Three-step sequential positioning algorithm during sonographic evaluation for appendicitis increases appendiceal visualization rate and reduces CT use

American Journal of Roentgenology

Volumn 203, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 1006-1012

  Chang, Stephanie T ^a   Jeffrey, R Brooke ^a   Olcott, Eric W ^a,b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b VA PALO ALTO HEALTH CARE SYSTEM   (United States)

Author keywords

Appendicitis; Diagnostic imaging; Radiation protection; Sonography; Spiral CT

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGE DISTRIBUTION; ALGORITHM; APPENDICITIS; ARTICLE; BODY POSITION; CHILD; COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; ECHOGRAPHY; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FALSE POSITIVE RESULT; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; INCIDENCE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEDICAL RECORD; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT POSITIONING; PATIENT REFERRAL; PREDICTIVE VALUE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; SUPINE POSITION; AGED; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; INFANT; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PRESCHOOL CHILD; PROCEDURES; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UTILIZATION; VERY ELDERLY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ALGORITHMS; APPENDICITIS; CHILD; CHILD, PRESCHOOL; DATA COMPRESSION; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; INFANT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PATIENT POSITIONING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; ULTRASONOGRAPHY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84924923913     PISSN: 0361803X     EISSN: 15463141     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2214/AJR.13.12334     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. 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
2. Hernanz-Schulman M. CT and US in the diagnosis of appendicitis: an argument for CT. Radiology 2010; 255:3-7
3. Kaiser S, Frenckner B, Jorulf HK. Suspected appendicitis in children: US and CT - a prospective randomized study. Radiology 2002; 223:633-638
4. Strouse PJ. Pediatric appendicitis: an argument for US. Radiology 2010; 255:8-13
5. 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
6. Sivit CJ, Applegate KE, Stallion A, et al. Imaging evaluation of suspected appendicitis in a pediatric population: effectiveness of sonography versus CT. AJR 2000; 175:977-980
7. Brown MA. Imaging acute appendicitis. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2008; 29:293-307
8. Peletti AB, Baldisserotto M. Optimizing US examination to detect the normal and abnormal appendix in children. Pediatr Radiol 2006; 36:1171-1176
9. Jeffrey RB, Jain KA, Nghiem HV. Sonographic diagnosis of acute appendicitis: interpretive pitfalls. AJR 1994; 162:55-59
10. Lim HK, Bae SH, Seo GS. Diagnosis of acute appendicitis in pregnant women: value of sonography. AJR 1992; 159:539-542
11. Baldisserotto M, Marchiori E. Accuracy of non-compressive sonography of children with appendicitis according to the potential positions of the appendix. AJR 2000; 175:1387-1392
12. Lee JH, Jeong YK, Park KB, Park JK, Jeong AK, Hwang JC. Operator-dependent techniques for graded compression sonography to detect the appendix and diagnose acute appendicitis. AJR 2005; 184:91-97
13. Rioux M. Sonographic detection of the normal and abnormal appendix. AJR 1992; 158:773-778
14. Jeffrey RB Jr, Laing FC, Lewis FR. Acute appendicitis: high-resolution real-time US findings. Radiology 1987; 163:11-14
15. Jeffrey RB Jr, Laing FC, Townsend RR. Acute appendicitis: sonographic criteria based on 250 cases. Radiology 1988; 167:327-329
16. Garcia Peña BM, Mandl KD, Kraus SJ, et al. Ultrasonography and limited computed tomography in the diagnosis and management of appendicitis in children. JAMA 1999; 282:1041-1046
17. Oruc M, Muminagic S, Denjalic A, Tandir S, Hodzic H. Retrocaecal appendix position: findings during the classic appendectomy. Med Arch 2012; 66:190-193
18. Paul UK, Naushava H, Begum T, Alamq MJ, Alim AJ, Akther J. Position of vermiform appendix: a post-mortem study. Bangladesh J Anat 2009; 7:34-36
19. Wakeley CP. The position of the vermiform appendix as ascertained by an analysis of 10,000 cases. J Anat 1933; 67:277-283
20. Puylaert JB. Acute appendicitis: US evaluation using graded compression. Radiology 1986; 158:355-360
21. Stewart JK, Olcott EW, Jeffrey BR. Sonography for appendicitis: nonvisualization of the appendix is an indication for active clinical observation rather than direct referral for computed tomography. J Clin Ultrasound 2012; 40:455-461
22. Chesbrough RM, Burkhard TK, Balsara ZN, Goff WB 2nd, Davis DJ. Self-localization in US of appendicitis: an addition to graded compression. Radiology 1993; 187:349-351
23. Krishnamoorthi R, Ramarajan N, Wang NE, et al. Effectiveness of a staged US and CT protocol for the diagnosis of pediatric appendicitis: reducing radiation exposure in the age of ALARA. Radiology 2011; 259:231-239
24. 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
25. 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 2002; 178:863-868
26. Izawa MR, French MD, Hedge A. Shining new light on the Hawthorne illumination experiments. Hum Factors 2011; 53:528-547