Search

Abstract: Purpose: To compare the accuracy of computed tomography (CT) analyzed by individual radiology staff members and body imaging radiologists in a non-academic teaching hospital for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Patients and methods: In a prospective study 199 patients with suspected acute appendicitis were examined with unenhanced CT. CT images were pre-operatively analyzed by one of the 12 members of the radiology staff. In a later stage two body imaging radiologist reassessed all CT images without knowledge of the surgical findings and without knowledge of the primary CT diagnosis. The results, independently reported, were correlated with surgical and histopathologic findings. Results: In 132 patients (66%) acute appendicitis was found at surgery, in 67 patients (34%) a normal appendix was found. The sensitivity of the primary CT analysis and of the reassessment was 76% and 88%, respectively; the specificity was 84% and 87%; the positive predictive value was 90% and 93%; the negative predictive value was 64% and 78%; and the accuracy was 78% and 87%. Conclusion: Reassessment of CT images for acute appendicitis by body imaging radiologists results in a significant improvement of sensitivity, negative predictive value and accuracy. To prevent false-negative interpretation of CT images in acute appendicitis the expertise of the attending radiologist should be considered. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Preoperative imaging has been demonstrated to improve diagnostic accuracy in appendicitis. This prospective study assessed the accuracy of a diagnostic pathway in acute appendicitis using ultrasonography (US) and complementary contrast-enhanced multidetector CT in a general community teaching hospital. Study Design: One hundred fifty-one patients with clinically suspected appendicitis followed the designed protocol: patients underwent operations after a primary performed positive US (graded compression technique) or after complementary CT (contrast-enhanced multidetector CT) when US was negative or inconclusive. Patients with positive CT findings underwent operations. When CT was negative for appendicitis, they were admitted for observation. Results of US and CT were correlated with surgical findings, histopathology, and followup. Results: Positive US was confirmed at operation in 71 of 79 patients and positive CT was confirmed in all 21 patients. All 39 patients with negative CT findings recovered without operations. The negative appendicitis rate was 8% and perforation rate was 9%. The sensitivity and specificity of US was 77% and 86%, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of CT was both 100%. The sensitivity and specificity of the whole diagnostic pathway was 100% and 86%, respectively. Conclusions: A diagnostic pathway using primary graded compression US and complementary multidetector CT in a general community teaching hospital yields a high diagnostic accuracy for acute appendicitis without adverse events from delay in treatment. Although US is less accurate than CT, it can be used as a primary imaging modality, avoiding the disadvantages of CT. For those patients with negative US and CT findings, observation is safe. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: To compare the accuracy of computed tomography (CT) analyzed by individual radiology staff members and body imaging radiologists in a non-academic teaching hospital for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Patients and Methods: In a prospective study 199 patients with suspected acute appendicitis were examined with unenhanced CT. CT images were pre-operatively analyzed by one of the 12 members of the radiology staff. In a later stage two body imaging radiologist reassessed all CT images without knowledge of the surgical findings and without knowledge of the primary CT diagnosis. The results, independently reported, were correlated with surgical and histopathologic findings. Results: In 132 patients (66%) acute appendicitis was found at surgery, in 67 patients (34%) a normal appendix was found. The sensitivity of the primary CT analysis and of the reassessment was 76% and 88%, respectively; the specificity was 84% and 87%; the positive predictive value was 90% and 93%; the negative predictive value was 64% and 78%; and the accuracy was 78% and 87%. Conclusion: Reassessment of CT images for acute appendicitis by body imaging radiologists results in a significant improvement of sensitivity, negative predictive value and accuracy. To prevent false-negative interpretation of CT images in acute appendicitis the expertise of the attending radiologist should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]