Validation of a Scoring System to Distinguish Uncomplicated From Complicated Appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that uncomplicated appendicitis can be treated conservatively with antibiotics. It is important to select only those patients with uncomplicated appendicitis when considering conservative management. Recently, a scoring system based on clinical evaluation and ultrasound was developed to improve this selection and aid in shared decision making when considering an antibiotics-first strategy. The aim of this study was to externally validate the scoring system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all adult patients presenting to the emergency department between January 2014 and January 2017 with suspected acute appendicitis based on clinical evaluation and ultrasound was performed. For every patient, a score was calculated using the previously described scoring system. A final diagnosis, subdivided into complicated appendicitis, uncomplicated appendicitis, complicated alternative disease, and uncomplicated alternative disease, was assigned to every patient based on operative findings. RESULTS: A total of 678 patients with suspected acute appendicitis based on clinical and ultrasonography findings were identified, of whom 175 (25.8%) had complicated appendicitis, 491 (72.4%) had uncomplicated appendicitis, and 12 (1.8%) had an alternative disease. Of the 678 patients, 272 had a score of five points or less, of whom 17 (6.2%) had complicated appendicitis, giving a negative predictive value of 93.8%. CONCLUSIONS: With the scoring system based on clinical and ultrasonography features, 93.8% of patients predicted to have uncomplicated appendicitis were correctly identified. The scoring system could help identify patients suitable for conservative management in future studies.

Magnetic resonance colonography with automated carbon dioxide insufflation: Diagnostic accuracy and distension.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of MR colonography using automated carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation for colonic distension, with colonoscopy serving as the reference standard. METHODS: Ninety-eight symptomatic patients underwent MR colonography with faecal tagging and automated CO2 insufflation. Three readers (one expert (reader 1), and two less experienced (readers 2 and 3)) evaluated the images for the presence of colorectal lesions. Bowel distension was evaluated on a 4-point scale. Results were verified with colonoscopy and histopathological analysis. RESULTS: Per-patient sensitivity for lesions ≥10mm was 91.7% (11 of 12) (reader 1), 75.0% (9 of 12) (reader 2), and 75% (9 of 12) (reader 3). Specificity was 96.5% (82 of 85) (reader 1), 97.7% (83 of 85) (reader 2), 95.3% (81 of 85) (reader 3). Per-patient sensitivity for lesions ≥6mm was 85.7% (18 of 21) (reader 1), 57.1% (12 of 21) (reader 2), and 57.1% (12 of 21) (reader 3). Specificity was 86.8% (66 of 76), 98.7% (75 of 76), 90.8% (69 of 76), respectively. Per-patient sensitivity for advanced neoplasia of ≥10mm and ≥6mm was 88.9% (8 of 9) for all readers. Specificity for ≥10mm and ≥6mm was 98.9% (87 of 88) (reader 1), 97.7% (86 of 88) (reader 2), 96.6% (85 of 88) (reader 3). 94.4% of the colon segments were adequate to optimal distended with dual positioning. CONCLUSION: MR colonography can accurately detect lesions ≥10mm, and advanced neoplasia ≥6mm. Sufficient distension was achieved using automated CO2 insufflation for colonic distension in MR colonography.

Accuracy of MRI compared with ultrasound imaging and selective use of CT to discriminate simple from perforated appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Discrimination between simple and perforated appendicitis in patients with suspected appendicitis may help to determine the therapy, timing of surgery and risk of complications. The aim of this study was to estimate the accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in distinguishing between simple and perforated appendicitis, and to compare MRI against ultrasound imaging with selected additional (conditional) use of computed tomography (CT). METHODS: Patients with clinically suspected appendicitis were identified prospectively at the emergency department of six hospitals. Consenting patients underwent MRI, but were managed based on findings at ultrasonography and conditional CT. Radiologists who evaluated the MRI were blinded to the results of ultrasound imaging and CT. The presence of perforated appendicitis was recorded after each evaluation. The final diagnosis was assigned by an expert panel based on perioperative data, histopathology and clinical follow-up after 3 months. RESULTS: MRI was performed in 223 of 230 included patients. Acute appendicitis was the final diagnosis in 118 of 230 patients, of whom 87 had simple and 31 perforated appendicitis. MRI correctly identified 17 of 30 patients with perforated appendicitis (sensitivity 57 (95 per cent confidence interval 39 to 73) per cent), whereas ultrasound imaging with conditional CT identified 15 of 31 (sensitivity 48 (32 to 65) per cent) (P = 0.517). All missed diagnoses of perforated appendicitis were identified as simple acute appendicitis with both imaging protocols. None of the MRI features for perforated appendicitis had a positive predictive value higher than 53 per cent. CONCLUSION: MRI is comparable to ultrasonography with conditional use of CT in identifying perforated appendicitis. However, both strategies incorrectly classify up to half of all patients with perforated appendicitis as having simple appendicitis. Triage of appendicitis based on imaging for conservative treatment is inaccurate and may be considered unsafe for decision-making. Presented to a scientific meeting of the Association of Surgeons of the Netherlands, Veldhoven, The Netherlands, May 2012; published in abstract form as Br J Surg 2012; 99(Suppl 7): S6.

Inter-observer reliability of computed tomographic classifications of diverticulitis.

AIM: The wide use of computed tomography (CT) for diverticulitis has initiated new classifications, but their reliability has not been studied. The aim of the study was to assess the inter-observer agreement of radiologists on the classifications of diverticulitis. METHOD: A set of 100 CT examinations of patients with an episode of diverticulitis was used to assess inter-observer agreement. Cases were derived from two prospective trials and a retrospective cohort to comprise an evenly distributed case mix of patients. The reference standard was the modified Hinchey classification based on all available information. Three blinded radiologists independently read all CT examinations. We calculated the proportion of agreement and kappa values for the Hinchey and Ambrosetti classifications. For the Dharmarajan classification only inter-observer agreement was calculated. RESULTS: The agreement with the reference standard was substantial for both the modified Hinchey and the Ambrosetti classifications (P = 0.68 and P = 0.76). Overall inter-observer agreement for the modified Hinchey classification was substantial (median kappa 0.72), for the Ambrosetti classification almost perfect (median kappa 0.83) and for the Dharmarajan classification substantial (median kappa 0.76). CONCLUSION: The Ambrosetti classification is more reproducible than the modified Hinchey and Dharmarajan classifications. The Ambrosetti and modified Hinchey classifications have a substantial agreement with the reference standard and therefore produce a reliable classification. The Dhamarajan is applicable only in complicated diverticulitis and is an important complementary classification to the other more general classifications of diverticulitis.

Complications after Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: a diagnostic challenge. Report of three cases and review of the literature.

The number of Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass (LRYGB) procedures for morbid obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus will increase worldwide, and therefore, an increase in perioperative morbidity can be anticipated. The authors present three cases based on different complications after LRYGB to demonstrate the diagnostic challenge that clinicians face in this particular group of patients. Also, a review of the literature covering the value of different imaging in these particular cases is provided by the authors. The role of imaging in the diagnostic process is discussed.

Feasibility of using automated insufflated carbon dioxide (CO2) for luminal distension in 3.0T MR colonography.

PURPOSE: Primary aim of our study was to prospectively evaluate the feasibility of automated carbon dioxide (CO(2)) delivery as luminal distending agent in 3.0T MR colonography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Rectally insufflated CO(2) was evaluated in four groups with different bowel preparation (A-D). Bowel preparation regimes were: gadolinium-based tagging (A), bowel purgation (B), barium-based tagging (C) and iodine-based tagging (D). Supine (3D)T1w-FFE and (2D)T2w-SSFSE series were acquired. Each colon was divided into six segments (cecum S1-rectum S6). Two observers independently assessed the presence of artefacts, diagnostic confidence and segmental colonic distension. Also characteristics of the residual stool (presence, composition and signal-intensity) were assessed per segment. Discomfort was assessed with questionnaires. RESULTS: Fourteen healthy subjects were included. Colonic distension by means of rectally insufflated CO(2) was not associated with susceptibility artefacts. Overall image quality was affected by the presence of bowel motion-related artefacts: none of the segments in 3DT1w-series and 10/84 (12%) colon segments in 2DT2w-series were rated artefact-free by both observers. Diagnostic confidence ratings were superior for the 2DT2w-SSFSE series. Overall bowel distension was rated adequate to optimal in 312/336 (93%) colon segments. CONCLUSION: MR colonography at 3.0T using carbon dioxide (CO(2)) for colonic distension is technically feasible. The presence of intraluminal CO(2) did not result in susceptibility artefacts, although overall image quality was influenced by artefacts.

Diagnostic performance of radiographers as compared to radiologists in magnetic resonance colonography.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic performance of radiographers compared to radiologists in the detection of colorectal lesions in MR colonography. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 159 patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer were included. Four different experienced observers, one MR radiologist, one radiologist in training and two radiographers evaluated all MR colonography examinations. The protocol included T1-weighted and T2-weighted sequences in prone and supine position. Colonoscopy was used as reference standard. Mean sensitivity rates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were determined on a per-patient and per-polyp basis, segmented by size (>or= 6mm and >or= 10mm). Specificity was calculated on a per-patient basis. The McNemar and chi-square (chi(2)) test was used to determine significant differences. RESULTS: At colonoscopy 74 patients (47%) had normal findings; 23 patients had 40 polyps with a size > or = 6mm. In 10 patients at least 1 polyp >or= 10mm was found (20 polyps in total). Similar sensitivities for patients with lesions >or= 10mm were found for radiologists and radiographers (65% (95%CI: 44-86%) vs. 50% (95%CI: 28-72%)) (p=n.s.). For lesions >or=10mm combined per-patient specificity for radiologists and radiographers was 96% (95%CI: 94-98%) and 73% (95%CI: 68-79%) (p<0.0001). Combined per-patient sensitivity for lesions >or=6mm differed significantly between both groups of observers (57% (95%CI: 42-71%) vs. 33% (95%CI: 19-46%)) (p=0.03). CONCLUSION: Radiographers have comparable sensitivity but lower specificity relative to radiologists in the detection of colorectal lesions >or= 10mm at MR colonography. Adequate training in evaluating MR colonography is necessary, especially for readers with no prior experience with colonography.