Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published online before print March 4, 2005, 10.1148/radiol.2351040310
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2351040310v1
235/1/89    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Foley, T. A.
Right arrow Articles by Hoskin, T. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Foley, T. A.
Right arrow Articles by Hoskin, T. L.
(Radiology 2005;235:89-96.)
© RSNA, 2005


Gastrointestinal Imaging

Differentiation of Nonperforated from Perforated Appendicitis: Accuracy of CT Diagnosis and Relationship of CT Findings to Length of Hospital Stay1

Thomas A. Foley, BS, Frank Earnest, IV, MD, Mark A. Nathan, MD, David M. Hough, MD, Henry J. Schiller, MD and Tanya L. Hoskin, MS

1 From the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine (T.A.F.) and the Departments of Radiology (F.E., M.A.N., D.M.H.), Surgery (H.J.S.), and Health Sciences Research (T.L.H.), Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, 200 First St SW, Mayo W2, Rochester, MN 55905. Received February 16, 2004; revision requested April 21; revision received May 21; accepted June 28. Address correspondence to F.E. (e-mail: earnest@mayo.edu).

PURPOSE: To determine retrospectively the sensitivity and specificity of computed tomographic (CT) signs in differentiating acute nonperforated appendicitis from perforated appendicitis and to compare CT findings with the length of hospital stay.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional Review Board approval was obtained for this study, and patient informed consent was obtained for record review for research purposes. Two radiologists were blinded to patient identification but were informed that all patients presented to the emergency department with abdominal pain and underwent appendectomy. Radiologists independently reviewed CT images of 86 consecutive patients (45 males, 41 females; mean age, 33.7 years; age range, 8.2–87.1 years) who presented to the emergency department with acute abdominal pain, who underwent CT after initial emergency department assessment, and who underwent appendectomy within the subsequent 24 hours. Individual findings and confidence level for the diagnosis of perforated appendicitis were noted. Consensus interpretation was performed with a third radiologist. The consensus CT findings were correlated with the surgical and pathologic findings by using {chi}2 or Fisher exact tests for univariate analysis and logistic regression for multiple variable analysis. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to assess the association between consensus CT findings and length of hospital stay.

RESULTS: Twenty-one (24%) of the 86 patients had appendiceal perforation. Extraluminal air and either moderate or severe periappendiceal inflammatory stranding were statistically significant independent predictors for perforation (P < .001). A focal defect in enhancing appendiceal wall was significantly associated with perforation (P < .001) and had a sensitivity of 58.8% and specificity of 85.7% on consensus review, with eight false-positive results. There was a strong association between the degree of periappendiceal inflammatory stranding and the length of hospital stay (P < .001).

CONCLUSION: Extraluminal air and moderate or severe periappendiceal inflammatory stranding are statistically significant independent predictors for appendiceal perforation and are associated with increased hospital stay.

© RSNA, 2005




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Emerg. Med. J.Home page
K-H Lin, W-S Leung, C-P Wang, and W-K Chen
Cost analysis of management in acute appendicitis with CT scanning under a hospital global budgeting scheme
Emerg. Med. J., March 1, 2008; 25(3): 149 - 152.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
S. D. Bixby, B. C. Lucey, J. A. Soto, J. M. Theysohn, A. Ozonoff, and J. C. Varghese
Perforated versus Nonperforated Acute Appendicitis: Accuracy of Multidetector CT Detection
Radiology, December 1, 2006; 241(3): 780 - 786.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
radtechHome page
A. HARRIS and N. E. BOLUS
Appendicitis Imaging
Radiol. Technol., November 1, 2005; 77(2): 111 - 117.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
M. M. Bittle and F. S. Chew
Radiological Reasoning: Recurrent Right Lower Quadrant Inflammatory Mass
Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2005; 185(3_supp): S188 - S194.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 2005 by the Radiological Society of North America.