ArticlePDF Available

Ultrasound scoring system for acute appendicitis in pediatric patients: A useful tool for the surgeon

Authors:
  • "Criscuoli and Frieri" Hospital - S. Angelo dei Lombardi ASL Avelino Italy

Abstract and Figures

BACKGROUND: the aim is evaluate new US signs, other than the already known (primary and secondary), that are positive correlated with histophatological results in pediatric appendicitis. METHODS: Forty pediatric patients (4-18 years old) with clinical suspicious of appendicitis, examinated with convex, microconvex and linear probe. RESULTS: We observed a negative linear correlation both univariate and multivariate analysis between numbers of layers and maximal outer diameter. CONCLUSIONS: is possible to consider the number of layers and the echogenicity pattern of each layer as a further ultrasonography diagnostic sign in case of acute appendicitis.
Content may be subject to copyright.
VOL. 176
· No. 11
NOVEMBER 2017
!"#$%&'(%)%*"$%&&% +,--.//,%0.123,%2/,42,*,%)%,5362!27%8.5%4.%932.*-.%0.1236.% :'&
,;;"<=>?@%A"%B%<C;C?A%DCAB)B?B#EF>F%G9H%3/%
B?=%052%AC;I?>;F%;B?%JC%KC<L"<DC=%>?%AIC%=>)
agnosis without signicant differences.M
In Europe US is the rst diagnostic step in
AIC%N"<O)PK%"L% BKKC?=>;>A>FQ%3/%>F%KC<L"<DC=%
"?#E%>?%P?;C<AB>?% ;BFCF% "<% NICAIC<%>?%;BFC% "L%
AIC%BKKC?=>R%>F%>DK"FF>J#C%A"%S>FPB#>TC$
/I>F%O>?=%"L%K<"A";"#%>F%ABO>?@%I"#=%>?%F"DC%
G9,%I"FK>AB#FH%>?%#>?C%N>AI%=>LLC<C?A%#>AC<BAP<C%
<CFP#AFU
%VBJ="D>?B#% 3/% ="CF% ?"A% >DK<"SC% "PA)
;"DC%L"<%;I>#=<C?%N>AI%FPFKC;AC=%B;PAC%BKKC?)
=>;>A>FWQ:
%VK<CLC<C?A>B#%PFC%"L%BJ="D>?B#%3/%A"%=>)
B@?"FC%BKKC?=>;>A>F%="CF%?"A%<C=P;C%AIC%?C@B)
A>SC%BKKC?=C;A"DE%<BACW$(
0"<C"SC<%FCSC<B#%<CK"<A%K<"SC=%AIBA%G9H%>L%
,;PAC%BJ="D>?B#%KB>?%B?=%A<BPDB%<CK<CFC?A%
AIC%DB>?%;BPFC%"L%B;;CFF%A"%B?%CDC<@C?;E%
P?>A%>?%KC=>BA<>;%KBA>C?AF$&
X<CYPC?A#E%AIC%=>B@?"F>F%>F%;#>?>;B#$%/IC%D"FA%
;"DD"?%;#>?>;B#%FEDKA"DF%B<CU%?BPFCBH%S"D)
>A>?@H% B?"<CR>BH% LCSC<H% =>B<<ICBH% 5>@IA% 4"NC<%
ZPB=<B?A%BJ="D>?B#%AC?=C<?CFF$%4BJ"<BA"<>CFU%
[\3]&^^^^_D;4H% ?CPA<"KI>#>B]':`% N>AI% B%
#CLA%FI>LAH%835]a^%D@_=4$aH%b%0B?E%F;"<C%NBF%
K<CFC?AC=%A"% CR;#P=C% AIC% <>FO%"L%B;PAC% BKKC?)
=>;>A>F% ce.g.% ,SB<B="H% ,#SB<B="_0B?A<C#FH% 8C)
=>BA<>;% ,KKC?=>;>A>F% 9;"<Cd$% 6"NCSC<% &_b% "L%
;I>#=%IBSC%B?%BAEK>;B#%;#>?>;B#%K<CFC?ABA>"?%ebfH%
AIC<CL"<C%B%<B=>"#"@>;B#%BKK<"B;I%>F%DB?=BA"<E%
A"%<C=P;C%?C@BA>SC%#BKB<"A"DE% "<% =C#BEC=%BK)
KC?=>;C;A"DE%AIBA%;"P#=% JC% ;"DK#>;BAC=%N>AI%
KC<L"<BA>"?$
G#A<BF"P?=%F;"<>?@%FEFACD%L"<%B;PAC%BKKC?=>;>A>F%
>?%KC=>BA<>;%KBA>C?AFU%B%PFCLP#%A""#%L"<%AIC%FP<@C"?
+<BT>C##B%12%+5.-2,%&H%9BSC<>"%82+*,/,%aH%+>B?S>A"%8, 3 . %&H%%
1>B?B%17*,/2.447%&H%*>;"#B%9.55,%&H%+>B?#P;B%+,/ /,%&%g
&1CKB<ADC?A%"L% 5B=>"#"@EH%G?>SC<F>AE% "L%3BDKB?>B%V4P>@>%!B?S>AC##>WH%*BK#CFH% 2AB#EQ%a/<>;B<>;"%8<>SBAC%6"FK>AB#H%
\C#SC=C<C%0B<>AA>D"H%3"FC?TBH%2AB#E
g3"<<CFK"?=>?@%BPAI"<U%+>B?#P;B%+BAABH%8>BTTB%0><B@#>B%a%h^&bh%*BK#CFH%2AB#E$%.)DB>#U%@>B?#P;B$@BAABiP?>;BDKB?>B$>A
,??"U%a^&'
0CFCU%*"SCDJC<
!"#PDCU%&'(
*"U%&&
5>S>FABU%+BTTCAAB%0C=>;B%2AB#>B?B%)%,<;I>S>"%KC<%#C%9;>C?TC%0C=>;IC
3"=%5>S>FABU%+BTT%0C=%2AB#%)%,<;I%9;>%0C=
4BS"<"U%b:::)+02
A>A"#"%J<CSCU%G4/5,97G*1%93752*+%9j9/.0%X75%,3G/.%,88.*1232/29%2*%
8.12,/523%8,/2.*/9
K<>D"%BPA"<CU%12%+5.-2,
KB@>?CU%:'&)(
;>ABT>"?CU%+BTT%0C=%2AB#%)%,<;I%9;>%0C=%a^&'Q&'(U:'&)(
,\9/5,3/
\,3k+57G*1U%/IC% B>D%>F%CSB#PBAC% ?CN%G9% F>@?FH%"AIC<%AIB?% AIC%B#<CB=E%O?"N?% cK<>DB<E%B?=%FC;"?=B<EdH% AIBA%B<C%
K"F>A>SC%;"<<C#BAC=%N>AI%I>FA"KIBA"#"@>;B#%<CFP#AF%>?%KC=>BA<>;%BKKC?=>;>A>F$
0./6719U%X"<AE%KC=>BA<>;%KBA>C?AF%cM)&h%ECB<F%"#=d%N>AI%;#>?>;B#%FPFK>;>"PF%"L%BKKC?=>;>A>FH%CRBD>?BAC=%N>AI%;"?SCRH%
D>;<";"?SCR%B?=%#>?CB<%K<"JC$
5.9G4/9U%[C%"JFC<SC=%B%?C@BA>SC%#>?CB<%;"<<C#BA>"?%J"AI%P?>SB<>BAC%B?=%DP#A>SB<>BAC%B?B#EF>F%JCANCC?%?PDJC<F%"L%#BE)
C<F%B?=%DBR>DB#%"PAC<%=>BDCAC<$
37*34G927*9U%2F% K"FF>J#C% A"%;"?F>=C<%AIC% ?PDJC<%"L%#BEC<F% B?=%AIC%C;I"@C?>;>AE% KBAAC<?%"L%CB;I% #BEC<% BF%B%LP<AIC<%
P#A<BF"?"@<BKIE%=>B@?"FA>;%F>@?%>?%;BFC%"L%B;PAC%BKKC?=>;>A>F$
cCite this article as:%1>%+<CT>B%+H%8>@?BAB%9H%8B;C%+H%1"?BA>C##"%1H%9C<<B%*H%+BAAB%+$%G#A<BF"P?=%F;"<>?@%FEFACD%L"<%B;PAC%BK)
KC?=>;>A>F%>?%KC=>BA<>;%KBA>C?AFU%B%PFCLP#%A""#%L"<%AIC%FP<@C"?$%+BTT%0C=%2AB#%)%,<;I%9;>%0C=%a^&'Q&'(U:'&)($%172U%&^$ab'b(_
9^blb)b((^$&'$^b:::)^d
Key words:%,KKC?=>;>A>F%)%3I>#=%)%G#A<BF"?"@<BKIE%)%,KKC?=C;A"DE$
+BTTCAAB%0C=>;B%2AB#>B?B%)%,<;I>S>"%KC<%#C%9;>C?TC%0C=>;IC%a^&'%*"SCDJC<Q&'(c&&dU:'&)(
172U%&^$ab'b(_9^blb)b((^$&'$^b:::)^
m%a^&'%.12-27*2%02*.5!,%0.123,
7?#>?C%SC<F>"?%BA%IAAKU__NNN$D>?C<SBDC=>;B$>A
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
ORAL AND GASTROINTESTINAL DISEASES: IMAGING STATE OF THE ART
AND PSYCHOPATHOLOGICAL FEATURES
12%+5.-2,% G4/5,97G*1%93752*+%9j9/.0%X75%,3G/.%,88.*1232/29%2*%8.12,/523%8,/2.*/9
:'a% +,--.//,%0.123,%2/,42,*,%)%,5362!27%8.5%4.%932.*-.%0.1236.% *"SCDJC<%a^&'
>#C"KF"BF%BJF;CFFH%"DC?AB#%>?LB<;A>"?H%"SB<>B?%
;EFAH%?CKI<"#>AI>BF>FH%@BFA<"C?AC<>A>FH%=>SC<A>;P)
#>A>FH%;I"#C;EFA>A>FH%3<"I?d
,%;"?SCR% K<"JC% NBF%PFC=%>?% &b% KBA>C?AFH% B%
D>;<"?SCR% K<"JC% >?% h% KBA>C?AF% NI>#C% AIC% <C)
DB>?>?@% ;BFCF% NBF% BFFCFFC=% =><C;A#E% N>AI% B%
#>?CB<%K<"JC$
In some cases leg ection was required to
avoid abdominal defense reex in not compli)
B?A%KBA>C?AQ%B?ENBE%>?%B##%M^%KBA>C?A%NC%S>FPB#)
>TC=%AIC%BKKC?=>R$
/IC%G9%CRBD%NBF%KC<L"<DC=%"?#E%"?;C%B?=%
L"##"NC=%JE%FP<@>;B#%;"?FP#ABA>"?%>?%FP<C%K"F>)
A>SC%;BFCFH%NI>#C%>?%AIC%"AIC<F%>A%NBF%<CKCBAC=%BA%
B%=>FAB?;C%"L%(H%&aH%b(H%Mh%I"P<F$&M%,%NB>A%B?=%
FCC%K<";CFFH%N>AI% B% ;#>?>;B#% B?=%FP<@>;B#%A>@IA%
;"?A<"#% NBF% BKK#>C=% A"% B##% KBA>C?AF% L"<% NI"D%
NC%KC<L"<DC=%G9%D"<C%AIB?%"?;C$
[C%DB=C%B%;#"FC<%L"##"N)PK%;"?A<"#%"?#E%>?%
a%KBA>C?A%N>AI%B@CF%JCANCC?%M%B?=%:%JC;BPFC%"L%
the higher risk of perforation during the rst 36
I"P<F%>?%AI>F%B@C%@<"PK$&:)a^
[C% IBSC% ?"A% B==C=% AIC% #BJ"<BA"<>CF%<CFP#AF%
>?%AIC%FABA>FA>;B#%B?B#EF>F%nPFA%A"%P?=C<#>?C%AIC%
US ndings.
Statistical analysis
/IC% FABA>FA>;B#% B?B#EF>F% NBF% KC<L"<DC=% JE%
0BA#BJ%FABA>FA>;B#%A""#J"R%SC<F>"?%a^^h%c0BAI)
["<OFH%*BA>;OH%0,H%G9,d%L"<%[>?="NF%BA%ba%
J>AH% "?% FBDK#C% "L% M^% E"P?@% KBA>C?AFH% (^$^^`%
DB#CF% B?=% M^$^^`% LCDB#CF% N>AI% B@CF% >?A"%
<B?@C%M)&hH%N>AI%DCB?%BJ"PA%&a%E"%B?=%FAB?)
=B<=%=CS>BA>"?%csdd%BJ"PA%M%ECB<F%"#=$
1BAB%B<C%K<CFC?AC=%BF%?PDJC<%B?=%KC<;C?A)
B@CF%L"<% ;BAC@"<>;B#% SB<>BJ#CF%B?=% ;"?A>?P"PF%
=BAB%NC<C%CRK<CFFC=%BF%DCB?%o%FAB?=B<=%=CS>B)
tion (SD), unless otherwise specied. Finally
P?>SB<>BAC% B?=% DP#A>SB<>BAC% #>?CB<% ;"<<C#BA>"?%
B?B#EF>F% NC<C% KC<L"<DC=$% 2?% B==>A>"?% AIC% ACFA%
on Pearson’s linear correlation coefcient R
NBF%KC<L"<DC=%N>AI% t)9AP=C?A%ACFAH%P?=C<%?P##%
IEK"AICF>F%"L%8CB<F"?pF%#>?CB<%;"<<C#BA>"?%;")
efcient R=0. We considered signicant, all
FABA>FA>;B#%ACFAF%N>AI%8%SB#PC%q^$^:$
To dene a statistical analysis on correla)
A>"?%BD"?@%#BEC<FH%NC%;IB?;C=%AIC%YPB#>ABA>SC%
SB<>BJ#C%#BEC<%>?%YPB?A>ABA>SC%SB<>BJ#CH%BFF>@?)
KC<L"<DC=% JE% CRKC<>C?;C=% B?=% =C=>;BAC=% <B)
=>"#"@>FAFH%DBE%B;I>CSC%B%=>B@?"FA>;%B;;P<B;E%
AIBA%>A%>F%BF%@""=%BF%3/$'
9<>?>SBFB?% et al.% FP@@CFA% AIBA% 3/% IBF% #>D)
>AC=%E>C#=%NIC?%G9%B?=%,KKC?=>;>A>F%9;"<C%B<C%
;"?;"<=B?A$h
1P<>?@%AIC%#BFA% =C;B=C% AIC% G9% IBF%JC;"DC%
the rst diagnostic method vs.%3/%>?%AIC%G9,%
BF%NC##H%J"AI%L"<%<C=P;C%AIC%<>FO%"L%<B=>BA>"?)
>?=P;C=% ;B?;C<% J"AI% L"<% ;"FAF% CLLC;A>SC?CFF%
c/BJ#C%2d$l)&&
US has high specicity to rule in the diag)
?"F>F%"L%BKKC?=>;>A>FH%N>AI%SB<>BJ#C%FC?F>A>S>AE%
A"%<P#C%>A%"PA$&a
5"PA>?C% G9% >?% B##% ;I>#=<C?% N>AI% FPFKC;AC=%
BKKC?=>;>A>F%IC#KF%>?%<C=P;>?@%?C@BA>SC%BKKC?)
=>;C;A"DE%B?=%KC<L"<BA>"?%<BAC$%,%?C@BA>SC%G9%
="CF% ?"A% nPFA>LE% B% FPJFCYPC?A% B?=% >DDC=>BAC%
3/%JC;BPFC%;#>?>;B#%<C)CSB#PBA>"?%B?=%FC;"?=%
G9%;B?%;#B<>LE%AIC%=>B@?"F>F$&b
7P<%FAP=E% >F% JBFC=% "?%AIC%=>B@?"F>F% "L% BK)
KC?=>;>A>F%"?#E%N>AI%AIC%PFC%"L%G9%AC;I?>;$
/IC%B>D%NBF%A"%CSB#PBAC%?CN%G9%F>@?FH%"AIC<%
AIB?%AIC%B#<CB=E%O?"N?%cK<>DB<E%B?=%FC;"?=)
B<EdH%AIBA%B<C%K"F>A>SC%;"<<C#BAC=%N>AI%I>FA"KIB)
A"#"@>;B#%<CFP#AF$
Materials and methods
[C%<CA<"FKC;A>SC#E%<CS>CNC=%M^AI%G9%DC=>)
;B#% <C;"<=% L<"D% KC=>BA<>;% KBA>C?AF% N>AI% B@C%
>?A"%<B?@C%M%)&h%ECB<F%;"DC%A"%"P<%"JFC<SBA>"?%
L<"D%ECB<%a^&b%A"%a^&(%N>AI%B%G9%<CYPCFA%L"<%
FPFKC;AC=% BKKC?=>;>A>F% N>AI% B% K"FA)"KC<BA>SC%
IEFA";>A"KBAI"#"@>;B#%CS>=C?;C$
[C%CR;#P=C=% "AIC<F% KC=>BA<>;% FP<@>;B#% ;"?)
=>A>"?F% c>?APFFPF;CKA>"?H% 0C;OC#% =>SC<A>;P)
#PDH%IC<?>BH%ACFA>;P#B<%A"<F>"?H%,DEB?=%IC<?>BH%
Table I.—First-line standard US with CT imaging
reserved for subsequent inconclusive results.
9C?F>A>S>AE
c`d
Specicity
c`d
88!
c`d
*8!
c`d
1>B@?"FA>;
B;;P<B;E
c`d
8""<ADB? &^^ h( la &^^ l:
kB>FC< ll hl h' ll lb
3P?=Eg lh$h lh$b l:$:
\B#=>FFC<"AA"g lh$: lh$a lh lh$'
88!U% 8"F>A>SC% 8<C=>;A>SC%!B#PCQ% *8!U% *C@BA>SC% 8<C=>;A>SC% !B#PC$%
gG9%"?#E$
G4/5,97G*1%93752*+%9j9/.0%X75%,3G/.%,88.*1232/29%2*%8.12,/523%8,/2.*/9% 12%+5.-2,
!"#$%&'(%)%*"$%&&% +,--.//,%0.123,%2/,42,*,%)%,5362!27%8.5%4.%932.*-.%0.1236.% :'b
ned. Instead there was a signicant negative
;"<<C#BA>"?% >?% DP#A>SB<>BAC% B?B#EF>F% JCANCC?%
22?=%B?=%222<=%#BEC<%cX>@P<C%&d$
9PJFCYPC?A#E%NC%;"?F>=C<C=%B%DP#A>K#C%#>?)
CB<% ;"<<C#BA>"?% BD"?@% DP#A>K#C% #BEC<F% N>AI%
B@CH% FCRH% B?=% DBR% =>BDCAC<% cl$bho:$bMd$% X"<%
AI>F% F;"KC% AIC% SB<>BJ#CF% FCR% NBF% <CK<CFC?AC=%
N>AI% CRKC<>DC?AB#% K<"JBJ>#>AE% =>FA<>JPA>"?Hab%
such a that: male = 1 (success) and female = 0
cLB>#P<Cd$%X>?B##E%L"<%1"KK#C<% SB<>BJ#CH% NC%BF)
signed a value into range [0-4], where 0 = no
SBF;P#B<>TBA>"?% B?=% M% CYPB#% A"% DBR% SBF;P#B<)
>TBA>"?%cX>@P<C%ad$
>?@%BA%=>LLC<C?A%#BEC<% B% F;"<C% B;;"<=>?@% A"%AIC%
thickening degree: absence of thickening = 0,
(HYPO) = 1, iper-thickening (HYPER) = 2,
(DIS) = 3.
2?%/BJ#C%22H%NC%IB=%CSB#PBAC=%K"FF>J#C%;"<<C)
#BA>"?F%BD"?@%#BEC<F%N>AI%J"AI%P?>SB<>BAC%B?=%
DP#A>SB<>BAC%#>?CB<%;"<<C#BA>"?%B?B#EF>F$
\E%/BJ#C%22H%NC%"?#E%"JFC<SC=%>?%E"P?@%KB)
tients a good signicant negative linear corre)
#BA>"?%JCANCC?%2FA% B?=% 22?=%#BEC<H%J"AI% P?>SB<>)
BAC% B?=% DP#A>SB<>BAC% B?B#EF>F$% 2?% "AIC<% AC<DF%
JCANCC?%2FA%B?=%22?=%AIC<C%NBF%B?%>?SC<FC% ;"<)
<C#BA>"?%B;;"<=>?@%A"%AIC%AI>;OC?>?@%=C@<CC%=C)
Table II.—Univariate and multivariate linear correlation analysis among layers.
G?>SB<>BAC%B?B#EF>F 0P#A>SB<>BAC%B?B#EF>F
8B<BDCAC<F 5%c8%SB#PCd
Multiple linear correlation coefcient = 0.789
4BEC<%2%_%4BEC<%22 )^$'('%cq^$^^^&dg 5KB<A>B# = -0.788; P value< 0.0001*
4BEC<%2%_%4BEC<%222 ^$^bM%c^$hb'd 5KB<A>B# = -0.278; P value= 0.092
4BEC<%2%_%4BEC<%2! )^$^(&%c^$'&&d 5KB<A>B# = -0.111; P value= 0.509
Multiple linear correlation coefcient = 0.805
4BEC<%22%_%4BEC<%2 )^$'('%cq^$^^^&dg 5KB<A>B# = -0.788; P value< 0.0001*
4BEC<%22%_%4BEC<%222 )^$a(M%c^$&^^d 5KB<A>B# = -0.375; P value= 0.0205*
4BEC<%22%_%4BEC<%2! ^$^^%c&$^^d 5KB<A>B# = -0.094; P value= 0.573
Multiple linear correlation coefcient = 0.380
4BEC<%222%_%4BEC<%2 ^$^bM%c^$hb'd 5KB<A>B# = -0.278; P value= 0.092
4BEC<%222%_%4BEC<%22 )^$a(M%c^$&^^d 5KB<A>B# = -0.375; P value= 0.0205*
4BEC<%222%_%4BEC<%2! )^$^Mb%c^$'lbd 5KB<A>B# = -0.073; P value= 0.663
Multiple linear correlation coefcient = 0.119
4BEC<%2!%_%4BEC<%2 )^$^(&%c^$'&&d 5KB<A>B# = -0.111; P value= 0.509
4BEC<%2!%_%4BEC<%22 ^$^^%c&$^^d 5KB<A>B# = -0.094; P value= 0.573
4BEC<%2!%_%4BEC<%222 )^$^Mb%c^$'lbd 5KB<A>B# = -0.073; P value= 0.663
*Signcant tests.
X>@P<C%a$r3#PFAC<C=%DP#A>K#C%SB<>BJ#CF%@<BKIU%B@CH%DBR%=>)
BDCAC<H%SBF;P#B<>TBA>"?%B?=%*$%#BEC<F%JE%9CR$
X>@P<C%&$r3#PFAC<C=%DP#A>K#C%SB<>BJ#CF%@<BKIU%B@CH%DBR%=>)
BDCAC<F%B?=%SBF;P#B<>TBA>"?H%JE%*$%#BEC<F$
12%+5.-2,% G4/5,97G*1%93752*+%9j9/.0%X75%,3G/.%,88.*1232/29%2*%8.12,/523%8,/2.*/9
:'M% +,--.//,%0.123,%2/,42,*,%)%,5362!27%8.5%4.%932.*-.%0.1236.% *"SCDJC<%a^&'
9>?;C%AIC%l^F%NBF%K<"SC=%AIC%;"<<C#BA>"?%JC)
ANCC?%BKKC?=>;>A>F%B?=%B%<>F>?@%>?%AIC%1"KK#C<%
SBF;P#B<>TBA>"?Qa&% I"NCSC<% B#AI"P@I% AIC% SBF)
\E%/BJ#C%222%NC%"JFC<SC=%B%?C@BA>SC%#>?CB<%
;"<<C#BA>"?% J"AI% P?>SB<>BAC% B?=% DP#A>SB<>BAC%
B?B#EF>F%JCANCC?%*<$%#BEC<F%B?=%DBR%=>BDCAC<$%
2?%"AIC<%AC<DF%DBR%=>BDCAC< NBF%?C@BA>SC%F>@)
nicant predictor of Nr. layers, i.e.%B?%>?;<CBF)
>?@% "L% =>BDCAC<% NBF% ;"<<C#BAC=% B% =C;<CBF>?@%
"L%AIC%?PDJC<%"L% #BEC<F$% X>?B##E%AIC%B@C%NC<C%
?C@BA>SC#E%;"<<C#BAC=%N>AI%Sex "?#E%>?%P?>SB<>)
BAC%B?B#EF>F%cX>@P<C%bd$
Results
/I><AE)F>R% "PA% "L% M^% KBA>C?AF% IB=% B% 071%
](DDQ%b^%"L%AICD%IB=%B%071%]'DD$
/IC% DBR>DPD% 071% SB#PC% <C@>FAC<C=% NBF%
bh$:DD%>?%B%&h%ECB<F%"#=%DB#C%N>AI%nPFA%"?C%
IEKC<%#BEC<%cDBR%=>BDCAC<%NBF%?C@BA>SC%F>@?>L)
>;B?A% K<C=>;A"<% "L% *$"L% #BEC<FdQ% AIC% D>?>DPD%
071%SB#PC%NBF%bDD%>?%B%&:%ECB<F%"#=%LCDB#CH%
with a hypo-hyper-hypo wall stratication and
N>AI%B% ;"#"<)1"KK#C<%F>@?B#%"L%gg$%.#CSC?%"PA%
"L%M^%IB=%B%K"F>A>SC%3"#"<1"KK#C<%F>@?B#%cD>?)
>DPD%^)%DBR>DPDd$
Figure 3.—Signicant linear correlation graph between max
=>BDCAC<%B?=%*$%#BEC<F%N>AI%K<C=>;A%>?AC<SB#%BA%l:`$%/IC%K<C)
=>;A%>?AC<SB#%BA% l:`% NBF%<CK<CFC?AC=%JE% AN"% ;P<SCF$%/ICFC%
;P<SCF%<CK<CFC?A%AIC%l:`%K<C=>;A>"?%>?AC<SB#%L"<%AIC%<C@<CF)
F>"?%;P<SC$
Table III.—Univariate and multivariate linear correlation analysis among age, sex, max diameter, vascularization
and N. layers.
G?>SB<>BAC%B?B#EF>F 0P#A>SB<>BAC%B?B#EF>F
8B<BDCAC<F 5%c8%SB#PCd
Multiple linear correlation coefcient = 0.483
,@C%_%9CR )^$bh:%c^$^&Madg 5KB<A>B# = -0.268; P value= 0.108
,@C%_%DBR%=>BDCAC< ^$&lb%c^$a&^d 5KB<A>B# = 0.301; P value= 0.070
,@C%_%!BF;P#B<>TBA>"? ^$&'&%c^$&l&d 5KB<A>B# = 0.113; P value= 0.506
,@C%_%*<$%4BEC<F ^$MM&%c^$&&bd 5KB<A>B# = 0.172; P value= 0.310
Multiple linear correlation coefcient = 0.495
9CR%_%,@C )^$bh:%c^$^&Madg 5KB<A>B# = -0.268; P value= 0.108
9CR%_%DBR%=>BDCAC< )^$&&h%c^$M(ld 5KB<A>B# = -0.198; P value= 0.241
9CR%_%!BF;P#B<>TBA>"? )^$a&(%c^$&h&d 5KB<A>B# = -0.136; P value= 0.421
9CR%_%*<$%4BEC<F )^$a'l%c^$^had 5KB<A>B# = -0.296; P value= 0.075
Multiple linear correlation coefcient = 0.606
DBR%=>BDCAC<%_%,@C ^$&lb%c^$a&^d 5KB<A>B# = 0.301; P value= 0.070
DBR%=>BDCAC<%_%9CR )^$&&h%c^$M(ld 5KB<A>B# = -0.198; P value= 0.241
DBR%=>BDCAC<%_%!BF;P#B<>TBA>"? )^$^h(%c^$:lld 5KB<A>B# = -0.072; P value= 0.672
DBR%=>BDCAC<%_%*<$%4BEC<F )^$MhM%c^$^^&(dg 5KB<A>B# = -0.554; P value= 0.0004*
Multiple linear correlation coefcient = 0.285
!BF;P#B<>TBA>"?%_%,@C ^$&'&%c^$&l&d 5KB<A>B# = 0.113; P value= 0.506
!BF;P#B<>TBA>"?%_%9CR )^$a&(%c^$&h&d 5KB<A>B# = -0.136; P value= 0.421
!BF;P#B<>TBA>"?%_%DBR%=>BDCAC< )^$^h(%c^$:lld 5KB<A>B# = -0.072; P value= 0.672
!BF;P#B<>TBA>"?%_%*<$%4BEC<F ^$a^&%c^$a&:d 5KB<A>B# = 0.083; P value= 0.624
Multiple linear correlation coefcient = 0.612
*<$#BEC<F%_%,@C ^$MM&%c^$&&bd 5KB<A>B# = 0.172; P value= 0.310
*<$#BEC<F%_%9CR )^$a'l%c^$^had 5KB<A>B# = -0.296; P value= 0.075
*<$#BEC<F%_%DBR%=>BDCAC< )^$MhM%c^$^^&(dg 5KB<A>B# = -0.554; P value= 0.0004
*<$#BEC<F%_%!BF;P#B<>TBA>"? ^$a^&%c^$a&:d 5KB<A>B# = 0.083; P value= 0.624
*Signicant tests.
G4/5,97G*1%93752*+%9j9/.0%X75%,3G/.%,88.*1232/29%2*%8.12,/523%8,/2.*/9% 12%+5.-2,
!"#$%&'(%)%*"$%&&% +,--.//,%0.123,%2/,42,*,%)%,5362!27%8.5%4.%932.*-.%0.1236.% :':
K<C=>;AF%B;PAC%BKKC?=>;>A>F$%7AIC<%;<>AC<>B%FP;I%
BF% =>BDCAC<% FI"P#=% JC% BS">=C=Q% =>BDCAC<H%
?"?);"DK<CFF>J>#>AEH% IEKC<CD>BH% K<CFC?;C% "L%
appendicolith, loss of stratication of the ap)
KC?=>;CB#% NB##% ="% ?"A% >?=CKC?=C?A#E% K<C=>;AF%
BKKC?=>;>A>F$a^
[C%L"P?=C=%"AIC<%BFKC;AF%A"%;"?F>=C<%=P<>?@%
AIC%P#A<BF"P?=%CRBD>?BA>"?H%>C%AIC%C;I"@C?>;>)
AE%_%AI>;OC?>?@%"L%AIC%BKKC?=>;CB#%NB##$
8B<A>;P#B<#EU
%BA%AIC%>?;<CBFC%"L%DBR>DPD%BKKC?=>;P)
#B<%=>BDCAC<%AIC<C% >F% B?% >?;<CBFC%>?%AIC% AI>;O)
?CFF_C;I"@C?>;>AE%"L%AIC%CRAC<?B#% #BEC<% N>AI%B%
=C;<CBFC%"L%AI>;OC?CFF%"L%AIC%FC;"?=%#BEC<Q
%AIC% DBR>DPD% =>BDCAC<% >F% D"<C% K<CSB)
#C?A% >?% DB#C% K"KP#BA>"?% ;"DKB<C=% A"% LCDB#C%
@<"PK%B?=%AI>F%=BAC%>F%;"?F>FAC?A%N>AI%#>AC<BAP<C%
CRKC<>C?;CQ
%@C?=C<% ="CF% ?"A% BLLC;A% AIC% ?PDJC<% "L%
#BEC<F%JPA%"?#E%AIC%SBF;P#B<>TBA>"?%cX]0dQ
%the most representative stratication
KBAAC<?%JBFC=%"?%#BEC<%C;I"@C?>;>AE%B<CU
&d%&'%IEK")IEKC<)IEK"Q
ad% l% IEK")IEKC<)=>F"D"@C?CPFH% ;"?)
sistent with “target sign” (3 layers= hypo:
DPF;"#B<>F%DP;"FBC%)%IEKC<U% DP;"FBC_FPJ)
DP;"FBC% s% IEK"_B?C;"@U% >?A<BKKC?=>;P#B<%
uid);
%max diameter was negative signicant
K<C=>;A"<%"L%*<$%#BEC<F%>$C$%B?%>?;<CBF>?@%"L%=>)
BDCAC<% NBF% ;"<<C#BAC=% N>AI% B% =C;<CBFC% >?% AIC%
?PDJC<%"L%#BEC<F$a&)ab
/IC<C%>F%B%SB#>=%FABA>FA>;%;"<<C#BA>"?%JCANCC?%
AIC%K<CFC?;C%"L%B;PAC%BKKC?=>;>A>F%B?=%"?C%"L%
the stratication pattern, independently from
AIC%DBR>DPD%BKKC?=>;P#B<%=>BDCAC<%B?=%3"#)
"<1"KK#C<%F>@?B#%F;"<C$
/I>F%;"P#=%JC%<C#BAC=%N>AI%AIC%KIEF>"KBAI")
logic mechanism of inammation (vasocon)
FA<>;A>"?H% SBF"=>#BABA>"?H% C=CDBH% ;ICD"ABR>FH%
CRP=BACd%B?=%N>AI%AIC%A>DC%"L%G9%CRC;PA>"?$aa
/IC%=>B@?"F>F%"L%B;PAC%BKKC?=>;>A>F%>?%KC=>)
BA<>;%K"KP#BA>"?% >F% "LAC?% IB<=% B?=%B% D"FA% G9%
specic sign does not exist, but one or more
US ndings can orient the diagnosis.
It is not always possible to conrm the clini)
;B#%FPFK>;>"?%"L%B;PAC%BKKC?=>;>A>F%N>AI%<B=>")
#"@>;B#%G9%>DB@>?@%AC;I?>YPCH%JBFC=%"?%<CB=)
>?@%AIC% 071% B#"?C% "<% BFF";>BA>?@%N>AI% "AIC<%
cularity of normal and inamed appendix may
JC%=>LLC<C?AH%AI>F%=>LLC<C?;C%NBF%?"A%B%@""=%=>)
B@?"FA>;%>?=>;BA"<%"L%BKKC?=>;>A>F$a&H%aa
[C% L"P?=% AIC% K<CFC?;C% "L% >?A<BKC<>A"?CB#%
uid just in 4 patient and so neither the quan)
A>AE%?"<%AIC%AEK"#"@E%NBF%<CK"<AC=Q%>?%"?#E%"?C%
;BFC%NC%L"P?=%B?%BKKC?=>;"#>AI$
Discussion
8PE#BC<A%K<"SC=H%>?%AIC%&lh(H%AIBA%AIC%V>=C?)
tication in RLQ of a non-compressible blind)
C?=>?@%FA<P;AP<C%N>AI%B?%"PAC<%=>BDCAC<%@<CBAC<%
AIB?%(%DDW%c@<B=C=%;"DK<CFF>"?d%>F%=>B@?"F)
A>;%L"<%BKKC?=>;>A>F$&(
This diagnostic approach was conrmed in
AIC%a^^MU%V,%AI<CFI"#=%(%DD%=>BDCAC<%"L%AIC%
BKKC?=>R%P?=C<%;"DK<CFF>"?%>F%AIC%D"FA%B;;P)
rate US nding for appendicitis and has high
*8!%B?=%88!W$&'
8<>DB<E% ;<>AC<>"?% L"<% AIC% G9% =>B@?"F>F% "L%
BKKC?=>;>A>F%>F% B?% BKKC?=>;CB#%DBR>DB#% "PAC<%
=>BDCAC<% c071d% C?#B<@CDC?A% JCE"?=% (% DD%
(most specic sign). Secondary criteria in)
;#P=C% KC<>)BKKC?=>;CB#% IEK"C;I">;% IB#"% BF)
F";>BAC=% N>AI% NB##% C=CDBH% BKKC?=>;CB#% NB##%
thickness ≥3 mm, wall hyperemia on color
1"KK#C<% CRBDH% C;I"@C?>;% C=CDBA"PF% DCFC?)
AC<>;%LBA%FA<B?=>?@H% B?=%AIC%K<CFC?;C%"L% B?%BK)
KC?=>;"#>AI$
6"NCSC<% >?% AIC% L"##"N>?@% ECB<F% "AIC<% BP)
AI"<F%PA>#>TC=% B% ;PA)"LL%071%"L% '% DD%&h%B?=%
also added other US ndings, for instance
+"#=>?%et al.%<CK"<AC=%AIBAHW%>?;<CBFC=%G9%FC?)
sitivity and specicity for the diagnosis of ap)
KC?=>;>A>F%N"P#=%JC%B;I>CSC=%>L%AIC%=>B@?"FA>;%
criteria were dened as a MOD of ≥7.5 mm
B#"?CH%"<%B%071%<B?@>?@%JCANCC?%($^%B?=%'$M%
DD%N>AI%BA%#CBFA%"?C%FC;"?=B<E%G9%F>@?H%FP;I%
as appendiceal hyperemia, focal uid collec)
A>"?H%K<CFC?;C%"L%B%LC;B#>AIH%B?=_"<%IEKC<C;I">;%
or inamed mesenteric fat. In addition, wall
AI>;O?CFF%B#"?C%D>@IA%JC%B?%>DK"<AB?A%SB<>BJ#C%
BLLC;A>?@%"PA;"DCF$W&l
0"<C"SC<% "AIC<% BPAI"<F% K<"SC=% AIBA% AIC%
MOD specicity was not signicant and ap)
K#>C=%"?#E%AIC%FC;"?=B<E% ;<>AC<>BU% t>?% B% DP#A>)
variate analysis, inammation of periappen)
diceal fat is the only nding that statistically
12%+5.-2,% G4/5,97G*1%93752*+%9j9/.0%X75%,3G/.%,88.*1232/29%2*%8.12,/523%8,/2.*/9
:'(% +,--.//,%0.123,%2/,42,*,%)%,5362!27%8.5%4.%932.*-.%0.1236.% *"SCDJC<%a^&'
A>B@"% 0C=>?B% 4H% 1"<>B%,9% ,;PAC% BKKC?=>;>A>F% >?% E"P?@%
;I>#=<C?U% ;"FA)CLLC;A>SC?CFF% "L% G9% SC<FPF% 3/% >?% =>B@)
?"F>F)% B% 0B<O"S% =C;>F>"?% B?B#EA>;% D"=C#% 5B=>"#"@E%
a^^lXCJQa:^Ub'h)bh(
&a$%.#>OBFIS>#>% 2H%/BE%./H%/FP?@%u[H%/IC% CLLC;A%"L% K">?A)"L)
;B<C% P#A<BF"?"@<BKIE% "?% CDC<@C?;E% =CKB<ADC?A% #C?@IA%
"L%FABE%B?=%;"DKPAC=%A"D"@<BKIE%PA>#>TBA>"?%>?%;I>#=<C?%
N>AI%FPFKC;AC=%BKKC?=>;>A>F%,;B=CD>;%.DC<@C?;E%0C=>)
;>?C%a^&MQa&U&(b)&'^
&b$%8BFA"<C%!H%3";"DBTT>%5H%\BF>#C%,H%8BFA"<C%0H%\B<A"#>%XH%
4>D>AF%B?=% B=SB?AB@CF%"L%BJ="D>?B#% P#A<BF"?"@<BKIE% >?%
;I>#=<C?%N>AI%B;PAC%BKKC?=>;>A>F%FE?=<"DC%,L<>;B?%u"P<)
?B#%"L%8C=>BA<>;%9P<@C<E%a^&M
&M$% \B;IP<%5+H%1BEB?%89H%\BnBn%4H%0B;>BF%3+H%02AAB#%0kH%
9ACSC?F"?%01H%1P=#CE%*3H%9>?;#B><%kH%\C??CAA%uH%0"?P)
ACBPR%03H%kIB<JB?=B%,\H%/IC%CLLC;A%"L%BJ="D>?B#%KB>?%
=P<BA>"?%"?%AIC%B;;P<B;E%"L%=>B@?"FA>;%>DB@>?@%L"<%KC=>)
BA<>;%BKKC?=>;>A>F%,??%.DC<@%0C=%a^&aQ(^U:ha):l^
&:$% 9"DDBH%X$H%XB@@>B?H%,$H% 9C<<BH%*$H% +BAABH%+$H%2B;"JC##>FH%
X$H%\C<<>AA"H%1$H%5C@>?C##>H%,$H%1>%0>T>"H%!$H%3BKKBJ>B?;BH%
9$H% 1>% 0>T>"H% 5$H% +<BFF>H% 5$% \"NC#% >?APFFPF;CKA>"?F% >?%
B=P#AFU% AIC% <"#C% "L% >DB@>?@% ca^&Md% 5B=>"#"@>B% 0C=>;BH%
&a^HKK$%&^:)&&'$
&($%8PE#BC<A% u\H% ,;PAC% BKKC?=>;>A>FU% G9% CSB#PBA>"?% PF>?@%
@<B=C=%;"DK<CFF>"?%5B=>"#"@E%&lh(Q&:hUb::)b(^
&'$% kCFF#C<%*H%3EACSB#%3H% +B##>R%\H% 4CF?>O%,H% \#BEB;% 80H%
8Pn"#% uH% \<PC#% u0H% /B"P<C#% 8% ,KKC?=>;>A>FU% CSB#PBA>"?%
of sensitivity, specicity, and predictive values of US,
Doppler US, and laboratory ndings Radiology 2004
XCJQab^UM'a)h
&h$%8<C?=C<@BFA% 80H% ,;PAC% BKKC?=>;>A>FU% >?SCFA>@BA>?@% B?%
"KA>DB#%"PAC<%BKKC?=>;CB#%=>BDCAC<%;PA)K">?A%>?%B%KC=>)
BA<>;% K"KP#BA>"?% /IC% u"P<?B#% "L% .DC<@C?;E% 0C=>;>?C%
a^&MQ&:')&(M
&l$% +"#=>?%,\H%kIB??B%8H%/IBKB%0H%0;\<""D%u,H%+B<<>F"?%
00H%8B<>F>%0/%5CS>FC=%P#A<BF"P?=%;<>AC<>B%L"<%BKKC?=>)
;>A>F% >?% ;I>#=<C?% >DK<"SC% =>B@?"FA>;% B;;P<B;E% 8C=>BA<>;%
5B=>"#"@E%a^&&QM&Ullb)l
a^$%/<"PA% ,/H% 9B?;ICT% 5H% 4B=>?")/"<<CF% 0XH% 5CCSB#PBA>?@%
AIC% F"?"@<BKI>;% ;<>AC<>B% L"<% B;PAC% BKKC?=>;>A>F% >?% ;I>#)
=<C?U%B%<CS>CN%"L%#>AC<BAP<C%B?=%B%<CA<"FKC;A>SC%B?B#EF>F%"L%
aM(%;BFCF%,;B=%5B=>"#%a^&a%*"SQ&lc&&dU&bha)lM
a&$%8BA<>YP>?%6\H%,KKC?=>;>A>F%>?%;I>#=<C?%B?=%E"P?@%B=P#AFU%
="KK#C<% F"?"@<BKI>;)KBAI"#"@>;% ;"<<C#BA>"?% ,u5% &ll(%
0B<Q&((Q(al)bb
22. Quillin SP, Siegel MJ, Appendicitis: efcacy of color
1"KK#C<%F"?"@<BKIE%5B=>"#"@E$%&llM%0BEQ&l&U::')(^
ab$%2"SC?CH% 0$% 5$H% \"DJB;CH% X$H% 0B<CF;BH% 5$H% 9BK"?CH% ,$H%
2B<=>?"H% 8$H% 8>;B<=>H% ,$H% et al$H% 2?ACFA>?B#% 1EFJ>"F>F% B?=%
jCBFA% 2F"#BA>"?% >?% 9A""#% "L% 9PJnC;AF% N>AI% ,PA>FD% 9KC;)
A<PD%1>F"<=C<F$%0E;"KBAI"#"@>BH%&)&:$
aM$% \B#=>FFC<"AA"%0H% 8C#CAA>%,\H%2F% ;"#"P<%1"KK#C<% F"?"@<B)
KIE%B%@""=%DCAI"=%A"%=>LLC<C?A>BAC%?"<DB#%B?=%BJ?"<DB#%
BKKC?=>;CF% >?% ;I>#=<C?v% 3#>?% 5B=>"#% a^^'% ,K<Q(aUb(:)
b(l
a:$% !B#C?A>?>H%!$H%\PYP>;;I>"H%+$4$H%+B##PTT"H%0$H%2B??>C##"H%
9$H%1>%+<CT>BH%+$H%,DJ<"F>"H%5$H%/<>?;>H%0$H%0>C#CH%!$%2?)
tussusception in adults: The role of MDCT in the identi)
;BA>"?%"L%AIC%F>AC%B?=%;BPFC%"L%"JFA<P;A>"?%ca^&(d%+BFA<")
C?AC<"#"@E%5CFCB<;I%B?=%8<B;A>;CH%a^&(
a($%3BKKBJ>B?;B% 9H% +<B?BAB% !H% 1>% +<CT>B% +H% 0B?=BA"% jH%
5C@>?C##>%,H%1>%0>T>"%!H%+<BFF>%5H%5"A"?="%,%/IC%<"#C%"L%
?BF"C?AC<>;%>?APJBA>"?%>?% AIC% 05% FAP=E%"L%KBA>C?AF% N>AI%
3<"I?pF%=>FCBFCU%"P<%CRKC<>C?;C%B?=%#>AC<BAP<C%<CS>CN%5B)
=>"#"@>B%0C=>;B%ca^&&d%&&(Ubhl)M^(
ndings such as color Doppler or the presence
of intraperitoneal uid between the loops.a^)a:
X"<%AI>F%<CBF"?%>F%D"<C%BKK<"K<>BAC%A"%B?B)
#ETC%AIC%P#A<BFA<P;AP<C%"L%AIC%BKKC?=>;CB#%NB##U%
SBF;P#B<>TBA>"?%c;"#"<_8"NC<% 1"KK#C<dH% =>BD)
eter modication, wall thickening and all other
F>@?F%B#<CB=E%N>=C#E%=CF;<>JC=%>?%AIC%#>AC<BAP<C$
Conclusions
,;;"<=>?@%A"%"P<%G9%<CFP#AFH%>A%>F%?"A%;"<<C;A%
A"%FKCBO%"L% K<>DB<E% B?=% FC;"?=B<E% F>@?FH%JPA%
more properly of US ndings suggestive of ap)
KC?=>;>A>F%FP;I%PF%AIC%?PDJC<%"L%#BEC<F%B?=%AIC%
C;I"@C?>;>AE%KBAAC<?%"L%CB;I%#BEC<$
References
% &$%3B<AE%60H%8C=>BA<>;%CDC<@C?;>CFU%?"?)A<BPDBA>;%BJ="D)
>?B#%CDC<@C?;>CF%.P<%5B=>"#$%a^^a%1C;Q&ac&adUahb:)Mh
% a$%,#SB<B="%,H%,%K<B;A>;B#% F;"<C%L"<%AIC% CB<#E% =>B@?"F>F%"L%
B;PAC%BKKC?=>;>A>F%,??%.DC<@%0C=%&lh(Q&:U::')(M
% b$% 9>S>A%3XH%9>C@C#%0XH%,KK#C@BAC%k.H%*CNDB?%k1H%[IC?%
BKKC?=>;>A>F% >F% FPFKC;AC=% >?% ;I>#=<C?% 5B=>"+<BKI>;F%
a^^&Qa&UaM')a(a
% M$%-IB?@%6H%4>B"%0H%3IC?%uH%-IP%1H%\EB?nP%9H%G#A<BF"P?=H%
;"DKPAC=% A"D"@<BKIE% "<% DB@?CA>;% <CF"?B?;C% >DB@>?@)%
NI>;I%>F%K<CLC<<C=%L"<% B;PAC% BKKC?=>;>A>F% >?% ;I>#=<C?v%,%
DCAB)B?B#EF>F%8C=>BA<%5B=>"#%a^&(
% :$% 0>B?"%12H%9>#S>F%50H%8"KK%u0H%3P#JC<AF"?%03H%3BDK)
JC##%\H%9D>AI%95H%,J="D>?B#%3/%="CF%?"A%>DK<"SC%"PA)
;"DC%L"<%;I>#=<C?%N>AI%FPFKC;AC=%B;PAC%BKKC?=>;>A>F%[CFA%
u%.DC<@%0C=%a^&:%1C;%&(Ul'M)lha
% ($%3P;;P<P##"H% !$H%3>";CH% X$H%9>;BH%,$H%2BF>C##"H%X$H%3BKBFF"H%
5$H% +BAABH% +$H% 5PJ>?>H% +$% +BFA<"C?AC<>;% =>FCBFCF% >?% AIC%
AI><=%D>##C??>PDU%,%<BA>"?B#%BKK<"B;I%A"%"KA>DB#%>DB@>?@%
AC;I?>YPC%B?=%KBA>C?A% FC#C;A>"?%ca^&ad%5C;C?A>% 8<"@<CFF>%
>?%0C=>;>?BH%&^b%c&&dH%KK$%Ma()Mb^$
% '$%6"#F;IC<%63H%6C>n%6,H%2DB@>?@%"L%B;PAC%BKKC?=>;>A>F%>?%
;I>#=<C?U% .G% SC<FPF% G$9$w% "<% G9% SC<FPF% 3/v%,% .P<")
KCB?%K<"FKC;A>SC%8C=>BA<>;%5B=>"#"@E%a^^l%blUMl')Mll
% h$% 9<>?>SBFB?%,H%9C<SBCF%9H%8C?B%,H%1B<@C%kH%GA>#>AE%"L%3/%
BLAC<%F"?"@<BKIE%L"<% FPFKC;AC=% BKKC?=>;>A>F% >?% ;I>#=<C?U%
>?AC@<BA>"?%"L%B%;#>?>;B#%F;"<>?@%FEFACD%N>AI%FAB@C=%>DB@)
>?@%K<"A";"#%.DC<@%5B=>"#%a^&:QaaUb&)Ma
% l$% !B?%,AAB%,uH%\BFO>?% 6uH%0BSCF%3kH%5"##>?F%01H% \"#AC%
5+H%0P?="<LL%0\H%,?=<CNF%98H%1B?F>C%10%2DK#CDC?A)
>?@%B?%P#A<BF"P?=)JBFC=%K<"A";"#%L"<% =>B@?"F>?@% BKKC?)
=>;>A>F% NI>#C% DB>?AB>?>?@% =>B@?"FA>;% B;;P<B;E% 8C=>BA<$%
5B=>"#%a^&:QM:U('h)(h:
&^$% k"AB@B#% 0H% 5>;IB<=F% 0kH% 3IBKDB?% /H% X>?;I% 4H% 0;)
3B??%\H% 7<DBTBJB#%,H%5PFI%5uH%+"#=>?%,\H%2DK<"S>?@%
P#A<BF"P?=% YPB#>AE% A"% <C=P;C% ;"DKPAC=% A"D"@<BKIE% PFC%
>?%KC=>BA<>;%BKKC?=>;>A>FU%AIC%9BLC%B?=%9"P?=%;BDKB>@?%
,DC<>;B?%u"P<?B#%"L%9P<@C<E%a^&:Qa^lUhl()l^^
&&$% [B?%0uH% k<BI?% 0H% G?@B<% [uH% 3BOP% .H% 9P?@% 4H% 9B?)
Conicts of interest.—The authors certify that there is no conict of interest with any nancial organization regarding the material
=>F;PFFC=%>?%AIC%DB?PF;<>KA$
0B?PF;<>KA%B;;CKAC=U%0BE%a:H%a^&'$%)%0B?PF;<>KA%<C;C>SC=U%0BE%&hH%a^&'$
This document is protected by international copyright laws. No additional reproduction is authorized. It is per mitted for personal use to download and save only one file and print only one copy of this Article. It is not permitted to make additional copies
(either sporadically or systematically, either printed or electronic) of the Article for any purpose. It is not permitted to distr ibute the electronic copy of the ar ticle through online internet and/or intranet file sharing systems, electronic mailing or any other
means which may allow access to the Article. The use of all or any par t of the Article for any Commercial Use is not per mitted. The creation of derivative works from the Article is not permitted. The production of reprints for personal or commercial use is
not permitted. It is not per mitted to remove, cover, overlay, obscure, block, or change any copyright notices or terms of use which the Publisher may post on the Article. It is not permitted to frame or use framing techniques to enclose any trademark, logo,
or other proprietary information of the Publisher.
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
Background There is no established consensus about the relative accuracies of US, CT and MRI in childhood appendicitis. Objective To compare, through meta-analysis, the accuracies of US, CT and MRI for clinically suspected acute appendicitis in children. Materials and methodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched. After study selection, data extraction and quality assessment, the sensitivity, specificity and the area under the curve of summary receiver operating characteristic were calculated and compared. ResultsTwenty-seven articles including 29 studies met the inclusion criteria, including 19 studies (9,170 patients) of US, 6 studies (928 patients) of CT and 4 studies (990 patients) of MRI. The analysis showed that the area under the receiver operator characteristics curve of MRI (0.995) was a little higher than that of US (0.987) and CT (0.982; P > 0.05). ConclusionUS, CT and MRI have high diagnostic accuracies of clinically suspected acute appendicitis in children overall with no significant difference.
Article
Full-text available
Introduction Acute appendicitis in children is a clinical diagnosis, which often requires preoperative confirmation with either ultrasound (US) or computed tomography (CT) studies. CTs expose children to radiation, which may increase the lifetime risk of developing malignancy. US in the pediatric population with appropriate clinical follow up and serial exam may be an effective diagnostic modality for many children without incurring the risk of radiation. The objective of the study was to compare the rate of appendiceal rupture and negative appendectomies between children with and without abdominal CTs; and to evaluate the same outcomes for children with and without USs to determine if there were any associations between imaging modalities and outcomes. Methods We conducted a retrospective chart review including emergency department (ED) and inpatient records from 1/1/2009–2/31/2010 and included patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Results 1,493 children, aged less than one year to 20 years, were identified in the ED with suspected appendicitis. These patients presented with abdominal pain who had either a surgical consult or an abdominal imaging study to evaluate for appendicitis, or were transferred from an outside hospital or primary care physician office with the stated suspicion of acute appendicitis. Of these patients, 739 were sent home following evaluation in the ED and did not return within the subsequent two weeks and were therefore presumed not to have appendicitis. A total of 754 were admitted and form the study population, of which 20% received a CT, 53% US, and 8% received both. Of these 57%, 95% CI [53.5,60.5] had pathology-proven appendicitis. Appendicitis rates were similar for children with a CT (57%, 95% CI [49.6,64.4]) compared to those without (57%, 95% CI [52.9,61.0]). Children with perforation were similar between those with a CT (18%, 95% CI [12.3,23.7]) and those without (13%, 95% CI [10.3,15.7]). The proportion of children with a negative appendectomy was similar in both groups: CT (7%, 95% CI [2.1,11.9]), US (8%, 95% CI [4.7,11.3]) and neither (12%, 95% CI [5.9,18.1]). Conclusion In this uncontrolled study, the accuracy of preoperative diagnosis of appendicitis and the incidence of pathology-proven perforation appendix were similar for children with suspected acute appendicitis whether they had CT, US or neither imaging, in conjunction with surgical consult. The imaging modality of CT was not associated with better outcomes for children presenting to the ED with suspected appendicitis.
Article
Full-text available
Safety concerns about the use of radiation-based imaging such as computed tomography (CT) in children have resulted in national recommendations to use ultrasound (US) for the diagnosis of appendicitis when possible. We evaluated the trends in CT and US use in a statewide sample and the accuracy of these modalities. Patients less than or equal to 18 years undergoing appendectomy in Washington State from 2008 to 2013 were evaluated for preoperative US/CT use, as well as imaging/pathology concordance using data from the Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program. Among 3,353 children, 98.3% underwent preoperative imaging. There was a significant increase in the use of US first over the study period (P < .001). The use of CT at any time during the evaluation decreased. Despite this, in 2013, over 40% of the children still underwent CT imaging. Concordance between US imaging and pathology varied between 40% and 75% at hospitals performing greater than or equal to 10 appendectomies in 2013. Over one third (34.9%) of CT scans performed in the evaluation of children with appendicitis were performed after an indeterminate US. Although the use of US as the first imaging modality to diagnose pediatric appendicitis has increased over the past 5 years, over 40% of children still undergo a CT scan during their preoperative evaluation. Causality for this persistence of CT use is unclear, but could include variability in US accuracy, lack of training, and lack of awareness of the risks of radiation-based imaging. Developing a campaign to focus on continued reduction in CT and increased use of high-quality US should be pursued. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Article
Full-text available
To improve diagnosis of pediatric appendicitis, many institutions have implemented a staged imaging protocol utilizing ultrasonography (US) first and then computed tomography (CT). A substantial number of children with suspected appendicitis undergo CT after US, and the efficient and accurate diagnosis of pediatric appendicitis continues to be challenging. The objective of the study is to characterize the utility of CT following US for diagnosis of pediatric appendicitis, in conjunction with a clinical appendicitis score (AS). Imaging studies of children with suspected appendicitis who underwent CT after US in an imaging protocol were retrospectively reviewed by three radiologists in consensus. Chart review derived the AS (range 0-10) and obtained the patient diagnosis and disposition, and an AS was applied to each patient. Clinical and radiologic data were analyzed to assess the yield of CT after US. Studies of 211 children (mean age 11.3 years) were included. The positive threshold for AS was determined to be 6 out of 10. When AS and US were concordant (N = 140), the sensitivity and specificity of US were similar to CT. When AS and US were discordant (N = 71) and also when AS ≥ 6 (N = 84), subsequent CT showed superior sensitivity and specificity to US alone. In the subset where US showed neither the appendix nor inflammatory change in the right lower quadrant (126/211, 60 % of scans), when AS < 6 (N = 83), the negative predictive value (NPV) of US was 0.98. However, when AS ≥ 6 (N = 43), NPV of US was 0.58, and the positive predictive value of subsequent CT was 1. There was a significant decrease in depiction of the appendix on US with patient weight-to-age ratio of >6 (kg/year, P < 0.001) and after-hours (1700 -0730 hours) performance of US (P < 0.001). Results suggest that the appendicitis score has utility in guiding an imaging protocol and support the contention that non-visualization of the appendix on US is not intrinsically non-diagnostic. There was little benefit to additional CT when AS < 6 and US did not show the appendix or evidence of inflammation; this would have avoided CT in 140/211 (66 %) patients. CT demonstrated benefit when AS ≥ 6, suggesting that cases with AS ≥ 6 and features that limit depiction of the appendix on US may be triaged to CT.
Article
Full-text available
In the last twenty years, the study of gastroenteric disorders underwent a radical change as a result of rapid advances in diagnostic imaging, with the introduction of more sophisticated and better performing techniques. Although this evolution has significantly contributed to improve diagnostic accuracy, also allowing assessment of different areas of the gastroenteric tract that could not be well evaluated in the past, clinicians may feel confused about deciding the most appropriate diagnostic approach according to lesion type and site. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of available imaging techniques to guide the diagnostic approach to gastroenteric diseases.
Article
Full-text available
We conducted a retrospective study of 305 patients hospitalized with abdominal pain suggestive of acute appendicitis. Signs, symptoms, and laboratory findings were analyzed for specificity, sensitivity, predictive value, and joint probability. The total joint probability, the sum of a true-positive and a true-negative result, was chosen as a diagnostic weight indicative of the accuracy of the test. Eight predictive factors were found to be useful in making the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Their importance, according to their diagnostic weight, was determined as follows: localized tenderness in the right lower quadrant, leukocytosis, migration of pain, shift to the left, temperature elevation, nausea-vomiting, anorexia-acetone, and direct rebound pain. Based on this weight, we devised a practical diagnostic score that may help in interpreting the confusing picture of acute appendicitis.
Article
Acute appendicitis is the most common condition requiring emergent abdominal surgery in childhood. The clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis is often not straightforward because approximately one-third of children with the condition have atypical clinical findings. The delayed diagnosis of this condition has serious consequences, including appendiceal perforation, abscess formation, peritonitis, sepsis, bowel obstruction, and death. Cross-sectional imaging with ultrasonography (US) and computed tomography (CT) have proved useful for the evaluation of suspected acute appendicitis. There has been a great deal of variability in the utilization of these modalities for such diagnosis in the pediatric population. The principal advantages of US are its lower cost, lack of ionizing radiation, and ability to assess vascularity through color Doppler techniques and to provide dynamic information through graded compression. The principal advantages of CT include less operator dependency than US, as reflected by a higher diagnostic accuracy, and enhanced delineation of disease extent in a perforated appendix.
Article
Presentation with acute abdominal pain or abdominal symptopathology is a very common cause of presentation of children to hospital. The causes are dependent in part on the age of the child, in part on the presence of previous surgery, and can be divided into those that relate to congenital abnormalities at whatever age they present, acquired disease and infection. Children, particularly young children are often poor historians, and therefore the clinical examination and the laboratory investigations are important in helping to come to a diagnosis. Primary imaging of abdominal emergencies in childhood is a radiograph of the abdomen, followed by ultrasound. Further imaging depends on the results of these studies. An ordered review of the abdomen radiograph is important if the salient features on X-ray are not to be missed. Practitioners should be competent with abdominal ultrasound in children and know where to seek the causes of disease, as these are different from those that are obtained in many instances in adults. Familiarity with the likely causes is important. The three commonest causes of acute abdominal pain in childhood are, in young infants, intussusception, appendicitis and mesenteric adenitis. In older children, inflammatory bowel disease and ovarian pathology are also included. This article details the approach to imaging and the salient features of some of the conditions.
imaging of acute appendicitis in children: eU versus U.S.… or US versus ct? a european prospective pediatric radiology
  • Holscher
  • Ha
holscher hc, heij ha, imaging of acute appendicitis in children: eU versus U.S.… or US versus ct? a european prospective pediatric radiology 2009 39:497-499
dansie dM implementing an ultrasound-based protocol for diagnosing appendicitis while maintaining diagnostic accuracy pediatr
  • Van Atta Aj
  • Maves Baskin Hj
  • Ck
  • Rollins Md
  • Bolte Rg
  • M B Mundorff
  • Sp Andrews
Van atta aJ, Baskin hJ, Maves cK, rollins Md, Bolte rG, Mundorff MB, andrews Sp, dansie dM implementing an ultrasound-based protocol for diagnosing appendicitis while maintaining diagnostic accuracy pediatr. radiol 2015;45:678-685