HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Pedrosa, I. Articles by Rofsky, N. M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Pedrosa, I. Articles by Rofsky, N. M.

MR Imaging Evaluation of Acute Appendicitis in Pregnancy¹

¹ From the Departments of Radiology (I.P., D.L., B.S., N.M.R.), Obstetrics and Gynecology (D.L., A.D.E.), and General Medicine and Primary Care (L.N.), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, One Deaconess Rd, Boston, MA 02215; and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass (I.P., D.L., B.S., N.M.R.). Received January 28, 2005; revision requested March 21; revision received April 15; accepted June 1; final version accepted July 5. Address correspondence to I.P. (e-mail: ipedrosa{at}bidmc.harvard.edu).

Purpose: To retrospectively assess the diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in pregnant patients suspected of having acute appendicitis.

Materials and Methods: The study was approved by the committee on clinical investigations and was HIPAA compliant. The informed consent requirement was waived. MR images were obtained in 51 consecutive pregnant patients (mean age, 28.3 years) who were clinically suspected of having acute appendicitis. In this protocol for pregnant patients, MR imaging is performed when findings at ultrasonography (US) are inconclusive or additional information is needed. Four patients had appendicitis, which was confirmed at surgery in three patients and at follow-up computed tomography in one patient. Initial interpretations were used for patient care and to calculate diagnostic accuracy. The appendix was considered normal at MR imaging if its diameter was less than or equal to 6 mm or if it was filled with air, oral contrast material, or both. An enlarged fluid-filled appendix (>7 mm in diameter) was considered an abnormal finding. An appendix with a diameter of 6–7 mm was considered an inconclusive finding; in those cases, the presence of periappendiceal inflammation was used for the final diagnosis. Three radiologists retrospectively assessed the visualization of the appendix by using a 5-point scale. Statistical analysis was performed by using the median and Fisher exact tests and the Spearman correlation coefficient.

Results: MR images were positive for appendicitis in four patients and inconclusive in three. In the three patients with inconclusive results, the appendix was not seen in two patients and was borderline enlarged (7 mm in diameter) in the third. The overall sensitivity, specificity, prevalence-adjusted positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy for MR imaging was 100%, 93.6%, 1.4%, 100%, and 94.0%, respectively.

Conclusion: MR imaging is an excellent modality for use in excluding acute appendicitis in pregnant women who present with acute abdominal pain and in whom a normal appendix is not visualized at US.

© RSNA, 2006

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. van Randen, S. Bipat, A. H. Zwinderman, D. T. Ubbink, J. Stoker, and M. A. Boermeester Acute Appendicitis: Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Performance of CT and Graded Compression US Related to Prevalence of Disease Radiology, October 1, 2008; 249(1): 97 - 106. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. S. Lee, N. M. Rofsky, and I. Pedrosa Localization of the Appendix at MR Imaging during Pregnancy: Utility of the Cecal Tilt Angle Radiology, October 1, 2008; 249(1): 134 - 141. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Baldisserotto, S. G. Valduga, and C. F. J. S. da Cunha MR Imaging Evaluation of the Normal Appendix in Children and Adolescents Radiology, October 1, 2008; 249(1): 278 - 284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				T. A. Jaffe, C. M. Miller, and E. M. Merkle Practice Patterns in Imaging of the Pregnant Patient with Abdominal Pain: A Survey of Academic Centers Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2007; 189(5): 1128 - 1134. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. J. Patel, D. L. Reede, D. S. Katz, R. Subramaniam, and J. K. Amorosa Imaging the Pregnant Patient for Nonobstetric Conditions: Algorithms and Radiation Dose Considerations RadioGraphics, November 1, 2007; 27(6): 1705 - 1722. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Lazarus, W. W. Mayo-Smith, M. B. Mainiero, and P. K. Spencer CT in the Evaluation of Nontraumatic Abdominal Pain in Pregnant Women Radiology, September 1, 2007; 244(3): 784 - 790. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Singh, R. Danrad, P. F. Hahn, M. A. Blake, P. R. Mueller, and R. A. Novelline MR Imaging of the Acute Abdomen and Pelvis: Acute Appendicitis and Beyond RadioGraphics, September 1, 2007; 27(5): 1419 - 1431. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. Pedrosa, E. A. Zeikus, D. Levine, and N. M. Rofsky MR Imaging of Acute Right Lower Quadrant Pain in Pregnant and Nonpregnant Patients RadioGraphics, May 1, 2007; 27(3): 721 - 743. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. S. Katz, V. Merunka, J. J. Hines, E. M. Meiner, I. Pedrosa, D. Levine, and N. M. Rofsky Invited Commentary * Authors' Response RadioGraphics, May 1, 2007; 27(3): 743 - 753. [Full Text] [PDF]

				E M Anderson and H K Bungay Imaging investigation of acute right iliac fossa pain Imaging, December 1, 2006; 18(4): 257 - 267. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]