Diagnosis of acute appendicitis with sliding slab ray-sum interpretation of low-dose unenhanced CT and standard-dose IV contrast-enhanced CT scans

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 193, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 96-105

  Seo, Hyobin ^a   Lee, Kyoung Ho ^a   Hyuk, Jung Kim ^b   Kim, Kyuseok ^a   Kang, Sung Bum ^a   So, Yeon Kim ^a   Young, Hoon Kim ^a  

^a Seoul National University Bundang Hospital   (South Korea)

^b Seoul Medical Center   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Appendicitis; Contrast material; CT; Radiation dosage

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM; IOPROMIDE;

ACUTE APPENDICITIS; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; FEMALE; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LOW DRUG DOSE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MCNEMAR TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SCORING SYSTEM; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; WILCOXON SIGNED RANKS TEST; APPENDICITIS; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DOSE RESPONSE; IMAGE QUALITY; INTRAVENOUS DRUG ADMINISTRATION; METHODOLOGY; RADIOGRAPHY; REPRODUCIBILITY;

ADULT; APPENDICITIS; CONTRAST MEDIA; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; FEMALE; HUMANS; INJECTIONS, INTRAVENOUS; MALE; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED;

EID: 67650290798     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.08.1237     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. Birnbaum BA, Wilson SR. Appendicitis at the millennium. Radiology 2000; 215:337-348
2. van Randen A, Bipat S, Zwinderman AH, Ubbink DT, Stoker J, Boermeester MA. Acute appendicitis: meta-analysis of diagnostic performance of CT and graded compression US related to prevalence of disease. Radiology 2008; 249:97-106
3. Lane MJ, Katz DS, Ross BA, Clautice-Engle TL, Mindelzun RE, Jeffrey RB Jr. Unenhanced helical CT for suspected acute appendicitis. AJR 1997; 168:405-409 (Pubitemid 27051974)
4. Lane MJ, Liu DM, Huynh MD, Jeffrey RB Jr, Mindelzun RE, Katz DS. Suspected acute appendicitis: nonenhanced helical CT in 300 consecutive patients. Radiology 1999; 213:341-346 (Pubitemid 29510575)
5. Tamburrini S, Brunetti A, Brown M, Sirlin C, Casola G. Acute appendicitis: diagnostic value of nonenhanced CT with selective use of contrast in routine clinical settings. Eur Radiol 2007; 17:2055-2061 (Pubitemid 47097463)
6. Basak S, Nazarian LN, Wechsler RJ, et al. Is unenhanced CT sufficient for evaluation of acute abdominal pain? Clin Imaging 2002; 26:405-407 (Pubitemid 35300310)
7. Peck J, Peck A, Peck C, Peck J. The clinical role of noncontrast helical computed tomography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Am J Surg 2000; 180:133-136 (Pubitemid 30758972)
8. Christopher FL, Lane MJ, Ward JA, Morgan JA. Unenhanced helical CT scanning of the abdomen and pelvis changes disposition of patients presenting to the emergency department with possible acute appendicitis. J Emerg Med 2002; 23:1-7 (Pubitemid 36157386)
9. Pinto Leite N, Pereira JM, Cunha R, Pinto P, Sirlin C. CT evaluation of appendicitis and its complications: imaging techniques and key diagnostic findings. AJR 2005; 185:406-417
10. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography: an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007; 357:2277-2284 (Pubitemid 350190758)
11. Gupta H, Dupuy DE. Advances in imaging of the acute abdomen. Surg Clin North Am 1997; 77:1245-1263 (Pubitemid 28016546)
12. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA, Mostafavi AA, McCabe CJ. Effect of computed tomography of the appendix on treatment of patients and use of hospital resources. N Engl J Med 1998; 338:141-146 (Pubitemid 28041860)
13. Flum DR, Morris A, Koepsell T, Dellinger EP. Has misdiagnosis of appendicitis decreased over time? A population-based analysis. JAMA 2001; 286:1748-1753 (Pubitemid 33010261)
14. McNitt-Gray MF. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: topics in CT - radiation dose in CT. RadioGraphics 2002; 22:1541-1553
15. Johnson PT, Horton KM, Mahesh M, Fishman EK. Multidetector computed tomography for suspected appendicitis: multi-institutional survey of 16-MDCT data acquisition protocols and review of pertinent literature. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006; 30:758-764 (Pubitemid 44368212)
16. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA, et al. Helical CT technique for the diagnosis of appendicitis: prospective evaluation of a focused appendix CT examination. Radiology 1997; 202:139-144 (Pubitemid 27024119)
17. Kamel IR, Goldberg SN, Keogan MT, Rosen MP, Raptopoulos V. Right lower quadrant pain and suspected appendicitis: nonfocused appendiceal CT - review of 100 cases. Radiology 2000; 217: 159-163 (Pubitemid 33097594)
18. Keyzer C, Tack D, de Maertelaer V, Bohy P, Gevenois PA, Van Gansbeke D. Acute appendicitis: comparison of low-dose and standard-dose unenhanced multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2004; 232:164-172 (Pubitemid 38787833)
19. Fefferman NR, Bomsztyk E, Yim AM, et al. Appendicitis in children: low-dose CT with a phantom-based simulation technique-initial observations. Radiology 2005; 237:641-646 (Pubitemid 41507906)
20. Weltman DI, Yu J, Krumenacker J Jr, Huang S, Moh P. Diagnosis of acute appendicitis: comparison of 5- and 10-mm CT sections in the same patient. Radiology 2000; 216:172-177 (Pubitemid 30434738)
21. Paulson EK, Harris JP, Jaffe TA, Haugan PA, Nelson RC. Acute appendicitis: added diagnostic value of coronal reformations from isotropic voxels at multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2005; 235:879-885 (Pubitemid 40695884)
22. Lee KH, Kim YH, Hahn S, et al. Computed tomography diagnosis of acute appendicitis: advantages of reviewing thin-section datasets using sliding slab average intensity projection technique. Invest Radiol 2006; 41:579-585 (Pubitemid 44284180)
23. Cody DD. AAPM/RSNA physics tutorial for residents: topics in CT - image processing in CT. RadioGraphics 2002; 22:1255-1268
24. Lee KH, Hong H, Hahn S, Kim B, Kim KJ, Kim YH. Summation or axial slab average intensity projection of abdominal thin-section CT datasets: can they substitute for the primary reconstruction from raw projection data? J Digit Imaging 2008; 21:422-432
25. Lee KH, Lee HS, Park SH, et al. Appendiceal diverticulitis: diagnosis and differentiation from usual acute appendicitis using computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2007; 31:763-769 (Pubitemid 47482498)
26. Joffe SA, Servaes S, Okon S, Horowitz M. Multidetector row CT urography in the evaluation of hematuria. RadioGraphics 2003; 23:1441-1455 (Pubitemid 37487522)
27. Bongartz G, Golding SJ, Jurik AG, et al. European guidelines for multislice computed tomography. Funded by the European Commission. Contract number FIGMCT200020078CTTIP. March 2004. www.msct.eu/CT-Quality-Criteria.htm. Accessed April 4, 2009
28. What's NEXT? Nationwide Evaluation of Xray Trends: 2000 computed tomography. CRCPD publication no. NEXT-2000CT-T. Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Department of Health and Human Services, 2006. www.crcpd.org/Pubs/NextTrifolds/NEXT2000CT-T.pdf. Accessed April 19, 2008
29. Paulson EK, Kalady MF, Pappas TN. Clinical practice. Suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med 2003; 348:236-242
30. Anderson BA, Salem L, Flum DR. A systematic review of whether oral contrast is necessary for the computed tomography diagnosis of appendicitis in adults. Am J Surg 2005; 190:474-478 (Pubitemid 41139306)
31. Napel S, Rubin GD, Jeffrey RB Jr. STSMIP: a new reconstruction technique for CT of the chest. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1993; 17:832-838 (Pubitemid 23277285)
32. Ganguli S, Raptopoulos V, Komlos F, Siewert B, Kruskal JB. Right lower quadrant pain: value of the nonvisualized appendix in patients at multidetector CT. Radiology 2006; 241:175-180 (Pubitemid 44433348)
33. Nikolaidis P, Hwang CM, Miller FH, Papanicolaou N. The nonvisualized appendix: incidence of acute appendicitis when secondary inflammatory changes are absent. AJR 2004; 183:889-892 (Pubitemid 44185070)
34. Bixby SD, Lucey BC, Soto JA, Theyson JM, Ozonoff A, Varghese JC. Perforated versus nonperforated acute appendicitis: accuracy of multidetector CT detection. Radiology 2006; 241:780-786 (Pubitemid 46190544)
35. Foley TA, Earnest FT, Nathan MA, Hough DM, Schiller HJ, Hoskin TL. Differentiation of nonperforated from perforated appendicitis: accuracy of CT diagnosis and relationship of CT findings to length of hospital stay. Radiology 2005; 235:89-96 (Pubitemid 40432241)
36. Horrow MM, White DS, Horrow JC. Differentiation of perforated from nonperforated appendicitis at CT. Radiology 2003; 227:46-51
37. Tsuboi M, Takase K, Kaneda I, et al. Perforated and nonperforated appendicitis: defect in enhancing appendiceal wall-depiction with multidetector row CT. Radiology 2008; 246:142-147 (Pubitemid 350305037)
38. Rosai J. Appendix. In: Rosai J, ed. Rosai and Ackerman's surgical pathology. Edinburgh, UK: Mosby, 2004:758-759
39. World Health Organization. Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic-report of a WHO consultation of obesity. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization, 1997
40. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases. Radiology 1983; 148:839-843
41. Daly CP, Cohan RH, Francis IR, Caoili EM, Ellis JH, Nan B. Incidence of acute appendicitis in patients with equivocal CT findings. AJR 2005; 184:1813-1820 (Pubitemid 40770154)
42. Kaiser S, Finnbogason T, Jorulf HK, Soderman E, Frenckner B. Suspected appendicitis in children: diagnosis with contrast-enhanced versus nonenhanced helical CT. Radiology 2004; 231:427-433 (Pubitemid 38552900)
43. Birnbaum BA, Jeffrey RB Jr. CT and sonographic evaluation of acute right lower quadrant abdominal pain. AJR 1998; 170:361-371 (Pubitemid 28083840)
44. Urban BA, Fishman EK. Tailored helical CT evaluation of acute abdomen. RadioGraphics 2000; 20:725-749
45. Halvorsen RA. Which study when? Iodinated contrast-enhanced CT versus gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2008; 249:9-15
46. Lee KH, Lee HJ, Kim JH, et al. Managing the CT data explosion: initial experiences of archiving volumetric datasets in a mini-PACS. J Digit Imaging 2005; 18:188-195
47. Bettmann MA, Heeren T, Greenfield A, Goudey C. Adverse events with radiographic contrast agents: results of the SCVIR Contrast Agent Registry. Radiology 1997; 203:611-620 (Pubitemid 27227402)
48. Benjaminov O, Atri M, Hamilton P, Rappaport D. Frequency of visualization and thickness of normal appendix at nonenhanced helical CT. Radiology 2002; 225:400-406 (Pubitemid 35239239)
49. Liu SI, Siewert B, Raptopoulos V, Hodin RA. Factors associated with conversion to laparotomy in patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy. J Am Coll Surg 2002; 194:298-305 (Pubitemid 34204042)
50. Oliak D, Sinow R, French S, Udani VM, Stamos MJ. Computed tomography scanning for the diagnosis of perforated appendicitis. Am Surg 1999; 65:959-964 (Pubitemid 29471322)
51. Velanovich V, Satava R. Balancing the normal appendectomy rate with the perforated appendicitis rate: implications for quality assurance. Am Surg 1992; 58:264-269
52. Tack D, Bohy P, Perlot I, et al. Suspected acute colon diverticulitis: imaging with low-dose unenhanced multi-detector row CT. Radiology 2005; 237:189-196 (Pubitemid 41346163)
53. Tack D, Sourtzis S, Delpierre I, de Maertelaer V, Gevenois PA. Low-dose unenhanced multidetector CT of patients with suspected renal colic. AJR 2003; 180:305-311 (Pubitemid 36135002)