Objective: Acute appendicitis (AA) is one of the abdominal pain pathologies that often requires emergency surgery. It was aimed to reveal the flaws in our radiological examination request algorithm by looking at the diagnostic activities of abdominal ultrasonography (USG) and computed tomography (CT). Material and Methods: Hospital records of 299 patients who were operated between January and July 2019 in Ankara Training and Research Hospital, General Surgery Clinic were retrospectively reviewed. Patients' age, gender, comorbid disease, body mass index, preoperative white blood leukocyte levels, length of hospital stay and CT and USG requests were recorded. Findings were correlated with postoperative pathology results and the efficacy of radiological examinations in diagnosis were evaluated. Results: The patients were classified as those who underwent USG only (85), CT only (43), CT after USG (162) and those who did not undergo imaging (9). Pathology results were reported as apendicitis in 257 patients (86%) and normal in 42 (%14). When radiological imaging examinations and pathology results were compared, positive predictive values/occuracy rates for USG alone, only CT and CT after USG were 89.02%/89.41%, 94.12%/76.74% and 87.97%/78.40% respectively. Although the positive predictive value of CT was higher than USG, the occuracy rate was lower. No statistically significant difference was found between the groups in terms of pathological correlation. Conclusion: In patients with AA, it is appropriate to make CT requests with the recommendation of a radiologist and surgeon after the first examination and sonographic examination. Thus, we believe that CT will be used effectively and there will be no unnecessary X-ray burden for patients.
Keywords: Appendicitis; tomography; ultrasonography
Amaç: Akut apandisit (AA), sıklıkla acil cerrahi gerektiren karın ağrısı patolojilerinden biridir. Karın ultrasonografisi (USG) ve bilgisayarlı tomografinin (BT) tanısal aktivitelerine bakılarak, radyolojik tetkik istem algoritmamızdaki aksaklıkların ortaya çıkarılması amaçlandı. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Ocak-Temmuz 2019 tarihleri arasında Ankara Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Genel Cerrahi Kliniğinde ameliyat edilen 299 hastanın hastane kayıtları geriye dönük olarak incelendi. Hastaların yaş, cinsiyet, komorbid hastalığı, beden kitle indeksi, ameliyat öncesi lökosit düzeyleri, hastanede kalış süreleri, BT ve USG istekleri kaydedildi. Bulgular, postoperatif patoloji sonuçları ile korele edildi ve radyolojik incelemelerin tanıdaki etkinlikleri değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Hastalar; sadece USG (85), sadece BT (43), USG sonrası BT (162) yapılanlar ve görüntüleme yapılmayanlar (9) olarak klasifiye edildi. Patoloji sonuçları, hastaların 257'sinde (%86) apandisit, 42'sinde (%14) normal olarak rapor edildi. Radyolojik görüntüleme incelemeleri ve patoloji sonuçları karşılaştırıldığında; USG, BT ve USG sonrası BT yapılan hastalarda pozitif prediktif değerler/geçerlilik oranları sırasıyla %89,02/%89,41; %94,12/%76,74 ve %87,97/%78,40 idi. BT'nin pozitif prediktif değeri, USG'ye göre daha yüksek olmasına rağmen geçerlilik oranı daha düşüktü. Patolojik korelasyon açısından gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmadı. Sonuç: AA hastalarında ilk muayene ve sonografik inceleme sonrasında BT istemlerinin radyolog ve cerrah önerisi ile yapılması uygundur. Böylece BT'nin etkin kullanılacağı ve hastalar için gereksiz X-ışını yükü olmayacağı kanaatindeyiz.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Apandisit; tomografi; ultrasonografi
- Celep B, Bal A, Özsoy M, Özkeçeci ZT, Tunay K, Erşen O, et al. Akut apandisit tanısında bilgisayarlı tomografinin yeri [Abdominal tomography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis]. Bozok Med J. 2014;4(3):29-33. [Link]
- Powers RD, Guertler AT. Abdominal pain in the ED: stability and chan-ge over 20 years. Am J Emerg Med. 1995;13(3):301-3. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Addiss DG, Shaffer N, Fowler BS, Tauxe RV. The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. Am J Epidemiol. 1990;132(5):910-25. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Lane MJ, Katz DS, Ross BA, Clautice-Engle TL, Mindelzun RE, Jeffrey RB Jr. Unenhanced helical CT for suspected acute appendicitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;168(2):405-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA, McCabe CJ, Lawrason JN, Berger DL, et al. Helical CT technique for the diagnosis of appendicitis: prospective evaluation of a focused appendix CT examination. Radiology. 1997;202(1):139-44. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Gaitini D. Imaging acute appendicitis: state of the art. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2011;1:49. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Paulson EK, Coursey CA. CT protocols for acute appendicitis: time for change. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(5):1268-71. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Hwang ME. Sonography and computed tomography in diagnosing acute appendicitis. Radiol Technol. 2018;89(3):224-37. [PubMed]
- Kılınçer A, Akpınar E, Erbil B, Ünal E, Karaosmanoğlu AD, Kaynaroğlu V, et al. A new technique for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: abdominal CT with compression to the right lower quadrant. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(8):3317-25. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Poletti PA, Platon A, De Perrot T, Sarasin F, Andereggen E, Rutschmann O, et al. Acute appendicitis: prospective evaluation of a diagnostic algorithm integrating ultrasound and low-dose CT to reduce the need of standard CT. Eur Radiol. 2011;21(12):2558-66. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Rud B, Vejborg TS, Rappeport ED, Reitsma JB, Wille-Jørgensen P. Computed tomography for diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;2019(11):CD009977. [Crossref] [PubMed] [PMC]
- Lewis FR, Holcroft JW, Boey J, Dunphy E. Appendicitis. A critical review of diagnosis and treatment in 1,000 cases. Arch Surg. 1975;110(5):677-84. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Velanovich V, Satava R. Balancing the normal appendectomy rate with the perforated appendicitis rate: implications for quality assurance. Am Surg. 1992;58(4):264-9. [PubMed]
- Yun SJ, Ryu CW, Choi NY, Kim HC, Oh JY, Yang DM. Comparison of low- and standard-dose CT for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: a meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;208(6):W198-207. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Suh SW, Choi YS, Park JM, Kim BG, Cha SJ, Park SJ, et al. Clinical factors for distinguishing perforated from nonperforated appendicitis: a comparison using multidetector computed tomography in 528 laparoscopic appendectomies. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech. 2011;21(2):72-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Oliak D, Sinow R, French S, Udani VM, Stamos MJ. Computed tomography scanning for the diagnosis of perforated appendicitis. Am Surg. 1999;65(10):959-64. [PubMed]
- Horrow MM, White DS, Horrow JC. Differentiation of perforated from nonperforated appendicitis at CT. Radiology. 2003;227(1):46-51. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Sippola S, Virtanen J, Tammilehto V, Grönroos J, Hurme S, Niiniviita H, et al. The accuracy of low-dose computed tomography protocol in patients with suspected acute appendicitis: the OPTICAP study. Ann Surg. 2020;271(2):332-8. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Krishnamoorthi R, Ramarajan N, Wang NE, Newman B, Rubesova E, Mueller CM, 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(1):231-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Wan MJ, Krahn M, Ungar WJ, Caku E, Sung L, Medina LS, et al. Acute appendicitis in young children: cost-effectiveness of US versus CT in diagnosis--a Markov decision analytic model. Radiology. 2009;250(2):378-86. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Miskowiak J, Burcharth F. The white cell count in acute appendicitis. A prospective blind study. Dan Med Bull. 1982;29(4):210-1. [PubMed]
- Peltola H, Ahlqvist J, Rapola J, Räsänen J, Louhimo I, Saarinen M, et al. C-reactive protein compared with white blood cell count and erythrocyte sedimentation rate in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in children. Acta Chir Scand. 1986;152:55-8. [PubMed]
- Paajanen H, Mansikka A, Laato M, Kettunen J, Kostiainen S. Are serum inflammatory markers age dependent in acute appendicitis? J Am Coll Surg. 1997;184(3):303-8. [PubMed]
- Balcı S, Onur MR. Acil radyolojide görüntüleme protokolleri [Imaging protocols in emergency radiology]. Trd Sem. 2016;4:178-97. [Crossref]
- Yazıcı P, Öz A, Kartal K, Battal M, Kabul Gürbulak E, Akgün İE, et al. Emergency computed tomography for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: how effectively we use it? Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2018;24(4):311-5. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Fersahoğlu MM, Çiyiltepe H, Ergin A, Fersahoğlu AT, Bulut NE, Başak A, et al. Effective use of CT by surgeons in acute appendicitis diagnosis. Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2021;27:43-9. [Link]
- Erkoç MF, Börekçi H, Sipahi M, Serin Hİ, Akyüz Y. Akut apandisit tanısında radyolojik bulgular ile lökosit sayımının karşılaştırılması [Comparison of radiological findings with blood leukocyte count in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis]. Kocatepe Tıp Derg. 2015;16:136-9. [Crossref]
- Bendeck SE, Nino-Murcia M, Berry GJ, Jeffrey RB Jr. Imaging for suspected appendicitis: negative appendectomy and perforation rates. Radiology. 2002;225(1):131-6. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Whitley S, Sookur P, McLean A, Power N. The appendix on CT. Clin Radiol. 2009;64(2):190-9. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- 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(6):849-56. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Soyer P, Dohan A, Eveno C, Naneix AL, Pocard M, Pautrat K, et al. Pitfalls and mimickers at 64-section helical CT that cause negative appendectomy: an analysis from 1057 appendectomies. Clin Imaging. 2013;37(5):895-901. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Fatihoglu E, Aydin S, Gokharman FD, Ece B, Kosar PN. X-ray use in chest imaging in emergency department on the basis of cost and effectiveness. Acad Radiol. 2016;23(10):1239-45. [Crossref] [PubMed]
- Aydin S, Fatihoglu E, Ramadan H, S. Akhan B, Koseoglu EN. Alvarado score, ultrasound, and CRP: how to combine them for the most accurate acute appendicitis diagnosis. Iran J Radiol. 2017;14(2):e38160. [Crossref]
.: Process List