Ives Elizabeth P, Sung Susan, McCue Peter, Durrani Haroon, Halpern Ethan J
Department of Radiology, 132 S. 10th St., 10th Floor, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 19107, USA.
Acad Radiol. 2008 Aug;15(8):996-1003. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2008.02.009.
To assess computed tomographic (CT) signs that have been described in published studies for the diagnosis of appendicitis to identify independent findings that predict appendicitis.
A retrospective database search identified 67 patients with a CT scan of the abdomen/pelvis and pathologic evaluation of the appendix, including 41 with appendicitis and 26 with a normal appendix on pathologic examination. Each computed tomogram was re-evaluated by three independent, blinded observers who evaluated appendix diameter, enhancement of the appendix, thickening of the appendix, presence of an appendicolith, infiltration of peri-appendiceal fat, focal cecal thickening, local lymphadenopathy, fluid collections, non-appendiceal bowel thickening, non-periappendiceal infiltration of fat, and comparison of peri-appendiceal fat infiltration to thickening of adjacent bowel loops.
Mean diameter of the normal appendix (6.7 +/- 2.2 mm) was significantly lower than that of the inflamed appendix (12.1 +/- 4.3 mm; P < .001). Significant univariate predictors of appendicitis included appendix diameter >8 mm (odds ratio [OR] 34.8), enhancement of the appendix (OR 4.4), thickening of the appendix (OR 4.3), infiltration of peri-appendiceal fat (OR 5.5), focal cecal thickening (OR 5.1), non-appendiceal bowel thickening (OR 0.4), and non-periappendiceal infiltration of fat (OR = 0.3). Of these variables, only appendix diameter and enhancement of the appendix were significant independent predictors of appendicitis on multivariate analysis. An overall diagnostic impression based on all secondary signs was less accurate than a diagnosis based on appendix diameter alone (receiver-operating characteristic analysis: Az = 0.80 vs. Az = 0.91, P = .02). Sensitivity/specificity of appendix diameter was 84%/87% using a cutoff between 8 and 9 mm and 97%/48% using a cutoff between 6 and 7 mm.
Appendix diameter is the best single diagnostic criterion for appendicitis on CT scan. A cutoff between 8 and 9 mm provided the best balance of sensitivity/specificity in our study population, whereas a cutoff between 6 and 7 mm improved sensitivity at the expense of specificity. The presence of appendiceal enhancement provided additional diagnostic information, but other secondary signs of appendicitis did not improve diagnostic accuracy.
评估已发表研究中描述的用于诊断阑尾炎的计算机断层扫描(CT)征象,以确定预测阑尾炎的独立发现。
通过回顾性数据库搜索,确定了67例接受腹部/盆腔CT扫描并对阑尾进行病理评估的患者,其中41例患有阑尾炎,26例阑尾病理检查正常。三位独立的、不知情的观察者对每幅CT图像进行重新评估,他们评估阑尾直径、阑尾强化、阑尾增厚、阑尾粪石的存在、阑尾周围脂肪浸润、盲肠局限性增厚、局部淋巴结肿大、液体积聚、非阑尾肠管增厚、非阑尾周围脂肪浸润,以及比较阑尾周围脂肪浸润与相邻肠袢增厚情况。
正常阑尾的平均直径(6.7±2.2mm)显著低于发炎阑尾的平均直径(12.1±4.3mm;P<.001)。阑尾炎的显著单因素预测指标包括阑尾直径>8mm(比值比[OR]34.8)、阑尾强化(OR 4.4)、阑尾增厚(OR 4.3)、阑尾周围脂肪浸润(OR 5.5)、盲肠局限性增厚(OR 5.1)、非阑尾肠管增厚(OR 0.4)和非阑尾周围脂肪浸润(OR = 0.3)。在这些变量中,多因素分析显示只有阑尾直径和阑尾强化是阑尾炎的显著独立预测指标。基于所有次要征象的总体诊断印象不如仅基于阑尾直径的诊断准确(受试者操作特征分析:Az = 0.80对Az = 0.91,P =.02)。使用8至9mm的截断值时,阑尾直径的敏感性/特异性为84%/87%,使用6至7mm的截断值时为97%/48%。
阑尾直径是CT扫描诊断阑尾炎的最佳单一诊断标准。在我们的研究人群中,8至9mm的截断值在敏感性/特异性方面提供了最佳平衡,而6至7mm的截断值以牺牲特异性为代价提高了敏感性。阑尾强化的存在提供了额外的诊断信息,但阑尾炎的其他次要征象并未提高诊断准确性。