ULTRASONOGRAPHY IN PATIENTS WITH SUSPECTED ACUTE APPENDICITIS

Main Article Content

Dr Pratik khokhani
Dr Jolly Dey

Keywords

.

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the usefulness and limitations of graded compression ultrasonography in the diagnosis of clinically equivocal cases of suspected acute appendicitis at the setting of SIMS-R hospital of India.


Methods: A prospective study, graded compression ultrasonography with self localization was carried out with 3.5 MHz convex, 5 MHz convex and 7.5 MHz linear transducers (Wipro GE) in 69 clinically equivocal suspected cases of acute appendicitis. With maximal compression the anteroposterior diameter of appendix was measured from outer to outer wall. The main criterion for diagnosing appendicitis was demonstration of a non compressible appendix with anteroposterior dimension of 7mm or more.


Result: Sonologically 36 (52%) cases were diagnosed as appendicitis. Anteroposterior outer diameter of inflamed appendices ranged from 7mm to 21mm (mean 10.5mm). 30 (83%) of 36 patients could accurately self localize the point of maximum tenderness. There were 01 false positive and 04 false negative cases. Sensitivity and specificity were 89.7% and 96.6% respectively. Positive and negative predictive values were 97.2% and 87.8% respectively. Alternative diagnoses were offered in 33 (47.8%) cases. Amongst these 33 cases, 14(42.4%) had abdominal pain of unknown origin. Gynaecologic, urologic and gastrointestinal aetiologies were established in 10(30.3%), 07(21.2%) and 02(6%) cases respectively.


Conclusion: Graded compression ultrasonography superadded with self localization is an accurate means of diagnosing/excluding appendicitis in clinically equivocal cases of acute appendicitis and it is of great value in establishing alternative diagnoses.

Abstract 102 | PDF Downloads 58

References

1. Puylaert JB. Acute appendicitis. US evaluation using graded compression. Radiology 1986; 158:355-60.
2. Chesbrough RM, Burkhard TK, Balsara ZN, Goff WB, Davis DJ. Self-localisation in US of appendicitis an addition to graded compression. Radiology 1993; 187:349-51.
3. Birnbaum BA, Wilson SR. Appendicitis at the millennium. Radiology 2000; 215(2): 337-48.
4. Paulson EK, Kalady MF, Pappas TN. Suspected appendicitis. New Engl J of Med 2003; 348(3):236-42.
5. Yacoe ME, Jeffrey RB Jr. Sonography of appendicitis and diverticulitis. Radiologic Clinics of North America 1994; 32(5):899-912.
6. Joshi HM, Patel VB, Dave AN. Ultrasonographic evaluation of acute appendicitis. Ind J Radiol Imag 1996; 6(2):75-8.
7. Styrud J, Josephson T, Eriksson S. Reducing negative appendectomy: evaluation of ultrasonography and computed tomography in acute appendicitis. Int J Qual Health Care 2000;12(1):65-8.
8. Gaensler EHL, Jeffrey RB Jr, Laing FC, Townsend RR. Sonography in patients with suspected acute appendicitis: value in establishing alternative diagnoses. Am J Roentgenol 1989; 152:49-51.
9. Fujii Y, Hata J, Futagami K, et al. Ultrasonography improves diagnostic accuracy of acute appendicitis and provides cost savings to hospitals in Japan. J Ultrasound Med 2000, 19(6): 409-14.
10. Rettenbacher T, Hollerweger A, Macheiner P, et al. Outer diameter of the vermiform appendix as a sign of acute appendicitis: Evaluation at US. Radiology 2001; 218:757-62.
11. Hardin DM Jr. Acute appendicitis: review and update. Am Fam Physician 1999; 60(7): 2027-34.
12. Zielke A, Sitter H, Rampp T, Bohrer T, Rothmund M. Clinical decision making, ultrasonography and scores for evaluation of suspected acute appendicitis. World J Surg 2001;25(5):578- 84.
13. Ooms HWA, Koumans RKJ, Ho Kang You PJ, Puylaert JB. Ultrasonography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Br J Surg 1991;78:315-18.
14. 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. New Engl J of Med 1998;338(3):141-6.