Pitfalls and mimickers at 64-section helical CT that cause negative appendectomy: An analysis from 1057 appendectomies

Clinical Imaging

Volumn 37, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 895-901

  Soyer, Philippe ^a,b,c   Dohan, Anthony ^a,b,c   Eveno, Clarisse ^a,b,c   Naneix, Anne Laure ^a,b   Pocard, Marc ^a,b,c   Pautrat, Karine ^a   Hamzi, Lounis ^a   Duteil, Christelle ^a   Lavergne Slove, Anne ^a,b   Boudiaf, Mourad ^a  

^a HÔPITAL LARIBOISIÈRE   (France)

^b UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

^c Hôpital Lariboisière   (France)

Author keywords

Acute appendicitis; Appendix, CT; Computed tomography; Helical CT

Indexed keywords

ACUTE APPENDICITIS; DISCHARGE SUMMARY; HELICAL COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIES; HELICAL CT; LOW RATES; RADIOLOGY REPORTS; RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS; SUBMILLIMETERS;

ERRORS;

COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY;

64 SECTION HELICAL COMPUTER TOMOGRAPHY; ACUTE APPENDICITIS; ADULT; APPENDECTOMY; ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ERROR; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SPIRAL COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY;

ACUTE APPENDICITIS; APPENDIX, CT; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; HELICAL CT;

ACUTE DISEASE; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; APPENDECTOMY; APPENDICITIS; APPENDIX; DIAGNOSTIC ERRORS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TOMOGRAPHY, SPIRAL COMPUTED; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84883654774     PISSN: 08997071     EISSN: 18734499     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2013.05.006     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. National Center for Health Statistics Ambulatory and inpatient procedures in the United States, 1996. National Center for Health Statistics Series 13, no. 139 1996, National Center for Health Statistics, Atlanta, GA.
2. Drake FT, Florence MG, Johnson MG, Jurkovich GJ, Kwon S, Schmidt Z, Thirlby RC Flum DR; SCOAP Collaborative. Progress in the diagnosis of appendicitis: a report from Washington State's Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program. Ann Surg 2012, 256:586-594.
3. Nathan RO, Blackmore CC, Jarvik JG Therapeutic impact of CT of the appendix in a community hospital emergency department. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2008, 191:1102-1106.
4. Pickhardt PJ, Lawrence EM, Pooler BD, Bruce RJ Diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomography for suspected acute appendicitis. Ann Intern Med 2011, 154:789-796.
5. Bendeck SE, Nino-Murcia M, Berry GJ, Jeffrey RB Imaging for suspected appendicitis: negative appendectomy and perforation rates. Radiology 2002, 225:131-136.
6. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA, McCabe CJ, Lawrason JN, Berger DL, Sacknoff R Helical CT technique for diagnosing appendicitis: prospective evaluation of a focused appendix CT examination. Radiology 1997, 202:139-144.
7. Hale DA, Molloy M, Pearl RH, Schutt DC, Jaques DP Appendectomy: a contemporary appraisal. Ann Surg 1997, 225:252-261.
8. Berry J, Malt RA Appendicitis near its centenary. Ann Surg 1984, 200:657-675.
9. Seetahal SA, Bolorunduro OB, Sookdeo TC, Oyetunji TA, Greene WR, Frederick W, Cornwell EE, Chang DC, Siram SM Negative appendectomy: a 10-year review of a nationally representative sample. Am J Surg 2011, 201:433-437.
10. Lee SL, Walsh AJ, Ho HS Computed tomography and ultrasonography do not improve and may delay the diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis. Arch Surg 2001, 136:556-562.
11. Balthazar EJ, Rofsky NM, Zucker R Appendicitis: the impact of computed tomography imaging on negative appendectomy and perforation rates. Am J Gastroenterol 1998, 93:768-771.
12. Balthazar EJ, Megibow AJ, Siegel SE, Birnbaum BA Appendicitis: prospective evaluation with high-resolution CT. Radiology 1991, 180:21-24.
13. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA, Mostafavi AA, Lawrason JN, McCabe CJ Helical CT combined with contrast material administered only through the colon for imaging of suspected appendicitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997, 169:1275-1280.
14. Guss DA, Behling CA, Munassi D Impact of abdominal helical computed tomography on the rate of negative appendicitis. J Emerg Med 2008, 34:7-11.
15. Lane MJ, Liu DM, Huynh MD, Jeffrey RB, Mindelzun RE, Katz DS Suspected acute appendicitis: nonenhanced helical CT in 300 consecutive patients. Radiology 1999, 213:341-346.
16. 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.
17. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA Sensitivity and specificity of the individual CT signs of appendicitis: experience with 200 helical appendiceal CT examinations. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1997, 21:686-692.
18. Soyer P, Boudiaf M, Sirol M, Dray X, Aout M, Duchat F, Vahedi K, Fargeaudou Y, Martin-Grivaud S, Hamzi L, Vicaut E, Rymer R Suspected anastomotic recurrence of Crohn disease after ileocolic resection: evaluation with CT enteroclysis. Radiology 2010, 254:755-764.
19. Rao PM, Wittenberg J, McDowell RK, Rhea JT, Novelline RA Appendicitis: use of arrowhead sign for diagnosis at CT. Radiology 1997, 202:363-366.
20. 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 Am J Roentgenol 2005, 185:406-417.
21. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA Helical computed tomographic incidence and characterization of appendoliths in 100 patients with appendicitis. Emerg Radiol 1997, 4:55-61.
22. Raja AS, Wright C, Sodickson AD, Zane RD, Schiff GD, Hanson R, Baeyens PF, Khorasani R Negative appendectomy rate in the era of CT: an 18-year perspective. Radiology 2010, 256:460-465.
23. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Rattner DW, Venus LG, Novelline RA Introduction of appendiceal CT: impact on negative appendectomy and appendiceal perforation rates. Ann Surg 1999, 229:344-349.
24. Lai V, Chan WC, Lau HY, Yeung TW, Wong YC, Yuen MK Diagnostic power of various computed tomography signs in diagnosing acute appendicitis. Clin Imaging 2012, 36:29-34.
25. Johnson PT, Horton KM, Kawamoto S, Eng J, Bean MJ, Shan SJ, Fishman EK MDCT for suspected appendicitis: effect of reconstruction section thickness on diagnostic accuracy, rate of appendiceal visualization, and reader confidence using axial images. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009, 192:893-901.
26. Coursey CA, Nelson RC, Patel MB, Cochran C, Dodd LG, Delong DM, Beam CA, Vaslef S Making the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: do more preoperative CT scans mean fewer negative appendectomies? A 10-year study. Radiology 2010, 254:460-468.
27. Paulson EK, Coursey CA CT protocols for acute appendicitis: time for change. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2009, 193:1268-1271.
28. Huwart L, El Khoury M, Lesavre A, Phan C, Rangheard AS, Bessoud B, Menu Y What is the thickness of the normal appendix on MDCT?. J Radiol 2007, 88:385-389.
29. Soyer P, Boudiaf M, Dray X, Sirol M, Martin-Grivaud S, Duchat F, Fargeaudou Y, Hamzi L, Tiah D, Marteau P, Rymer R Crohn's disease: multi-detector row CT-enteroclysis appearance of the appendix. Abdom Imaging 2010, 35:654-660.
30. 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.
31. Gurian MS, Kovanlikaya A, Beneck D, Baron KT, John M, Brill PW Radiologic-pathologic correlation in acute appendicitis: can we use it as a quality measure to assess interpretive accuracy of radiologists?. Clin Imaging 2011, 35:421-423.