MRI: first-line imaging modality for pregnant patients with suspected appendicitis.

Joseph Konrad, David Grand, Ana Lourenco
{"title":"MRI: first-line imaging modality for pregnant patients with suspected appendicitis.","authors":"Joseph Konrad,&nbsp;David Grand,&nbsp;Ana Lourenco","doi":"10.1007/s00261-015-0540-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of our study was to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of ultrasound (US) as compared to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pregnant patients with suspected appendicitis for visualization of the appendix, accuracy at diagnosing acute appendicitis, the ability of each modality to identify alternate diagnoses of pain and whether gestational age (GA) has an association with appendix identification rates.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively reviewed the records of 140 pregnant patients with suspected appendicitis to determine the efficacy of US and MRI to identify the appendix, diagnose or exclude acute appendicitis, identify alternative etiologies for clinical presentation, and the affect of GA on identification of the appendix. Imaging results were correlated with surgical pathology in patients who underwent surgery. The electronic medical record was used to assess clinical outcomes in patients who did not undergo surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The appendix was visualized in 7% (8/117) of US exams and in 80% (91/114) of MRI exams. Alternate etiologies of pathology were determined in 3% (3/117) of US exams and 12% (14/114) of MRI exams. The sensitivity and specificity of MRI for acute appendicitis were both 100% and 98%, respectively, as compared to 18% and 99%, respectively, with US. GA did not affect MRI or ultrasound visualization rates of the appendix.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Given the low likelihood of visualization of the appendix at US, the excellent accuracy of MRI and the ability of MRI to identify alternate diagnoses, we suggest that at certain institutions MRI may be considered a first-line imaging modality for pregnant patients of any GA with suspected appendicitis.</p>","PeriodicalId":7014,"journal":{"name":"Abdominal Imaging","volume":"40 8","pages":"3359-64"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00261-015-0540-7","citationCount":"51","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Abdominal Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0540-7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 51

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of ultrasound (US) as compared to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in pregnant patients with suspected appendicitis for visualization of the appendix, accuracy at diagnosing acute appendicitis, the ability of each modality to identify alternate diagnoses of pain and whether gestational age (GA) has an association with appendix identification rates.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 140 pregnant patients with suspected appendicitis to determine the efficacy of US and MRI to identify the appendix, diagnose or exclude acute appendicitis, identify alternative etiologies for clinical presentation, and the affect of GA on identification of the appendix. Imaging results were correlated with surgical pathology in patients who underwent surgery. The electronic medical record was used to assess clinical outcomes in patients who did not undergo surgery.

Results: The appendix was visualized in 7% (8/117) of US exams and in 80% (91/114) of MRI exams. Alternate etiologies of pathology were determined in 3% (3/117) of US exams and 12% (14/114) of MRI exams. The sensitivity and specificity of MRI for acute appendicitis were both 100% and 98%, respectively, as compared to 18% and 99%, respectively, with US. GA did not affect MRI or ultrasound visualization rates of the appendix.

Conclusion: Given the low likelihood of visualization of the appendix at US, the excellent accuracy of MRI and the ability of MRI to identify alternate diagnoses, we suggest that at certain institutions MRI may be considered a first-line imaging modality for pregnant patients of any GA with suspected appendicitis.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
MRI:怀疑阑尾炎的孕妇的一线成像方式。
目的:本研究的目的是评估超声(US)与磁共振成像(MRI)在疑似阑尾炎的妊娠患者阑尾显像的敏感性、特异性和准确性,诊断急性阑尾炎的准确性,每种方式识别替代疼痛诊断的能力,以及胎龄(GA)是否与阑尾识别率相关。方法:回顾性分析140例疑似阑尾炎的妊娠患者的临床资料,探讨超声和MRI对阑尾的鉴别、急性阑尾炎的诊断或排除、临床表现的替代病因以及超声对阑尾鉴别的影响。影像学结果与手术患者的手术病理相关。电子病历用于评估未接受手术的患者的临床结果。结果:阑尾显影率为7% (8/117),MRI显影率为80%(91/114)。在3%(3/117)的US检查和12%(14/114)的MRI检查中发现了不同的病理病因。MRI对急性阑尾炎的敏感性和特异性分别为100%和98%,而US的敏感性和特异性分别为18%和99%。GA不影响阑尾的MRI或超声显像率。结论:考虑到超声显示阑尾的可能性较低,MRI的准确性高,以及MRI识别替代诊断的能力,我们建议在某些机构,对于任何怀疑阑尾炎的妊娠GA患者,MRI可能被视为一线成像方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Abdominal Imaging
Abdominal Imaging 医学-核医学
自引率
0.00%
发文量
334
审稿时长
2 months
期刊最新文献
Magnetic resonance imaging of rectal cancer: staging and restaging evaluation. The wall-echo-shadow (WES) sign. Lowering radiation dose during dedicated colorectal cancer MDCT: comparison of low tube voltage and sinogram-affirmed iterative reconstruction at 80 kVp versus blended dual-energy images in a population of patients with low body mass index. Female perineal diseases: spectrum of imaging findings. Effect of radiologists' experience with an adaptive statistical iterative reconstruction algorithm on detection of hypervascular liver lesions and perception of image quality.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1