To determine validity of ultrasound in predicting acute appendicitis among children keeping histopathology as gold standard.
Acute appendicitis
Histopathology
Ultrasound
Journal
Annals of medicine and surgery (2012)
ISSN: 2049-0801
Titre abrégé: Ann Med Surg (Lond)
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101616869
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
07
09
2018
revised:
14
11
2018
accepted:
30
11
2018
entrez:
29
12
2018
pubmed:
29
12
2018
medline:
29
12
2018
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To determined the accuracy of ultrasound in diagnosis of acute appendicitis in children keeping histopathology as gold standard. A prospective evaluations of all ultrasound for appendicitis from January 1, 2014, to June 15, 2017, was conducted at our hospital. A diagnostic protocol was implemented to reduce radiation exposure employing US as the initial imaging modality followed by CT for non-diagnostic US studies in patients with an equivocal clinical presentation. The imaging, operative findings, and pathology of 223 patients (females 80, males 143, age less than 14years) with diagnosed appendicitis were collected. The sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, and negative appendectomy rate were also analyzed. All those patients which had subjected to surgery were included to evaluate the true result of ultrasound in diagnosis of appendicitis. Of the 223 pediatric appendectomies performed in this time period, a total of 192 (86%) were diagnosed by ultrasound. The histopathology of 8 was normal (3.6%), CT done in 11 and three was normal. The negative appendectomy rate was 3.6%. US were the sole imaging modality in all patients. In the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in children, ultrasound is useful and accurate mode, which results in a significant decrease in negative appendectomies with no increase in the number of CT scans. This has important implications in the reduction of childhood radiation exposure. cross sectional validation.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
To determined the accuracy of ultrasound in diagnosis of acute appendicitis in children keeping histopathology as gold standard.
METHODS
METHODS
A prospective evaluations of all ultrasound for appendicitis from January 1, 2014, to June 15, 2017, was conducted at our hospital. A diagnostic protocol was implemented to reduce radiation exposure employing US as the initial imaging modality followed by CT for non-diagnostic US studies in patients with an equivocal clinical presentation. The imaging, operative findings, and pathology of 223 patients (females 80, males 143, age less than 14years) with diagnosed appendicitis were collected. The sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, and negative appendectomy rate were also analyzed. All those patients which had subjected to surgery were included to evaluate the true result of ultrasound in diagnosis of appendicitis.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the 223 pediatric appendectomies performed in this time period, a total of 192 (86%) were diagnosed by ultrasound. The histopathology of 8 was normal (3.6%), CT done in 11 and three was normal. The negative appendectomy rate was 3.6%. US were the sole imaging modality in all patients.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in children, ultrasound is useful and accurate mode, which results in a significant decrease in negative appendectomies with no increase in the number of CT scans. This has important implications in the reduction of childhood radiation exposure.
STUDY DESIGN
METHODS
cross sectional validation.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30591836
doi: 10.1016/j.amsu.2018.11.019
pii: S2049-0801(18)30270-X
pmc: PMC6305696
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
22-27Références
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Jan;184(1):91-7
pubmed: 15615956
Radiology. 2006 Oct;241(1):83-94
pubmed: 16928974
CJEM. 2006 Nov;8(6):425-32
pubmed: 17209492
Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd. 2010;154:A303
pubmed: 20482926
J Pediatr. 2011 Jan;158(1):112-8
pubmed: 20828717
J Am Coll Radiol. 2011 Nov;8(11):749-55
pubmed: 22051456
Pediatr Radiol. 2012 Jul;42(7):813-23
pubmed: 22402833
Acad Emerg Med. 2013 Jul;20(7):697-702
pubmed: 23859583
Pediatrics. 2014 Jan;133(1):e88-95
pubmed: 24379237
J Pediatr Surg. 2015 Jan;50(1):144-8
pubmed: 25598112
Am J Surg. 2015 May;209(5):896-900; discussion 900
pubmed: 25771132
J Pediatr Surg. 2015 Apr;50(4):642-6
pubmed: 25840079
Pediatr Radiol. 2015 Dec;45(13):1934-44
pubmed: 26280637
J Pediatr Surg. 2016 Oct;51(10):1655-60
pubmed: 27039121
Pediatr Radiol. 2016 Oct;46(11):1539-45
pubmed: 27282824
J Pediatr Surg. 2017 Aug;52(8):1273-1279
pubmed: 27939802
J Pediatr. 2017 Mar;182:164-169.e1
pubmed: 28010937
Ann Emerg Med. 2017 Dec;70(6):797-798
pubmed: 28662913
Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2017 Jul 06;13:847-854
pubmed: 28740395
Pediatr Radiol. 2017 Aug;47(9):1091-1100
pubmed: 28779198
Acad Radiol. 2017 Dec;24(12):1616-1620
pubmed: 28826614
Int J Surg. 2017 Oct;46:198-202
pubmed: 28890409
J Pediatr Surg. 2018 May;53(5):980-983
pubmed: 29519569
Radiology. 2018 Sep;288(3):717-727
pubmed: 29916776
J Surg Res. 2018 Sep;229:76-81
pubmed: 29937019
Ultrasonography. 2019 Jan;38(1):67-75
pubmed: 30016853