) patients were in the rapid MRI-first group. There were no differences in patient demographics or clinical characteristics between the groups and no cases of missed appendicitis in either group. Eleven of 45 (24%) of US-first patients had inconclusive studies, resulting in follow-up rapid MRI and five return ED visits contrasted with no inconclusive studies or return visits (p < 0.05) in the rapid MRI group. The rapid MRI compared to US group was associated with longer ED length of stay (mean difference = 100 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 35-169 minutes) and increased ED charges (mean difference = $4,887; 95% CI = $1,821-$8,513). CONCLUSIONS In the diagnosis of appendicitis, US-first imaging is more time-efficient and less costly than rapid MRI despite inconclusive studies after US imaging. Unless the process of obtaining a rapid MRI becomes more efficient and less expensive, US should be the first-line imaging modality for appendicitis in patients 2 to 30 years of age.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Imler
- Department of Emergency Medicine; Stanford University School of Medicine; Stanford CA
| | - Christine Keller
- Department of Emergency Medicine; Stanford University School of Medicine; Stanford CA
| | - Shyam Sivasankar
- Department of Emergency Medicine; Stanford University School of Medicine; Stanford CA
| | - Nancy Ewen Wang
- Department of Emergency Medicine; Stanford University School of Medicine; Stanford CA
| | - Shreyas Vasanawala
- Department of Radiology (Pediatric Radiology); Stanford University School of Medicine; Stanford CA
| | - Matias Bruzoni
- Department of Surgery (Pediatric Surgery); Stanford University School of Medicine; Stanford CA
| | - James Quinn
- Department of Emergency Medicine; Stanford University School of Medicine; Stanford CA
| |
Collapse
|
|
19
|
Agapova M, Bresnahan BW, Linnau KF, Garrison LP, Higashi M, Kessler L, Devine B. Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Prioritizing Imaging Tests in Diagnosis of Suspected Appendicitis. Acad Radiol 2017; 24:530-537. [PMID: 28363670 DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2017.01.001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/24/2016] [Accepted: 01/05/2017] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES In clinical guideline or criteria development processes, such as those used in developing American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria (ACR AC), experts subjectively evaluate benefits and risks associated with imaging tests and make complex decisions about imaging recommendations. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) decomposes complex decisions into structured smaller decisions, incorporates quantitative evidence and qualitative expert opinion, and promotes structured consensus building. AHP may supplement and/or improve the transparency of expert opinion contributions to developing guidelines or criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS To conduct an empirical test using health services research tools, we convened a mock ACR AC panel of emergency department radiology and nonradiology physicians to evaluate by multicriteria decision analysis, the relative appropriateness of imaging tests for diagnosing suspected appendicitis. Panel members selected benefit-risk criteria via an online survey and assessed contrast-enhanced computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ultrasound using an AHP-based software. Participants were asked whether the process was manageable, transparent, and improved shared understanding. Priority scores were converted to rankings and compared to the rank order of ACR AC ratings. RESULTS When compared to magnetic resonance and ultrasound imaging, participants agreed with the ACR AC that contrast-enhanced computed tomography is the most appropriate test. Contrary to the ACR AC ratings, study results suggest that magnetic resonance is preferable to ultrasound. When compared to nonradiologists, radiologists' priority scores reflect a stronger preference for computed tomography. CONCLUSIONS Study participants addressed decision-making challenges using a relatively efficient data collection mechanism, suggesting that AHP may benefit the ACR AC guideline development process in identifying the relative appropriateness of imaging tests. With additional development, AHP may improve transparency when expert opinion is used in clinical guideline or appropriateness criteria development.
Collapse
|
|
20
|
Imaging trends in suspected appendicitis-a Canadian perspective. Emerg Radiol 2016; 24:249-254. [PMID: 27933409 DOI: 10.1007/s10140-016-1472-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2016] [Accepted: 11/25/2016] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE The purpose of our study was to assess trends in the imaging of suspected appendicitis in adult patients in emergency departments of academic centers in Canada. METHODS A questionnaire was sent to all 17 academic centers in Canada to be completed by a radiologist who works in emergency radiology. The questionnaires were sent and collected over a period of 4 months from October 2015 to February 2016. RESULTS Sixteen centers (94%) responded to the questionnaire. Eleven respondents (73%) use IV contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) as the imaging modality of choice for all patients with suspected appendicitis. Thirteen respondents (81%) use ultrasound as the first modality of choice in imaging pregnant patients with suspected appendicitis. Eleven respondents (69%) use ultrasound (US) as the first modality of choice in patients younger than 40 years of age. Ten respondents (67%) use ultrasound as the first imaging modality in female patients younger than 40 years of age. When CT is used, 81% use non-focused CT of the abdomen and pelvis, and 44% of centers use oral contrast. Thirteen centers (81%) have ultrasound available 24 h a day/7 days a week. At 12 centers (75%), ultrasound is performed by ultrasound technologists. Four centers (40%) perform magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in suspected appendicitis in adult patients at the discretion of the attending radiologist. Eleven centers (69%) have MRI available 24/7. All 16 centers (100%) use unenhanced MRI. CONCLUSIONS Various imaging modalities are available for the work-up of suspected appendicitis. Although there are North American societal guidelines and recommendations regarding the appropriateness of the multiple imaging modalities, significant heterogeneity in the first-line modalities exist, which vary depending on the patient demographics and resource availability. Imaging trends in the use of the first-line modalities should be considered in order to plan for the availability of the imaging examinations and to consider plans for an imaging algorithm to permit standardization across multiple centers. While this study examined the imaging trends specifically in Canada, there are implications to other countries seeking to streamline imaging protocols and determining appropriateness of the first-line imaging modalities.
Collapse
|
|
21
|
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of MRI for Evaluation of Acute Appendicitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2016; 206:508-17. [PMID: 26901006 DOI: 10.2214/ajr.15.14544] [Citation(s) in RCA: 91] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE A meta-analysis was performed to determine the accuracy of MRI in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the general population and in subsets of pregnant patients and children. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic search of the PubMed and EMBASE databases for articles published through the end of October 2014 was performed to identify studies that used MRI to evaluate patients suspected of having acute appendicitis. Pooled data for sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. RESULTS A total of 30 studies that comprised 2665 patients were reviewed. The sensitivity and specificity of MRI for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis are 96% (95% CI, 95-97%) and 96% (95% CI, 95-97%), respectively. In a subgroup of studies that focused solely on pregnant patients, the sensitivity and specificity of MRI were 94% (95% CI, 87-98%) and 97% (95% CI, 96-98%), respectively, whereas in studies that focused on children, sensitivity and specificity were found to be 96% (95% CI, 95-97%) and 96% (95% CI, 94-98%), respectively. CONCLUSION MRI has a high accuracy for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis, for a wide range of patients, and may be acceptable for use as a first-line diagnostic test.
Collapse
|
|
22
|
Epifanio M, De Medeiros Lima MA, Corrêa P, Baldisserotto M. An Imaging Diagnostic Protocol in Children with Clinically Suspected Acute Appendicitis. Am Surg 2016. [DOI: 10.1177/000313481608200511] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
The objective of the present study is to evaluate a new diagnostic strategy using clinical findings followed by ultrasound (US) and, in selected cases, MRI. This study included 166 children presenting signs and symptoms suggesting acute appendicitis. Cases classified as suggesting appendicitis according to clinical exams had to be referred to surgery, whereas the other cases were discharged. Unclear cases were evaluated using US. If the US results were considered inconclusive, patients underwent MRI. Of the 166 patients, 78 (47%) had acute appendicitis and 88 (53%) had other diseases. The strategy under study had a sensitivity of 96 per cent, specificity of 100 per cent, positive predictive value of 100 per cent, negative predictive value of 97 per cent, and accuracy of 98 per cent. Eight patients remained undiagnosed and underwent MRI. After MRI two girls presented normal appendixes and were discharged. One girl had an enlarged appendix on MRI and appendicitis could have been confirmed by surgery. In the other five patients, no other sign of the disease was detected by MRI such as an inflammatory mass, free fluid or an abscess in the right iliac fossa. All of them were discharged after clinical observation. In the vast majority of cases the correct diagnosis was reached by clinical and US examinations. When clinical assessment and US findings were inconclusive, MRI was useful to detect normal and abnormal appendixes and valuable to rule out other abdominal pathologies that mimic appendicitis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Matias Epifanio
- School of Medicine and Graduate School of Medicine, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Porto Alegre, Brazil
| | - Marco Antonio De Medeiros Lima
- Graduate Program in Pediatrics and Child Care, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Porto Alegre, Brazil
| | - Patricia Corrêa
- Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Porto Alegre, Brazil
| | - Matteo Baldisserotto
- School of Medicine and Graduate School of Medicine, Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Porto Alegre, Brazil
| |
Collapse
|
|
23
|
Petkovska I, Martin DR, Covington MF, Urbina S, Duke E, Daye ZJ, Stolz LA, Keim SM, Costello JR, Chundru S, Arif-Tiwari H, Gilbertson-Dahdal D, Gries L, Kalb B. Accuracy of Unenhanced MR Imaging in the Detection of Acute Appendicitis: Single-Institution Clinical Performance Review. Radiology 2016; 279:451-60. [DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2015150468] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/05/2023]
|
|
24
|
Abstract
The most common cause of acute right lower quadrant (RLQ) pain requiring surgery is acute appendicitis (AA). This narrative's focus is on imaging procedures in the diagnosis of AA, with consideration of other diseases causing RLQ pain. In general, Computed Tomography (CT) is the most accurate imaging study for evaluating suspected AA and alternative etiologies of RLQ pain. Data favor intravenous contrast use for CT, but the need for enteric contrast when intravenous contrast is used is not strongly favored. Radiation exposure concerns from CT have led to increased investigation in minimizing CT radiation dose while maintaining diagnostic accuracy and in using algorithms with ultrasound as a first imaging examination followed by CT in inconclusive cases. In children, ultrasound is the preferred initial examination, as it is nearly as accurate as CT for the diagnosis of AA in this population and without ionizing radiation exposure. In pregnant women, ultrasound is preferred initially with MRI as a second imaging examination in inconclusive cases, which is the majority.The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed every three years by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and review include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of a well-established consensus methodology (modified Delphi) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures by the panel. In those instances where evidence is lacking or not definitive, expert opinion may be used to recommend imaging or treatment.
Collapse
|
|
25
|
Repplinger MD, Levy JF, Peethumnongsin E, Gussick ME, Svenson JE, Golden SK, Ehlenbach WJ, Westergaard RP, Reeder SB, Vanness DJ. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of MRI to diagnose appendicitis in the general population. J Magn Reson Imaging 2015; 43:1346-54. [PMID: 26691590 DOI: 10.1002/jmri.25115] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/21/2015] [Accepted: 11/24/2015] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published studies since 2005 that evaluate the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the general population presenting to emergency departments. MATERIALS AND METHODS All retrospective and prospective studies evaluating the accuracy of MRI to diagnose appendicitis published in English and listed in PubMed, Web of Science, Cinahl Plus, and the Cochrane Library since 2005 were included. Excluded studies were those without an explicitly stated reference standard, with insufficient data to calculate the study outcomes, or if the population enrolled was limited to pregnant women or children. Data were abstracted by one investigator and confirmed by another. Data included the number of true positives, true negatives, false positives, false negatives, number of equivocal cases, type of MRI scanner, type of MRI sequence, and demographic data including study setting and gender distribution. Summary test characteristics were calculated. Forest plots and a summary receiver operator characteristic plot were generated. RESULTS Ten studies met eligibility criteria, representing patients from seven countries. Nine were prospective and two were multicenter studies. A total of 838 subjects were enrolled; 406 (48%) were women. All studies routinely used unenhanced MR images, although two used intravenous contrast-enhancement and three used diffusion-weighted imaging. Using a bivariate random-effects model the summary sensitivity was 96.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 92.3%-98.5%) and summary specificity was 95.9% (95% CI: 89.4%-98.4%). CONCLUSION MRI has a high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of appendicitis, similar to that reported previously for computed tomography. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging 2016;43:1346-1354.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael D Repplinger
- Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.,Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Joseph F Levy
- Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Erica Peethumnongsin
- Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Megan E Gussick
- Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - James E Svenson
- Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Sean K Golden
- Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - William J Ehlenbach
- Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Ryan P Westergaard
- Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - Scott B Reeder
- Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.,Department of Radiology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.,Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.,Department of Medical Physics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.,Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| | - David J Vanness
- Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
26
|
Yu HS, Gupta A, Soto JA, LeBedis C. Emergency abdominal MRI: current uses and trends. Br J Radiol 2015; 89:20150804. [PMID: 26514590 PMCID: PMC4985451 DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20150804] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/28/2015] [Revised: 10/26/2015] [Accepted: 10/29/2015] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
When evaluating the abdomen in the emergency setting, CT and ultrasound are the imaging modalities of choice, mainly because of accessibility, speed and lower relative cost. CT has the added benefit of assessing the whole abdomen for a wide spectrum of gastrointestinal disease, whereas ultrasound has the benefit of avoiding ionizing radiation. MRI is another tool that has demonstrated increasing utility in the emergency setting and also avoids the use of ionizing radiation. MRI also has the additional advantage of excellent soft-tissue contrast. However, widespread use of MRI in the emergency setting is limited by availability and relative cost. Despite such limitations, advances in MRI technology, including improved pulse sequences and coil technology and increasing clinician awareness of MRI, have led to an increased demand in abdominal MRI in the emergency setting. This is particularly true in the evaluation of acute pancreatitis; choledocholithiasis with or without cholecystitis; acute appendicitis, particularly in pregnant patients; and, in some cases, Crohn's disease. In cases of pancreatitis and Crohn's disease, MRI also plays a role in subsequent follow-up examinations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hei S Yu
- Department of Radiology, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Avneesh Gupta
- Department of Radiology, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Jorge A Soto
- Department of Radiology, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Christina LeBedis
- Department of Radiology, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
27
|
Karsanov AM, Kul'chiev AA, Karaev TR, Kokaev IP, Vahotskij VV. [The role of current methods of X-ray diagnosis in case of intraabdominal suppurative complications caused bu colonic diseases]. Khirurgiia (Mosk) 2015:75-79. [PMID: 26331169 DOI: 10.17116/hirurgia2015575-79] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/05/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- A M Karsanov
- North Ossetian State Medical Academy, Vladikavkaz
| | | | - T R Karaev
- North Ossetian State Medical Academy, Vladikavkaz
| | - I P Kokaev
- North Ossetian State Medical Academy, Vladikavkaz
| | | |
Collapse
|
|
28
|
Wenzke DR, Jacobs JE, Balthazar EJ, Wehrli N. Diseases of the Appendix. TEXTBOOK OF GASTROINTESTINAL RADIOLOGY, 2-VOLUME SET 2015:955-983. [DOI: 10.1016/b978-1-4557-5117-4.00056-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/03/2025]
|
|
29
|
Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio has a close association with gangrenous appendicitis in patients undergoing appendectomy. Int Surg 2014; 97:299-304. [PMID: 23294069 DOI: 10.9738/cc161.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 82] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to clarify the clinical features most closely associated with gangrenous appendicitis. From among 314 patients who had undergone open appendectomy in our collected database, 222 for whom sufficient data were evaluable were enrolled. The results of univariate analysis revealed that age (≤40/>40 years), sex (female/male), fever (≤37°/>37°C), the serum levels of C-reactive protein and albumin, the Glasgow prognostic score (0, 1/2), and the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) (≤8/>8) were associated with gangrenous appendicitis. Among these 7 clinical features, multivariate analysis disclosed that age (≤40/>40 years) (odds ratio, 3.435; 95% confidence interval 1.744-6.766; P < 0.001) and NLR (≤8/>8) (odds ratio, 3.016; 95% confidence interval 1.535-5.926; P = 0.001) were associated with gangrenous appendicitis. The sensitivity and specificity of these two clinical features were 65% and 27%, and 73% and 39%, respectively. NLR (>8) shows a significant association with gangrenous appendicitis in patients undergoing appendectomy.
Collapse
|
|
30
|
Kiatpongsan S, Meng L, Eisenberg JD, Herring M, Avery LL, Kong CY, Pandharipande PV. Imaging for appendicitis: should radiation-induced cancer risks affect modality selection? Radiology 2014; 273:472-82. [PMID: 24988435 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14132629] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare life expectancy (LE) losses attributable to three imaging strategies for appendicitis in adults-computed tomography (CT), ultrasonography (US) followed by CT for negative or indeterminate US results, and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging-by using a decision-analytic model. MATERIALS AND METHODS In this model, for each imaging strategy, LE losses for 20-, 40-, and 65-year-old men and women were computed as a function of five key variables: baseline cohort LE, test performance, surgical mortality, risk of death from delayed diagnosis (missed appendicitis), and LE loss attributable to radiation-induced cancer death. Appendicitis prevalence, test performance, mortality rates from surgery and missed appendicitis, and radiation doses from CT were elicited from the published literature and institutional data. LE loss attributable to radiation exposure was projected by using a separate organ-specific model that accounted for anatomic coverage during a typical abdominopelvic CT examination. One- and two-way sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate effects of model input variability on results. RESULTS Outcomes across imaging strategies differed minimally-for example, for 20-year-old men, corresponding LE losses were 5.8 days (MR imaging), 6.8 days (combined US and CT), and 8.2 days (CT). This order was sensitive to differences in test performance but was insensitive to variation in radiation-induced cancer deaths. For example, in the same cohort, MR imaging sensitivity had to be 91% at minimum (if specificity were 100%), and MR imaging specificity had to be 62% at minimum (if sensitivity were 100%) to incur the least LE loss. Conversely, LE loss attributable to radiation exposure would need to decrease by 74-fold for combined US and CT, instead of MR imaging, to incur the least LE loss. CONCLUSION The specific imaging strategy used to diagnose appendicitis minimally affects outcomes. Paradigm shifts to MR imaging owing to concerns over radiation should be considered only if MR imaging test performance is very high.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sorapop Kiatpongsan
- From the Massachusetts General Hospital Institute for Technology Assessment, 101 Merrimac St, 10th Floor, Boston, MA 02114 (S.K., L.M., J.D.E., M.H., C.Y.K., P.V.P.); Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand (S.K.); Department of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Mass (L.L.A., C.Y.K., P.V.P.); and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (C.Y.K., P.V.P.)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
31
|
Orth RC, Guillerman RP, Zhang W, Masand P, Bisset GS. Prospective Comparison of MR Imaging and US for the Diagnosis of Pediatric Appendicitis. Radiology 2014; 272:233-40. [DOI: 10.1148/radiol.14132206] [Citation(s) in RCA: 64] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
|
|
32
|
Ditkofsky NG, Singh A, Avery L, Novelline RA. The role of emergency MRI in the setting of acute abdominal pain. Emerg Radiol 2014; 21:615-24. [DOI: 10.1007/s10140-014-1232-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 32] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/26/2014] [Accepted: 04/29/2014] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
|
|
33
|
Leeuwenburgh MM, Wiarda BM, Jensch S, van Es HW, Stockmann HB, Gratama JWC, Cobben LP, Bossuyt PM, Boermeester MA, Stoker J. Accuracy and interobserver agreement between MR-non-expert radiologists and MR-experts in reading MRI for suspected appendicitis. Eur J Radiol 2014; 83:103-10. [DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.09.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 19] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/20/2013] [Revised: 08/20/2013] [Accepted: 09/23/2013] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
|
|
34
|
Lubarsky M, Kalb B, Sharma P, Keim SM, Martin DR. MR imaging for acute nontraumatic abdominopelvic pain: rationale and practical considerations. Radiographics 2013; 33:313-37. [PMID: 23479698 DOI: 10.1148/rg.332125116] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
Medical imaging is becoming an increasingly vital component of patient care in the emergency department. Computed tomography has been the diagnostic imaging method of choice for emergency department patients with acute abdominopelvic pain; however, the use of ionizing radiation and the potential need for exogenous contrast material adversely affect patient safety and work flow efficiency, respectively. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging holds promise as an alternative for the evaluation of acute abdominopelvic pain. Critical causes of abdominopelvic pain may be detected with MR imaging without exogenous contrast material. MR imaging is sensitive for depicting tissue or fluid changes related to inflammation, a common process in causes of acute abdominopelvic pain. Fat suppression allows the detection of abnormal signal caused by inflamed tissue. MR imaging has proved sensitive in the detection of acute inflammatory diseases of the gallbladder and bile ducts, liver, pancreas, kidneys, collecting system, bowel, and pelvic soft tissues. Moreover, MR imaging without exogenous contrast material may be safely used in pregnant patients. Evolving roles for emergency department MR imaging include the assessment of vascular disease (including thromboembolic disease) and right upper quadrant pain. Emergency department MR imaging currently has limited availability, and its continued use will require further education regarding operation and image interpretation as well as further validation of cost-effectiveness. Nevertheless, current understanding of the diagnostic utility of this imaging method warrants continued study and the increased use of MR imaging in the evaluation of emergency department patients with acute abdominopelvic pain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Lubarsky
- Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
35
|
Leeuwenburgh MMN, Jensch S, Gratama JWC, Spilt A, Wiarda BM, Van Es HW, Cobben LPJ, Bossuyt PMM, Boermeester MA, Stoker J. MRI features associated with acute appendicitis. Eur Radiol 2013; 24:214-22. [PMID: 24013847 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-013-3001-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/22/2013] [Revised: 07/25/2013] [Accepted: 08/07/2013] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To identify MRI features associated with appendicitis. METHODS Features expected to be associated with appendicitis were recorded in consensus by two expert radiologists on 223 abdominal MRIs in patients with suspected appendicitis. Nine MRI features were studied: appendix diameter >7 mm, appendicolith, peri-appendiceal fat infiltration, peri-appendiceal fluid, absence of gas in the appendix, appendiceal wall destruction, restricted diffusion of the appendiceal wall, lumen or focal fluid collections. Appendicitis was assigned as the final diagnosis in 117/223 patients. Associations between imaging features and appendicitis were evaluated with logistic regression analysis. RESULTS All investigated features were significantly associated with appendicitis in univariate analysis. Combinations of two and three features were associated with a probability of appendicitis of 88 % and 92 %, respectively. In patients without any of the nine features, appendicitis was present in 2 % of cases. After multivariate analysis, only an appendix diameter >7 mm, peri-appendiceal fat infiltration and restricted diffusion of the appendiceal wall were significantly associated with appendicitis. The probability of appendicitis was 96 % in their presence and 2 % in their absence. CONCLUSIONS An appendix diameter >7 mm, peri-appendiceal fat infiltration and restricted diffusion of the appendiceal wall have the strongest association with appendicitis on MRI. KEY POINTS • An enlarged appendix, fat infiltration and restricted diffusion are associated with appendicitis. • One such feature on MRI gives an 88 % probability of appendicitis. • Two features in combination give a probability of appendicitis of 94 %. • Combinations of three features give a probability of appendicitis of 96 %. • The absence of these features almost rules out appendicitis (2 %).
Collapse
|
|
36
|
Tannoury J, Abboud B. Treatment options of inflammatory appendiceal masses in adults. World J Gastroenterol 2013; 19:3942-3950. [PMID: 23840138 PMCID: PMC3703180 DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i25.3942] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/15/2013] [Revised: 03/22/2013] [Accepted: 04/28/2013] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
At present, the treatment of choice for uncomplicated acute appendicitis in adults continues to be surgical. The inflammation in acute appendicitis may sometimes be enclosed by the patient’s own defense mechanisms, by the formation of an inflammatory phlegmon or a circumscribed abscess. The management of these patients is controversial. Immediate appendectomy may be technically demanding. The exploration often ends up in an ileocecal resection or a right-sided hemicolectomy. Recently, the conditions for conservative management of these patients have changed due to the development of computed tomography and ultrasound, which has improved the diagnosis of enclosed inflammation and made drainage of intra-abdominal abscesses easier. New efficient antibiotics have also given new opportunities for nonsurgical treatment of complicated appendicitis. The traditional management of these patients is nonsurgical treatment followed by interval appendectomy to prevent recurrence. The need for interval appendectomy after successful nonsurgical treatment has recently been questioned because the risk of recurrence is relatively small. After successful nonsurgical treatment of an appendiceal mass, the true diagnosis is uncertain in some cases and an underlying diagnosis of cancer or Crohn’s disease may be delayed. This report aims at reviewing the treatment options of patients with enclosed appendiceal inflammation, with emphasis on the success rate of nonsurgical treatment, the need for drainage of abscesses, the risk of undetected serious disease, and the need for interval appendectomy to prevent recurrence.
Collapse
|
|
37
|
Leeuwenburgh MMN, Wiarda BM, Wiezer MJ, Vrouenraets BC, Gratama JWC, Spilt A, Richir MC, Bossuyt PMM, Stoker J, Boermeester MA. Comparison of imaging strategies with conditional contrast-enhanced CT and unenhanced MR imaging in patients suspected of having appendicitis: a multicenter diagnostic performance study. Radiology 2013; 268:135-43. [PMID: 23481162 DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13121753] [Citation(s) in RCA: 60] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE To compare the diagnostic performance of imaging strategies with magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and computed tomographic (CT) imaging in adult patients suspected of having appendicitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS Institutional review board approval was obtained prior to study initiation, and patients gave written informed consent. In a multicenter diagnostic performance study, adults suspected of having appendicitis were prospectively identified in the emergency department. Consenting patients underwent ultrasonography (US) and subsequent contrast-enhanced CT if US imaging yielded negative or inconclusive results. Additionally, all patients underwent unenhanced MR imaging, with the reader blinded to other findings. An expert panel assigned final diagnosis after 3 months. Diagnostic performance of three imaging strategies was evaluated: conditional CT after US, conditional MR imaging after US, and immediate MR imaging. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated by comparing findings with final diagnosis. RESULTS Between March and September 2010, 229 US, 115 CT, and 223 MR examinations were performed in 230 patients (median age, 35 years; 40% men). Appendicitis was the final diagnosis in 118 cases. Conditional and immediate MR imaging had sensitivity and specificity comparable to that of conditional CT, which resulted in 3% (three of 118; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1%, 7%) missed appendicitis, and 8% (10 of 125; 95% CI: 4%, 14%) false-positives. Conditional MR missed appendicitis in 2% (two of 118; 95% CI: 0%, 6%) and generated 10% (13 of 129; 95% CI: 6%, 16%) false-positives. Immediate MR missed 3% (four of 117; 95% CI: 1%, 8%) appendicitis with 6% (seven of 120; 95% CI: 3%, 12%) false-positives. Conditional strategies resulted in more false-positives in women than in men (conditional CT, 17% vs 0%; P = .03; conditional MR, 19% vs 1%; P = .04), wherease immediate MR imaging did not. CONCLUSION The accuracy of conditional or immediate MR imaging was similar to that of conditional CT in patients suspected of having appendicitis, which implied that strategies with MR imaging may replace conditional CT for appendicitis detection.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marjolein M N Leeuwenburgh
- Department of Radiology, Surgery, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
|
38
|
Abstract
Neoplasms are an uncommon finding after appendectomy, with malignant tumors occurring in less than 1% of the surgical specimens, and carcinoid being the most frequent malignancy. A negative or inconclusive ultrasound is not adequate to rule out appendicitis and should be followed by CT scan. For pregnant patients, MRI is a reasonable alternative to CT scan. Nonoperative treatment with antibiotics is safe as an initial treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis, with a significant decrease in complications but a high failure rate. Open and laparoscopic appendectomies for appendicitis provide similar results overall, although the laparoscopic technique may be advantageous for obese and elderly patients but may be associated with a higher incidence of intraabdominal abscess. Preoperative diagnostic accuracy is of utmost importance during pregnancy because a negative appendectomy is associated with a significant incidence of fetal loss. The increased morbidity associated with appendectomy delay suggests that prompt surgical intervention remains the safest approach. Routine incidental appendectomy should not be performed except in selected cases. Interval appendectomy is not indicated because of considerable risks of complications and lack of any clinical benefit. Patients older than 40 years with an appendiceal mass or abscess treated nonoperatively should routinely have a colonoscopy as part of their follow-up to rule out cancer or alternative diagnosis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pedro G R Teixeira
- Division of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, LAC and USC Medical Center, University of Southern California, 2051 Marengo Street, IPT, Room C5L 100, Los Angeles, CA 90033-4525, USA
| | | |
Collapse
|