MDCT for suspected acute appendicitis in adults: Impact of oral and IV contrast media at standard-dose and simulated low-dose techniques

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 193, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 1272-1281

  Keyzer, Caroline ^a,b   Cullus, Pierre ^c   Tack, Denis ^b   De Maertelaer, Viviane ^c   Bohy, Pascale ^b   Gevenois, Pierre Alain ^b  

^a Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Charleroi   (Belgium)

^b ERASME HOSPITAL   (Belgium)

^c UNIVERSITÉ LIBRE DE BRUXELLES   (Belgium)

Author keywords

Acute appendicitis; Appendicitis; Contrast media; MDCT

Indexed keywords

CONTRAST MEDIUM; IOBITRIDOL; MEGLUMINE IOXITALAMATE PLUS SODIUM IOXITALAMATE;

ACUTE APPENDICITIS; ACUTE CHOLECYSTITIS; ADULT; AGED; APPENDIX; ARTICLE; COLITIS; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; CONTROLLED STUDY; CYSTITIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIVERTICULITIS; DOSIMETRY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; GENDER; HUMAN; ILEITIS; LOW DRUG DOSE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PANCREATITIS; PANNICULITIS; PELVIC INFLAMMATORY DISEASE; PNEUMONIA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; PYELONEPHRITIS; RADIATION DOSE; RADIOLOGIST; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; URETER STONE;

ACUTE DISEASE; ADMINISTRATION, ORAL; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; APPENDICITIS; CONTRAST MEDIA; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; INJECTIONS, INTRAVENOUS; IOTHALAMIC ACID; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RADIOGRAPHIC IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; TOMOGRAPHY, SPIRAL COMPUTED;

EID: 70449515803     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.08.1959     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Birnbaum BA, Wilson SR. Appendicitis at the millennium. Radiology 2000; 215:337-348
2. 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)
3. Doria AS, Moineddin R, Kellenberger CJ, et al. US or CT for diagnosis of appendicitis in children and adults? A meta-analysis. Radiology 2006; 241:83-94 (Pubitemid 44433338)
4. Wise SW, Labuski MR, Kasales CJ, et al. Comparative assessment of CT and sonographic techniques for appendiceal imaging. AJR 2001; 176:933-941 (Pubitemid 32240940)
5. Jacobs JE, Birnbaum BA, Macari M, et al. Acute appendicitis: comparison of helical CT diagnosisfocused technique with oral contrast material versus nonfocused technique with oral and intravenous contrast material. Radiology 2001; 220:683-690 (Pubitemid 32799975)
6. 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
7. Macari M, Balthazar EJ. The acute right lower quadrant: CT evaluation. Radiol Clin North Am 2003; 41:1117-1136 (Pubitemid 37490452)
8. O'Malley ME, Halpern E, Mueller PR, Gazelle GS. Helical CT protocols for the abdomen and pelvis: a survey. AJR 2000; 175:109-113 (Pubitemid 30415548)
9. 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)
10. Keyzer C, Tack D, De Maertelaer V, Bohy P, Gevenois PA, Van Gansbeke D. Comparison of low-dose and standard-dose unenhanced multidetector row CT in patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Radiology 2004; 232:164-172 (Pubitemid 38787833)
11. 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)
12. Sennst DA, Kachelriess M, Leidecker C, Schmidt B, Watzke O, Kalender WA. An extensible software- based platform for reconstruction and evaluation of CT images. RadioGraphics 2004; 24:601-613 (Pubitemid 38470901)
13. Tack D, De Maertelaer V, Petit W, et al. Multidetector row CT pulmonary angiography: comparison of standard-dose and simulated low-dose techniques. Radiology 2005; 236:318-325 (Pubitemid 40853329)
14. Bohy P, De Maertelaer V, Roquiny A, Keyzer C, Tack D, Gevenois PA. Multidetector CT in patients suspected of having lumbar disk herniation: comparison of standard-dose and simulated lowdose techniques. Radiology 2007; 244:524-531 (Pubitemid 47080885)
15. Bankier AA, Schaefer-Prokop C, De Maertelaer V, et al. Air trapping: comparison of standarddose and simulated low-dose thin-section CT techniques. Radiology 2007; 242:898-906 (Pubitemid 46310105)
16. van Gelder RE, Venema HW, Serlie IWO, et al. CT colonography at different radiation dose levels: feasibility of dose reduction. Radiology 2002; 224:25-33
17. Mayo JR, Whittall KP, Leung AN, et al. Simulated dose reduction in conventional chest CT: validation study. Radiology 1997; 202:453-457
18. R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2006
19. Cohen J. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educ Psychol Meas 1960; 20:37-46
20. Armitage P, Colton T. Encyclopedia of biostatistics, vol.3. New York, NY: Wiley, 1998:2163-2164
21. Altman DG. Practical statistics for medical research. London, UK: Chapman & Hall, 1991:404
22. Panagiotakos DB, Pitsavos C. Interpretation of epidemiological data using multiple correspondence analysis and log-linear models. J Data Sci 2004; 2:75-86
23. Lebart L, Morineau A, Piron M. Statistique exploratoire multidimensionnelle: visualisations et inférences en fouille de données. Paris, France: Dunod, 2006
24. Greenacre MJ. Theory and applications of correspondence analysis. London, UK: Academic Press, 1984
25. Greenacre MJ. Multiple and joint correspondence analysis. In: Greenacre MJ, Blasius J, eds. Correspondence analysis in the social sciences: recent developments and applications. London, UK: Academic Press, 1994:141-161
26. 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)
27. Hershko DD, Awad N, Fischer D, et al. Focused helical CT using rectal contrast material only as the preferred technique for the diagnosis of suspected acute appendicitis: a prospective, randomized, controlled study comparing three different techniques. Dis Colon Rectum 2007; 50:1223-1229 (Pubitemid 47087482)
28. Platon A, Jlassi H, Rutschmann OT, et al. Evaluation of a low-dose CT protocol with oral contrast for assessment of acute appendicitis. Eur Radiol 2009; 19:446-454
29. Lee SY, Coughlin B, Wolfe JM, Polino J, Blank FS, Smithline HA. Prospective comparison of helical CT of the abdomen and pelvis without and with oral contrast in assessing acute abdominal pain in adult emergency department patients. Emerg Radiol 2006; 12:150-157 (Pubitemid 43825237)
30. Keyzer C, Zalcman M, De Maertelaer V, et al. Comparison of US and unenhanced multi-detector row CT in patients suspected of having acute appendicitis. Radiology 2005; 236:527-534 (Pubitemid 41023436)
31. Raman SS, Kadell BM, Vodopich DJ, Sayer J, Cryer H, Lu DS. Patient gender-related performance of nonfocused helical computed tomography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2003; 27:583-589 (Pubitemid 36935920)
32. 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)
33. Mettler FA, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology 2008; 248:254-263
34. 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
35. Li T, Li X, Wang J, et al. Nonlinear sinogram smoothing for low-dose X-ray CT. IEEE Trans Nucl Sci 2004; 51:2505-2513