Diagnostic usefulness of low-dose nonenhanced computed tomography with coronal reformations in patients with suspected acute appendicitis: A comparison with standard-dose computed tomography

Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography

Volumn 40, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 485-492

  Yun, Seong Jong ^a   Kim, Hyun Cheol ^a   Yang, Dal Mo ^a   Kim, Sang Won ^a   Rhee, Sun Jung ^a   Shin, Jong Soo ^a   Ahn, Sung Eun ^a  

^a Kyung Hee University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Appendicitis; Appendix; Computed tomography; Low dose CT; Radiation dose

Indexed keywords

DIAGNOSIS;

ACUTE APPENDICITIS; APPENDICITI; APPENDIX; AREAS UNDER THE CURVES; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; DIAGNOSTIC PERFORMANCE; DOSE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHIES; INTEROBSERVER AGREEMENT; LOW DOSE; LOW DOSE CECT;

COMPUTERIZED TOMOGRAPHY;

IOHEXOL; IOMEPROL;

ACUTE APPENDICITIS; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SCANNER; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MULTIDETECTOR COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; NONENHANCED COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIATION DOSE; ABDOMINAL RADIOGRAPHY; ANALYSIS; APPENDICITIS; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER ASSISTED DIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EVALUATION STUDY; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; PREVENTION AND CONTROL; PROCEDURES; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIATION PROTECTION; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; X-RAY COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; APPENDICITIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OBSERVER VARIATION; RADIATION DOSAGE; RADIATION EXPOSURE; RADIATION PROTECTION; RADIOGRAPHY, ABDOMINAL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; TOMOGRAPHY, X-RAY COMPUTED; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84960158673     PISSN: 03638715     EISSN: 15323145     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000381     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Birnbaum BA, Wilson SR. Appendicitis at the millennium. Radiology. 2000;215:337-348.
2. Paulson EK, Kalady MF, Pappas TN. Clinical practice. Suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:236-242.
3. Kim HC, Yang DM, Kim SW, et al. Reassessment of CTimagesto improve diagnostic accuracy in patients with suspected acute appendicitis and an equivocal preoperative CT interpretation. Eur Radiol. 2012;22: 1178-1185.
4. Paulson EK, Harris JP, Jaffe TA, et al. Acute appendicitis: added diagnostic value of coronal reformations from isotropic voxels at multi-detector row CT. Radiology. 2005;235:879-885.
5. Kim HC, Yang DM, Jin W, et al. Added diagnostic value of multiplanar reformation of multidetector CT data in patients with suspected appendicitis. Radiographics. 2008;28:393-405.
6. Lee KH, Kim YH, Hahn S, et al. Added value of coronal reformations for duty radiologists and for referring physicians or surgeons in the CT diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Korean J Radiol. 2006;7:87-96.
7. Kim HC, Yang DM, Jin W. Identification of the normal appendix inhealthy adults by 64-slice MDCT: the value of adding coronal reformation images. Br J Radiol. 2008;81:859-864.
8. Neville AM, Paulson EK. MDCTof acute appendicitis: value of coronal reformations. Abdom Imaging. 2009;34:42-48.
9. Kim SY, Lee KH, Kim K, et al. Acute appendicitis in young adults: low-versus standard-radiation-dose contrast-enhanced abdominal CT for diagnosis. Radiology. 2011;260:437-445.
10. Seo H, Lee KH, Kim HJ, et al. Diagnosis of acute appendicitis with sliding slab ray-sum interpretation of low-dose unenhanced CT and standard-dose i.v. contrast-enhanced CT scans. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:96-105.
11. Kim K, Kim YH, Kim SY, et al. Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:1596-1605.
12. Paulson EK, Coursey CA. CT protocols for acute appendicitis: time for change. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193:1268-1271.
13. Hlibczuk V, Dattaro JA, Jin Z, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of noncontrast computed tomography for appendicitis in adults: a systematic review. Ann Emerg Med. 2010;55:51.e1-59.e1.
14. Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography-an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2277-2284.
15. Smith-Bindman R, Lipson J, Marcus R, et al. Radiation dose associated with common computed tomography examinations and the associated lifetime attributable risk of cancer. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169: 2078-2086.
16. 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.
17. Keyzer C, Tack D, de Maertelaer V, et al. Acute appendicitis: comparison of low-dose and standard-dose unenhanced multi-detector row CT. Radiology. 2004;232:164-172.
18. Tamburrini S, Brunetti A, Brown M, et al. CT appearance of the normal appendix in adults. Eur Radiol. 2005;15:2096-2103.
19. Foley TA, Earnest Ft, Nathan MA, et al. 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.
20. Webb EM, Wang ZJ, Coakley FV, et al. The equivocal appendix at CT: prevalence in a control population. Emerg Radiol. 2010;17:57-61.
21. Keyzer C, Cullus P, Tack D, et al. MDCT for suspected acute appendicitis in adults: impact of oral and IV contrast media at standard-dose and simulated low-dose techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193: 1272-1281.
22. Tsuboi M, Takase K, Kaneda I, et al. Perforated and nonperforated appendicitis: defect in enhancing appendiceal wall-depiction with multi-detector row CT. Radiology. 2008;246:142-147.
23. Sun JS, Noh HW, Min YG, et al. Receiver operating characteristic analysis of the diagnostic performance of a computed tomographic examination and the Alvarado score for diagnosing acute appendicitis: emphasis on age and sex of the patients. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2008;32:386-391.
24. Benjaminov O, Atri M, Hamilton P, et al. Frequency of visualization and thickness of normal appendix at nonenhanced helical CT. Radiology. 2002; 225:400-406.
25. Kim HC, Yang DM, Shin HP. Why can we not see a normal appendix on CT? An evaluation of the factors influencing nonvisualization of a normal appendix by 64-slice MDCT. Clin Imaging. 2009;33:33-38.
26. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. The measurement, reporting and management of radiation dose in CT (Report #96). In: AAPM Task Group 23 of the Diagnostic Imaging Council CT Committee. College Park, Md: American Association of Physicists in Medicine; 2008.
27. Jessen KA, Panzer W, Shrimpton PC, et al. European Guidelines on Quality Criteria for Computed Tomography. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2000.
28. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159-174.
29. Gupta H, Dupuy DE. Advances in imaging of the acute abdomen. Surg Clin North Am. 1997;77:1245-1263.
30. Halvorsen RA. Which study when? Iodinated contrast-enhanced CT versus gadolinium-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology. 2008;249:9-15.
31. Fefferman NR, Bomsztyk E, Yim AM, et al. Appendicitis in children: low-dose CTwith a phantom-based simulation technique-initial observations. Radiology. 2005;237:641-646.
32. Ehman EC, Yu L, Manduca A, et al. Methods for clinical evaluation of noise reduction techniques in abdominopelvic CT. Radiographics. 2014; 34:849-862.
33. Gonzalez-Guindalini FD, Ferreira Botelho MP, Tore HG, et al. MDCT of chest, abdomen, and pelvis using attenuation-based automated tube voltage selection in combination with iterative reconstruction: an intrapatient study of radiation dose and image quality. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;201:1075-1082.
34. Tamburrini S, Brunetti A, Brown M, et al. Acute appendicitis: diagnostic value of nonenhanced CTwith selective use of contrast in routine clinical settings. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:2055-2061.