Article Sidebar

PDF
Date Published: 28/01/2023
Abstract Views: 281
Views PDF: 239
DOI: https://doi.org/10.56535/jmpm.v48i1.234
Issue
Vol. 48 No. 1 (2023): TẠP CHÍ Y DƯỢC HỌC QUÂN SỰ SỐ 1 - 2023
Section
Articles
How to Cite
Pham, T. Y., Pham, Q. H., Nguyen, V. D., Le, T. C., & Nguyen, M. H. (2023). IMAGING CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPLICATED ACUTE APPENDICITIS ON MULTI-SLICE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY. Journal of Military Pharmaco-medicine, 48(1), 79-87. https://doi.org/10.56535/jmpm.v48i1.234

IMAGING CHARACTERISTICS OF COMPLICATED ACUTE APPENDICITIS ON MULTI-SLICE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY

Pham Thi Yen, Pham Quoc Huy, Nguyen Van Dan, Le Tuan Canh, Nguyễn Minh Hải

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objectives: To describe imaging characteristics of complicated acute appendicitis and to determine the most useful findings for diagnosing complicated acute appendicitis on MSCT. Subjects and methods: This is a descriptive cross-sectional, prospective study. From September 2021 to August 2022, 83 patients who presented acute abdominal pain, and were suspected with complicated acute appendicitis clinically underwent MSCT and surgery at Military Hospital 103. Results: The most common finding was a focal defect in enhancing the appendiceal wall (accounting for 37%), extraluminal air and appendicolith were found in only one case (1.4%), abscess in 2.7%, and phlegmon in 11%. Sensitivity and specificity for a focal defect in enhancing the appendiceal wall were 92% and 91.7%, respectively while the remaining findings had high specificity but low sensitivity. Conclusion: Focal defect in enhancing the appendiceal wall is the most useful finding in differentiating complicated       acute appendicitis.

Article Details

Keywords

Acute appendicitis, Complicated appendicitis, Computed tomography

References

1. Phạm Gia Khánh, Nguyễn Văn Xuyên, (2014). Viêm ruột thừa cấp. Bệnh học ngoại khoa bụng. Nhà xuất bản Quân đội Nhân dân; 10-12.
2. Doãn Văn Ngọc, Đào Danh Vĩnh, Lê Văn Khang, (2012). Nghiên cứu giá trị chụp CLVT trong chẩn đoán VRTC. Điện quang Việt Nam; 10:370-375.
3. Leite N Pinto, Pereira José M, Cunha R, et al. (2004). CT evaluation of appendicitis and its complications: Imaging techniques and key diagnostic findings; 185:406-417.
4. Horrow Mindy M, White Denise S, Horrow Jay C (2003). Differentiation of perforated from nonperforated appendicitis at CT; Radiology; 227(1):46-51.
5. Iamwat J, Teerasamit W, Apisarnthanarak P, et al. (2021). Predictive ability of CT findings in the differentiation of complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis: A retrospective investigation of 201 patients undergone appendectomy at initial admission. Insights into Imaging; 12(1):1-13.
6. Lai BMH, Chu CY, Leung BST, et al. (2015). Appendicitis computed tomography score: a useful tool for predicting perforation and surgical course of acute appendicitis. Hong Kong J Radiol; 18(4):267-276.
7. Balthazar Emil J, Rofsky Neil M, Zucker R (1998). Appendicitis: the impact of computed tomography imaging on negative appendectomy and perforation rates. The American Journal of Gastroenterology; 93(5): 768-771.
8. Tsuboi M, Takase K, Kaneda I, et al (2008). Perforated and nonperforated appendicitis: defect in enhancing appendiceal wall-depiction with multi-detector row CT. Radiology; 246(1):142-147.
9. Bixby Sarah D, Lucey Brian C, Soto Jorge A, et al. (2006). Perforated versus nonperforated acute appendicitis: Accuracy of multidetector CT detection, Radiology; 241(3):780-786.