6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Diagnostic reliability of pediatric appendicitis score, ultrasound and low-dose computed tomography scan in children with suspected acute appendicitis

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Diagnosis of appendicitis in children is clinically challenging. Computed tomography (CT) is the gold standard for diagnosis; however, radiation exposure early in life is a concern with this technique. Therefore, in this study, we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic reliability of low-dose CT, pediatric appendicitis score (PAS), and abdominal ultrasound (US) in children with acute appendicitis, to reach a safe diagnosis.

          Patients and methods

          This retrospective study was conducted on 140 children who were admitted with clinically suspected acute appendicitis (45 with positive appendicitis and 95 children with negative appendicitis). Low-dose CT was performed, and PAS was retrospectively calculated for all subjects. US was initially performed for 38 subjects. All results were compared with the final diagnosis reached by an operative, histopathological analysis and follow-up.

          Results

          Low-dose CT showed a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 97.8%, 100%, and 99.3%, respectively. At a cutoff value ≥5, PAS showed a sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 95%, 84%, and 89%, respectively. Abdominal US examination showed sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of 55.6%, 85%, and 71%, respectively. Implementing Poortman’s model resulted in higher accuracy (92%) of US. There was a significant difference in accuracy between a low-dose CT and PAS on one side and between Poortman’s model and US examination on the other side. A diagnostic scheme was suggested using PAS as the excluding tool (PAS ≤2 send home and ≥7 send directly to operation) followed by US examination and reserving low-dose CT for inconclusive cases. This scheme would eliminate the use of CT for at least 33.7% and in 7 cases who had initial US examination.

          Conclusion

          Although CT remains the most accurate and less operator-dependent diagnostic tool for pediatric appendicitis, the radiation hazards could however be minimized using PAS as an excluding tool and US as the primary imaging modality followed by low-dose CT for inconclusive cases only.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          US or CT for Diagnosis of Appendicitis in Children and Adults? A Meta-Analysis.

          To perform a meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic performance of ultrasonography (US) and computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of appendicitis in pediatric and adult populations. Medical literature (from 1986 to 2004) was searched for articles on studies that used US, CT, or both as diagnostic tests for appendicitis in children (26 studies, 9356 patients) or adults (31 studies, 4341 patients). Prospective and retrospective studies were included if they separately reported the rate of true-positive, true-negative, false-positive, and false-negative diagnoses of appendicitis from US and CT findings compared with the positive and negative rates of appendicitis at surgery or follow-up. Clinical variables, technical factors, and test performance were extracted. Three readers assessed the quality of studies. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of appendicitis in children were 88% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 86%, 90%) and 94% (95% CI: 92%, 95%), respectively, for US studies and 94% (95% CI: 92%, 97%) and 95% (95% CI: 94%, 97%), respectively, for CT studies. Pooled sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis in adults were 83% (95% CI: 78%, 87%) and 93% (95% CI: 90%, 96%), respectively, for US studies and 94% (95% CI: 92%, 95%) and 94% (95% CI: 94%, 96%), respectively, for CT studies. From the diagnostic performance perspective, CT had a significantly higher sensitivity than did US in studies of children and adults; from the safety perspective, however, one should consider the radiation associated with CT, especially in children. (c) RSNA, 2006.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Pediatric appendicitis score.

             Madan Samuel (2002)
            Morbidity in children treated with appendicitis results either from late diagnosis or negative appendectomy. A Prospective analysis of efficacy of Pediatric Appendicitis Score for early diagnosis of appendicitis in children was conducted. In the last 5 years, 1,170 children aged 4 to 15 years with abdominal pain suggestive of acute appendicitis were evaluated prospectively. Group 1 (734) were patients with appendicitis and group 2 (436) nonappendicitis. Multiple linear logistic regression analysis of all clinical and investigative parameters was performed for a model comprising 8 variables to form a diagnostic score. Logistic regression analysis yielded a model comprising 8 variables, all statistically significant, P <.001. These variables in order of their diagnostic index were (1) cough/percussion/hopping tenderness in the right lower quadrant of the abdomen (0.96), (2) anorexia (0.88), (3) pyrexia (0.87), (4) nausea/emesis (0.86), (5) tenderness over the right iliac fossa (0.84), (6) leukocytosis (0.81), (7) polymorphonuclear neutrophilia (0.80) and (8) migration of pain (0.80). Each of these variables was assigned a score of 1, except for physical signs (1 and 5), which were scored 2 to obtain a total of 10. The Pediatric Appendicitis Score had a sensitivity of 1, specificity of 0.92, positive predictive value of 0.96, and negative predictive value of 0.99. Pediatric appendicitis score is a simple, relatively accurate diagnostic tool for accessing an acute abdomen and diagnosing appendicitis in children. Copyright 2002, Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis.

              Computed tomography (CT) has become the predominant test for diagnosing acute appendicitis in adults. In children and young adults, exposure to CT radiation is of particular concern. We evaluated the rate of negative (unnecessary) appendectomy after low-dose versus standard-dose abdominal CT in young adults with suspected appendicitis. In this single-institution, single-blind, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned 891 patients with suspected appendicitis to either low-dose CT (444 patients) or standard-dose CT (447 patients). The median radiation dose in terms of dose-length product was 116 mGy·cm in the low-dose group and 521 mGy·cm in the standard-dose group. The primary end point was the percentage of negative appendectomies among all nonincidental appendectomies, with a noninferiority margin of 5.5 percentage points. Secondary end points included the appendiceal perforation rate and the proportion of patients with suspected appendicitis who required additional imaging. The negative appendectomy rate was 3.5% (6 of 172 patients) in the low-dose CT group and 3.2% (6 of 186 patients) in the standard-dose CT group (difference, 0.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -3.8 to 4.6). The two groups did not differ significantly in terms of the appendiceal perforation rate (26.5% with low-dose CT and 23.3% with standard-dose CT, P=0.46) or the proportion of patients who needed additional imaging tests (3.2% and 1.6%, respectively; P=0.09). Low-dose CT was noninferior to standard-dose CT with respect to negative appendectomy rates in young adults with suspected appendicitis. (Funded by GE Healthcare Medical Diagnostics and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00913380.).
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ther Clin Risk Manag
                Ther Clin Risk Manag
                Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
                Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management
                Dove Medical Press
                1176-6336
                1178-203X
                2017
                06 July 2017
                : 13
                : 847-854
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Pediatrics, Children and Women’s University Hospital, Minia University, El-Minya, Egypt
                [2 ]Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
                [3 ]Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Mansoura University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt
                [4 ]Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Dalia Monir Fahmy, Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura University Hospital, Mansoura University, El-Gomhoria Street, Mansoura, 35516, Egypt, Tel +20 109 104 3679, Fax +20 50 229 5025, Email daliamonir2525@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                tcrm-13-847
                10.2147/TCRM.S134153
                5505679
                © 2017 Sayed et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Categories
                Original Research

                Comments

                Comment on this article