64-MDCT Study in Patients Suspected Acute Appendicitis
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: To study accuracy of 64-MDCT in diagnosis of suspected acute appendicitis comparative with pathological report
Design: Descriptive study
Method: Study the CT appearance of 64-MDCT from axial, coronal and sagittal views in 42 patients suspected acute appendicitis but negative ultrasonography
Result: 38 patients (90.5%) was diagnosed acute appendicitis by 64- MDCT, surgery and pathology 64 - MDCT findings in acute appendicitis are enlarged appendiceal diameter 9 tol6 mm(100%), periappendiceal fat stranding 37 patients (97.4%), fluid filled lumen and hyperenhancement of the appendiceal mucosa 38 patients(100%), absence of appendiceal filling of contrast when oral contrast was seen in the cecum 12 patients(32.4%), periappendiceal fluid 14 patients(36.8%), cecal wall thickening 5 patients (13.2%) and rupture retrocecal appendicitis with a small appendiceal abscess 1 patient(2.6%)
Conclusion: 64-MDCT has high sensitivity and specificity for acuteappendicitis. It can decreased negative appendectomyand should be used to second investigation afternegative ultrasonography
Article Details
References
Kim HC, Yang DM, Jin W. Identification of the normal appendix inhealthy adults by 64-slice MDCT: the value of adding coronal reformation images. British Journal of Radiology 2008; 81:859-64.
Paulson EK, Jaffe TA, Thomas J, Harris JP, Nelson RC. MDCT of patients with acute abdominal pain: a newperspective using coronal reformationfrom submillimeter isotropic voxels. AJR Am Roentgenol 2004;183:899-906.
Paulson EK, Harris JP, Nelson RC. Acute appendicitis: added diagnostic value of coronal reformation from isotropic voxels at multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2005; 235:879-85.
Rao PM. Technical and interpretative pitfalls of appendiceal CT imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988; 171:419-25.
Levine CD, Aizenstien O, Wachsherg RH. Pitfalls in the CT diagnosis of appendicitis . Br J Radiol 2004; 77:792-9.
Levine CD, Aizenstien O, Lehavi O, Blacher A. Why we miss the diagnosis of appendicitis on abdominal CT: evaluation of imaging features of appendicitis incorrectly diagnose on CT.AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184:855-9.
Koichi Y, Toshizo K, Shigeru S, Tsonemasa F. Sonographicappeance of the normal appendix in adults. J Ultrasounds Med 2007; 27:37-43.
Diana Gaitini, Nira Beck-Razi, David Mor-Yosef, DaronFischer, Ofer Ben Itzhak, Michael M Krausz, Ahara Engel. Dianosing Acute Appendicitis in adults: Accuracy of colorDoppler Sonography and MDCT Compareed with Surgery and clinical fallow-up. AJR 2008; 190:1300-6.
Choi D, Park H, Lee YR, et al .The most useful findings for diagnosing acute appendicitis, contrast enhanced helical CT. ActaRadiol 2003;44:574-82.
Stephan W. Anderson, Jorge A. Soto, Brian C, Lucy Al Ozonoff, Jacqueline D. Jordan, Jirair Retevosian, Andrew S. Ulrich, Niels K, Rathlev, Patricia M. Mitchell, Casey Rebholz, James A. Feldman, James T. Rhea. Abdominal 64-MDCT for suspected Appendicitis: The Use of Oral and IV Contrast Material Versus IV Contrast Material Only. AJR 2009; 193:1282-8.
Pickhardt P. et al. Diagnostic performance of multi detector Computed tomography for suspected acute appendicitis. Ann Intern Med 2011;154:789-95.
