Diagnostic value of laparoscopy, abdominal computed tomography, and ultrasonography in acute appendicitis

Journal of Laparoendoscopic and Advanced Surgical Techniques

Volumn 23, Issue 12, 2013, Pages 982-989

  Bachar, Ira ^a   Perry, Zvi Howard ^a,b   Dukhno, Larisa ^b   Mizrahi, Solly ^a   Kirshtein, Boris ^a  

^a BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV   (Israel)

^b BEN GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIBIOTIC AGENT; DIATRIZOATE; IODINATED CONTRAST MEDIUM; MEGLUMINE DIATRIZOATE;

ABDOMINAL ABSCESS; ACUTE APPENDICITIS; ADULT; APPENDECTOMY; APPENDIX PERFORATION; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC TEST ACCURACY STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; ECHOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FEVER; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; LAPAROSCOPIC SURGERY; LAPAROSCOPY; LOWER ABDOMINAL PAIN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; OPERATION DURATION; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PHLEGMON; POSTOPERATIVE COMPLICATION; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SURGICAL INFECTION; URINARY TRACT INFECTION; ACUTE DISEASE; ADOLESCENT; APPENDICITIS; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; YOUNG ADULT;

ACUTE DISEASE; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; APPENDECTOMY; APPENDICITIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; LAPAROSCOPY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; ULTRASONOGRAPHY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84890402913     PISSN: 10926429     EISSN: 15579034     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1089/lap.2013.0035     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. John H, Neff U, Kelemen M. Appendicitis diagnosis today: Clinical and ultrasonic deductions. World J Surg 1993;17: 243-249.
2. Lewis FR, Holcroft JW, Boey J, Dunphy E. Appendicitis. A critical review of diagnosis and treatment in 1,000 cases. Arch Surg 1975;110:677-684.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Hui TT, Major KM, Avital I, Hiatt JR, Margulies DR. Outcome of elderly patients with appendicitis: Effect of computed to-mography and laparoscopy. Arch Surg 2002;137:995-998; discussion 999-1000.
6. van den Broek WT, Bijnen AB, van Eerten PV, de Ruiter P, Gouma DJ. Selective use of diagnostic laparoscopy in patients with suspected appendicitis. Surg Endosc 2000;14:938-941.
7. Lee JH, Jeong YK, Hwang JC, Ham SY, Yang SO. Graded compression sonography with adjuvant use of a posterior manual compression technique in the sonographic diagnosis of acute appendicitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:863-868.
8. Douglas CD, Macpherson NE, Davidson PM, Gani JS. Randomised controlled trial of ultrasonography in diagnosis of acute appendicitis, incorporating the Alvarado score. BMJ 2000;321:919-922.
9. Jones PF. Suspected acute appendicitis: Trends in management over 30 years. Br J Surg 2001;88:1570-1577.
10. Davies T. The physician scientist. BMJ 1991;302:1340-1341.
11. Piper HG, Rusnak C, Orrom W, Hayashi A, Cunningham J. Current management of appendicitis at a community center-How can we improve? Am J Surg 2008;195:585-588; discussion 588-589.
12. Wagner PL, Eachempati SR, Soe K, Pieracci FM, Shou J, Barie PS. Defining the current negative appendectomy rate: For whom is preoperative computed tomography making an impact? Surgery 2008;144:276-282.
13. Horton MD, Counter SF, Florence MG, Hart MJ. A prospective trial of computed tomography and ultrasonography for diagnosing appendicitis in the atypical patient. Am J Surg 2000;179:379-381.
14. Musunuru S, Chen H, Rikkers LF, Weber SM. Computed tomography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: Definitive or detrimental? J Gastrointest Surg 2007;11:1417-1421; discussion 1421-1422.
15. in't Hof KH, van Lankeren W, Krestin GP, Bonjer HJ, Lange JF, Becking WB, et al. Surgical validation of unenhanced helical computed tomography in acute appendicitis. Br J Surg 2004;91:1641-1645.
16. Huynh V, Lalezarzadeh F, Lawandy S, Wong DT, Joe VC. Abdominal computed tomography in the evaluation of acute and perforated appendicitis in the community setting. Am Surg 2007;73:1002-1005.
17. Terasawa T, Blackmore CC, Bent S, Kohlwes RJ. Systematic review: Computed tomography and ultrasonography to detect acute appendicitis in adults and adolescents. Ann Intern Med 2004;141:537-546.
18. Antevil JL, Rivera L, Langenberg BJ, Hahm G, Favata MA, Brown CV. Computed tomography-based clinical diagnostic pathway for acute appendicitis: Prospective validation. J Am Coll Surg 2006;203:849-856.
19. Cuesta MA, Eijsbouts QA, Gordijn RV, Borgstein PJ, de Jong D. Diagnostic laparoscopy in patients with an acute abdomen of uncertain etiology. Surg Endosc 1998;12:915917.
20. 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.
21. Hershko DD, Awad N, Fischer D, Mahajna A, Guralnik L, Israelit SH, 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.
22. Mittal VK, Goliath J, Sabir M, Patel R, Richards BF, Alkalay I, et al. Advantages of focused helical computed tomographic scanning with rectal contrast only vs triple contrast in the diagnosis of clinically uncertain acute appendicitis: A prospective randomized study. Arch Surg 2004;139:495-499; discussion 499-500.
23. Ceydeli A, Lavotshkin S, Yu J, Wise L. When should we order a CT scan and when should we rely on the results to diagnose an acute appendicitis? Curr Surg 2006;63:464-468.
24. Ruchman RB, Jaeger J, Wiggins EF 3rd, Seinfeld S, Thakral V, Bolla S, et al. Preliminary radiology resident interpretations versus final attending radiologist interpretations and the impact on patient care in a community hospital. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;189:523-526.
25. Morris KT, Kavanagh M, Hansen P, Whiteford MH, Deveney K, Standage B. The rational use of computed tomography scans in the diagnosis of appendicitis. Am J Surg 2002;183:547-550.
26. Temple CL, Huchcroft SA, Temple WJ. The natural history of appendicitis in adults. A prospective study. Ann Surg 1995;221:278-281.
27. Eldar S, Nash E, Sabo E, Matter I, Kunin J, Mogilner JG, et al. Delay of surgery in acute appendicitis. Am J Surg 1997;173:194-198.
28. Frei SP, Bond WF, Bazuro RK, Richardson DM, Sierzega GM, Reed JF. Appendicitis outcomes with increasing computed tomographic scanning. Am J Emerg Med 2008;26: 39-44.
29. Flum DR, Morris A, Koepsell T, Dellinger EP. Has misdiagnosis of appendicitis decreased over time? A populationbased analysis. JAMA 2001;286:1748-1753.
30. Larsson PG, Henriksson G, Olsson M, Boris J, Stroberg P, Tronstad SE, et al. Laparoscopy reduces unnecessary appendicectomies and improves diagnosis in fertile women. A randomized study. Surg Endosc 2001;15:200-202.
31. McGreevy JM, Finlayson SR, Alvarado R, Laycock WS, Birkmeyer CM, Birkmeyer JD. Laparoscopy may be lowering the threshold to operate on patients with suspected appendicitis. Surg Endosc 2002;16:1046-1049.
32. Garbarino S, Shimi SM. Routine diagnostic laparoscopy reduces the rate of unnecessary appendicectomies in young women. Surg Endosc 2009;23:527-533.
33. Lim GH, Shabbir A, So JB. Diagnostic laparoscopy in the evaluation of right lower abdominal pain: A one-year audit. Singapore Med J 2008;49:451-453.