| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gastrointestinal Imaging |
1 From the Sunnybrook and Women’s College Health Sciences Centre (O.B., M.A., P.H.), Mount Sinai Hospital (D.R.), and University Health Network (D.R.), University of Toronto, 2075 Bayview Ave, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4N 3M5. Received September 18, 2001; revision requested October 25; final revision received March 18, 2002; accepted March 25. Address correspondence to M.A. (e-mail: mostafa.atri@swchsc.on.ca).
PURPOSE: To evaluate the frequency of visualization, thickness, and features of the normal appendix at nonenhanced helical computed tomography (CT).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three radiologists blinded to patient surgical history retrospectively reviewed CT scans obtained for renal colic assessment in 187 consecutive patients. No contrast material was administered. The frequency of visualization and the two-wall thickness of normal appendices were recorded. Interobserver agreement and effect of adequacy of intraperitoneal fat on identification of the appendix were assessed.
RESULTS: The prevalence of appendectomy was 10.7% (20 of 187 patients). The means for the three reviewers’ sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of visualization of normal appendix were 79% (CI: 73%, 84%), 90% (CI: 78%, 96%), 98% (CI: 97%, 99%), 34% (CI: 22%, 47%), and 80% (CI: 74%, 86%), respectively. There was no significant difference among the three reviewers (P > .05) according to conditional logistic regression and exact McNemar test results. For all reviewers, the frequency of appendix visualization was significantly lower in patients with less intraperitoneal fat (P = .01–.001, 
2 test). The mean thickness of normal appendix if no intraluminal content was visualized was 6.6 mm ± 1.0 (SD), and the mean thickness, excluding visualized intraluminal content, was 3.6 mm ± 0.8. The nonweighted 
value for interobserver agreement for normal appendix visualization was 0.69–0.75 among the three reviewers, which indicated good to excellent agreement.
CONCLUSION: Most normal appendices are seen at nonenhanced helical CT. The thickness of normal appendix, when the content is not recognizable, overlaps the values currently used to diagnose appendicitis at CT.
© RSNA, 2002
Index terms: Appendicitis, 751.291 • Appendix, 751.92 • Appendix, CT, 751.12111, 751.12115
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  C. Keyzer, S. Pargov, D. Tack, V. Creteur, P. Bohy, V. De Maertelaer, and P. A. Gevenois Normal Appendix in Adults: Reproducibility of Detection with Unenhanced and Contrast-Enhanced MDCT Am. J. Roentgenol., August 1, 2008; 191(2): 507 - 514. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Oto, R. D. Ernst, W. J. Mileski, T. K. Nishino, O. Le, G. C. Wolfe, and G. Chaljub Localization of Appendix with MDCT and Influence of Findings on Choice of Appendectomy Incision Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2006; 187(4): 987 - 990. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Ganguli, V. Raptopoulos, F. Komlos, B. Siewert, and J. B. Kruskal Right Lower Quadrant Pain: Value of the Nonvisualized Appendix in Patients at Multidetector CT Radiology, October 1, 2006; 241(1): 175 - 180. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Kramer, S. O. Schoenberg, K. Nikolaou, A. Huber, A. Struwe, E. Winnik, B. J. Wintersperger, O. Dietrich, B. Kiefer, and M. F. Reiser Cardiovascular Screening with Parallel Imaging Techniques and a Whole-Body MR Imager Radiology, July 1, 2005; 236(1): 300 - 310. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. P. Daly, R. H. Cohan, I. R. Francis, E. M. Caoili, J. H. Ellis, and B. Nan Incidence of Acute Appendicitis in Patients with Equivocal CT Findings Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2005; 184(6): 1813 - 1820. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. O. Schoenberg, J. Rieger, C. H. Weber, H. J. Michaely, T. Waggershauser, C. Ittrich, O. Dietrich, and M. F. Reiser High-Spatial-Resolution MR Angiography of Renal Arteries with Integrated Parallel Acquisitions: Comparison with Digital Subtraction Angiography and US Radiology, May 1, 2005; 235(2): 687 - 698. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
P. Nikolaidis, C. M. Hwang, F. H. Miller, and N. Papanicolaou The Nonvisualized Appendix: Incidence of Acute Appendicitis When Secondary Inflammatory Changes Are Absent Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2004; 183(4): 889 - 892. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. S. Katz, M. Jain, M. J. Lane, E. M. Meiner, S. Bhalla, C. O. Menias, and C. M. Rucker Invited Commentary * Authors' Response RadioGraphics, October 1, 2004; 24(suppl_1): S28 - S33. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Keyzer, D. Tack, V. de Maertelaer, P. Bohy, P. A. Gevenois, and D. Van Gansbeke Acute Appendicitis: Comparison of Low-Dose and Standard-Dose Unenhanced Multi-Detector Row CT Radiology, July 1, 2004; 232(1): 164 - 172. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. W. Lardenoye, J. B. Puylaert, M. J. Smit, and H. C. Holscher Appendix in Children with Cystic Fibrosis: US Features Radiology, July 1, 2004; 232(1): 187 - 189. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 V. K. Mittal, J. Goliath, M. Sabir, R. Patel, B. F. Richards, I. Alkalay, S. ReMine, and M. Edwards Advantages of Focused Helical Computed Tomographic Scanning With Rectal Contrast Only vs Triple Contrast in the Diagnosis of Clinically Uncertain Acute Appendicitis: A Prospective Randomized Study Arch Surg, May 1, 2004; 139(5): 495 - 500. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. M. Pereira, C. B. Sirlin, P. S. Pinto, R. B. Jeffrey, D. L. Stella, and G. Casola Disproportionate Fat Stranding: A Helpful CT Sign in Patients with Acute Abdominal Pain RadioGraphics, May 1, 2004; 24(3): 703 - 715. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |
