No abstract

No abstract

This study evaluated the additional value of secondary signs in the diagnosing of appendicitis in children with ultrasound. From May 2005 to June 2006, 212 consecutive paediatric patients with suspected appendicitis were examined. Ultrasonographic depiction of the appendix was classified into four groups: 1, normal appendix; 2, appendix not depicted, no secondary signs of appendicitis; 3, appendix not depicted with one of the following secondary signs: hyperechoic mesenteric fat, fluid collection, local dilated small bowel loop; 4, depiction of inflamed appendix. We classified 96 patients in group 1, 41 in group 2, 13 in group 3, and 62 in group 4. Prevalence of appendicitis was 71/212 (34%).Negative predictive values of groups 1 and 2 were 99% and 100%, respectively. Positive predictive values of groups 3 and 4 were 85% and 95%, respectively. In groups 3 and 4, hyperechoic mesenteric fat was seen in 73/75 (97.3%), fluid collections and dilated bowel loops were seen in 12/75 (16.0%) and 5/75 (6.6%), respectively. This study shows that in case of nonvisualization of the appendix without secondary signs, appendicitis can be safely ruled out. Furthermore, secondary signs of appendicitis alone are a strong indicator of acute appendicitis.

The accuracy of the clinical diagnosis for colonic diverticulitis is low. Ultrasound and computed tomography have superior diagnostic accuracy but these examinations rarely change the initial management proposal.

BackgroundAcute appendicitis continues to be a challenging diagnosis. Preoperative radiological imaging using ultrasound (US) or computed tomography (CT) has gained popularity as it may offer a more accurate diagnosis than classic clinical evaluation. The optimal implementation of these diagnostic modalities has yet to be established. The aim of the present study was to investigate a diagnostic pathway that uses routine US, limited CT, and clinical re-evaluation for patients with acute appendicitis.MethodsA prospective analysis was performed of all patients presenting with acute abdominal pain at the emergency department from June 2005 until July 2006 using a structured diagnosis and management flowchart. Daily practice was mimicked, while ensuring a valid assessment of clinical and radiological diagnostic accuracies and the effect they had on patient management.ResultsA total of 802 patients were included in this analysis. Additional radiological imaging was performed in 96.3% of patients with suspected appendicitis (n = 164). Use of CT was kept to a minimum (17.9%), with a US:CT ratio of approximately 6:1. Positive and negative predictive values for the clinical diagnosis of appendicitis were 63 and 98%, respectively; for US 94 and 97%, respectively; and for CT 100 and 100%, respectively. The negative appendicitis rate was 3.3%, the perforation rate was 23.5%, and the missed perforated appendicitis rate was 3.4%. No (diagnostic) laparoscopies were performed.ConclusionsA diagnostic pathway using routine US, limited CT, and clinical re-evaluation for patients with acute abdominal pain can provide excellent results for the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis.