4.6 Article

How to Evaluate Appendices with Borderline Diameters on CT: Proposal of a Quick Solution to Overcome the Limitations of the Established CT Criteria

Journal

ACADEMIC RADIOLOGY
Volume 21, Issue 12, Pages 1573-1578

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2014.07.005

Keywords

Appendix; appendicitis; CT; diameter

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rationale and Objectives: To propose a useful computed tomography (CT) criterion, the diameter with compression (DWC), especially in appendices with borderline diameters. Materials and MethodS: We retrospectively collected 216 patients with visible appendices on CT after clinicopathologic confirmation of appendicitis. Each CT criterion of appendicitis was evaluated by an experienced abdominal radiologist: maximal outer diameter (MOD), DWC, mural thickness and enhancement, periappendiceal infiltration, and appendicolith. DWC is the expected diameter after deduction of the intraluminal compressible contents such as air and feces. All the CT criteria were compared in the appendicitis and nonappendicitis group. Results: The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the MOD and the DWC were 0.967 and 0.973, respectively. The optimal cutoff value was 8.2 mm for the MOD and 6.6 mm for the DWC. Twenty-five of the 80 appendicitis patients (31.2%) and 62 of the 136 nonappendicitis patients (45.6%) had MODs between 5.7 mm and 9.8 mm in the overlap between the two groups. In this overlap, the AUC of the MODs declined sharply to 0.767, whereas the AUC of the DWCs remained 0.923. Use of the criterion of DWC >6.6 mm yielded a sensitivity of 84.0%, a specificity of 88.7%, and an accuracy of 87.4%. There were no other criteria with both sensitivity and specificity >80% in the range of overlap. Conclusions: The proposed CT criterion of the DWC is not affected by normal distension or periappendiceal inflammation but only by true appendicitis. Therefore, DWC can improve the diagnostic performance of appendicitis regardless of the MOD.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available