Dataset Information

Discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis by ultrasound imaging, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.

ABSTRACT: Discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis is crucial. Patients with suspected complicated appendicitis are best treated by emergency surgery, whereas those with uncomplicated appendicitis may be treated with antibiotics alone. This study aimed to obtain summary estimates of the accuracy of ultrasound imaging, CT and MRI in discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis. A systematic literature review was conducted by an electronic search in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library for studies describing the diagnostic accuracy of complicated versus uncomplicated appendicitis. Studies were included if the population comprised adults, and surgery or pathology was used as a reference standard. Risk of bias and applicability were assessed with QUADAS-2. Bivariable logitnormal random-effect models were used to estimate mean sensitivity and specificity. Two studies reporting on ultrasound imaging, 11 studies on CT, one on MRI, and one on ultrasonography with conditional CT were included. Summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity in detecting complicated appendicitis could be calculated only for CT, because of lack of data for the other imaging modalities. For CT, mean sensitivity was 78 (95 per cent c.i. 64 to 88) per cent, and mean specificity was 91 (85 to 99) per cent. At a median prevalence of 25 per cent, the positive predictive value of CT for complicated appendicitis would be 74 per cent and its negative predictive value 93 per cent. Ultrasound imaging, CT and MRI have limitations in discriminating between complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis. Although CT has far from perfect sensitivity, its negative predictive value for complicated appendicitis is high.

SUBMITTER: Bom WJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7944501 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRecent studies have reported promising outcomes of non-operative treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis; however, the preoperative prediction of complicated appendicitis is challenging. We developed models by incorporating fat stranding (FS), which is commonly observed in perforated appendicitis.Material and methodsWe reviewed the data of 402 consecutive patients with confirmed acute appendicitis from our prospective registry. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to select clinical and radiographic factors predicting complicated acute appendicitis in our model 1 (involving backward elimination) and model 2 (involving stepwise selection). We compared c statistics among scoring systems developed by Bröker et al. (in J Surg Res 176(1):79-83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2011.09.049 , 2012), Imaoka et al. (in World J Emerg Surg 11(1):1-5, 2016), Khan et al. (in Cureus. https://doi.org/1010.7759/cureus.4765 , 2019), Kim et al. (in Ann Coloproctol 31(5):192, 2015), Kang et al. (in Medicine 98(23): e15768, 2019), Atema et al. (in Br J Surg 102(8):979-990. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9835 , 2015), Avanesov et al. (in Eur Radiol 28(9):3601-3610, 2018), and Kim et al. (in Abdom Radiol 46:1-12, 2020). Finally, we examined our models by performing the integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) test.ResultsAmong enrolled patients, 64 (15.9%) had complicated acute appendicitis. We developed new 10-point scoring models by including the following variables: C-reactive protein, neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio, and computed tomography features of FS, ascites, and appendicolith. A cutoff score of ≥ 6 exhibited a high sensitivity of 82.8% and a specificity of 82.8% for model 1 and 81.3% and 82.3% for model 2, respectively, with c statistics of 0.878 (model 1) and 0.879 (model 2). Compared with the model developed by Bröker et al. which included C-reactive protein and the abdominal pain duration (c statistic: 0.778), the models developed by Atema et al. (c statistic: 0.826, IDI: 5.92%, P = 0.0248), H.Y Kim et al. (c statistics: 0.838, IDI: 13.82%, P = 0.0248), and our two models (IDI: 18.29%, P < 0.0001) demonstrated a significantly higher diagnostic accuracy.ConclusionOur models and the scoring systems developed by Atema et al. and Kim et al. were validated to have a high diagnostic accuracy; moreover, our models included the lowest number of variables.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:This study aims to differentiate acute uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis, by investigating the correlation between sonographic findings and histological results in different types of paediatric appendicitis. METHODS:This is a retrospective study of 1017 paediatric patients (age < 18 years) who underwent ultrasound by paediatric radiologists before appendicectomy at our institution between 2006 and 2016. Histologically, uncomplicated appendicitis was primarily associated with transmural infiltration of neutrophil granulocytes, while complicated appendicitis was characterised by transmural myonecrosis. Logistic regression analyses were used to investigate the association between sonographic and histological findings. RESULTS:Out of 566 (56%) male and 451 (44%) female patients with a mean age of 10.7 years, uncomplicated appendicitis was histologically diagnosed in 446 (44%) children and complicated appendicitis was diagnosed in 348 (34%) cases. The following ultrasound findings were significantly associated with complicated appendicitis in multivariate regression: an increased appendiceal diameter (OR = 1.3, p < .001), periappendiceal fat inflammation (OR = 1.5, p = 0.02), the presence of an appendicolith (OR = 1.7, p = 0.01) and a suspected perforation (OR = 6.0, p < .001) by the pediatric radiologist. For complicated appendicitis, an appendiceal diameter of more than 6?mm had the highest sensitivity (98%), while a sonographically suspected perforation showed the highest specificity (94%). CONCLUSION:Abdominal sonography by paediatric radiologists can differentiate between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis in paediatric patients by using an increased appendiceal diameter, periappendiceal fat inflammation, the presence of an appendicolith and a suspected perforation as discriminatory markers. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE:This paper demonstrates expanded information on ultrasound, which is not only an essential tool for diagnosing appendicitis, but also a key method for distinguishing between different forms of appendicitis when performed by paediatric radiologists. Compared with previous studies, the crucial distinction features in our analysis are 1) the definition of gangrene and not primarily perforation as an acute complicated appendicitis enabling early decision-making by sonography and 2) a large number of patients in a particularly affected age group.

Project description:Detection of foreign bodies (FBs) is challenging. Selection of a fast and affordable imaging modality to locate the FB with minimal patient radiation dose is imperative.This study sought to compare four commonly used imaging modalities namely cone beam computed tomography (CBCT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and ultrasound (US) for detection of FBs in the head and neck region.In this in vitro study, iron, glass, stone, wood, asphalt, and tooth samples measuring 0.1 × 0.5 × 0.5 cm were placed in the tongue muscle, soft tissue-bone interface and nasal cavity in a fresh sheep's head and subjected to MRI, US, CT and CBCT. A total of 20 images were captured by each imaging system from the six materials in the afore-mentioned locations. The images were observed by an expert oral and maxillofacial radiologist and a general radiologist. To assess reliability, 20 images were randomly observed by the observers in two separate sessions. The images were classified into three groups of good visibility, bad visibility and invisible. The data were analyzed using SPSS version 18, Wilcoxon Signed Rank, Pearson chi square, and Fisher's exact tests.All FBs in the tongue and at the soft tissue-bone interface had good visibility on US (P = 1.00). Also, CBCT and CT had significantly different performance regarding FB detection (P < 0.001). All wooden samples in the nasal cavity were invisible on CT scans; while, only 20% of them were invisible on CBCT scans. MRI showed significant differences for detection of FBs in the three locations (P < 0.001). MRI could not locate iron samples due to severe artifacts and only showed their presence (bad visibility) but other FBs except for wood and tooth in the nasal cavity (100% invisible) had good visibility on MRI.Ultrasound is recommended as the first choice when FB is located within the superficial soft tissues with no bone around it. In case of penetration of FB into deeper tissues or beneath bone, CT or CBCT are recommended. Otherwise, considering lower dose, CBCT is preferred over CT. We can use MRI if the FB is not ferromagnetic. However, CT is the first choice in emergency situations because of higher sensitivity.

Dataset Information

Discriminating complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis by ultrasound imaging, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets