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 Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Tsuboi, M. Articles by Takahashi, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Tsuboi, M. Articles by Takahashi, S.

Perforated and Nonperforated Appendicitis: Defect in Enhancing Appendiceal Wall—Depiction with Multi–Detector Row CT¹

¹ From the Departments of Radiology (M.T., K.T.) and Surgery (I.K.), Ishinomaki Red Cross Hospital, 1-7-10 Yoshino, Ishinomaki, Miyagi 986-8522, Japan; and Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Miyagi, Japan (M.T., K.T., T.I., T.Y., M.K., S.H., S.T.). From the 2004 RSNA Annual Meeting. Received November 21, 2005; revision requested January 20, 2006; revision received May 20, 2007; accepted June 12; final version accepted July 23. Address correspondence to M.T. (e-mail: m_tsuboi{at}rad.med.tohoku.ac.jp).

Purpose: To retrospectively evaluate the accuracy of multi–detector row helical computed tomography (CT) with intravenous contrast material and without oral contrast material for depiction of perforated appendicitis.

Materials and Methods: This study was approved by the institutional review board; informed consent was waived. CT images in 102 patients (60 male patients, 42 female patients; age range, 4–82 years; mean age, 37.3 years) with surgically and pathologically proved appendicitis who were examined between January 2000 and December 2002 were retrospectively reviewed. Original transverse sections at 3- or 2-mm collimation and 1.5- or 1.0-mm intervals were viewed by using cine mode observation. Two independent observers evaluated five specific findings (defect in enhancing appendiceal wall, abscess, phlegmon, extraluminal air, and extraluminal appendicolith). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the specific findings in the diagnosis of perforated appendicitis were evaluated.

Results: Perforated appendicitis was present in 40 patients, and nonperforated appendicitis was present in 62 patients. A defect in the enhancing appendiceal wall was present in 38 patients in the perforated group. Two patients in the nonperforated group had false-positive findings for a defect in the enhancing appendiceal wall. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of this finding in the diagnosis of perforation were 95.0%, 96.8%, and 96.1%, respectively. Sensitivities for abscess, extraluminal air, and extraluminal appendicolith were 37.5%, 22.5%, and 32.5%, respectively. These three findings were not found in patients with nonperforated appendicitis. Phlegmon was seen in 16 patients in the perforated group and in three patients in the nonperforated group. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of phlegmon in the diagnosis of perforation were 40.0%, 95.2%, and 73.5%, respectively.

Conclusion: Multi–detector row CT allows an accurate (96.1%) diagnosis of appendiceal perforation by the depiction of a defect in the contrast material–enhanced appendiceal wall.

© RSNA, 2008