» Articles » PMID: 25246752

Diagnostic Imaging Utilization in Cases of Acute Appendicitis: Multi-center Experience

Overview
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2014 Sep 24
PMID 25246752
Citations 15
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to measure imaging utilization rates and the negative appendectomy rate (NAR) in metropolitan Seoul, Korea. The study included 2321 adolescents and adults (≥ 15 yr; median [interquartile range] age, 37 [27-50] yr; 46.7% female) undergoing appendectomy in 2011 at eight tertiary and three secondary hospitals. Imaging utilization rate was 99.7% (95% confidence interval, 99.4%-99.9%). CT and ultrasonography utilization rates as an initial imaging modality were 93.1% (92.0%-94.1%), and 6.5% (5.6%-7.6%), respectively. The NAR in patients undergoing CT only, complementary ultrasonography following CT, ultrasonography only, and complementary CT following ultrasonography were 3.3% (2.6%-4.1%), 27% (14%-44%), 9% (4%-16%), and 8% (2%-20%), respectively. The use of ultrasonography instead of CT as the initial imaging modality was significantly associated with higher NAR (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.28 [1.22-4.27]; risk difference, 4.4 [0-8.8] percentage points), however, the population attributable risk was 0.3 [0-0.6] percentage points. We observed a very high CT utilization rate and a low NAR in metropolitan Seoul. Although the use of CT was significantly associated with the lower NAR, CT utilization rate already has reached the level that increase in CT utilization from the status quo would hardly decrease the NAR further.

Citing Articles

Analyzing the dynamics of complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis during the COVID-19 pandemic in Seoul, Korea: a multifaceted time series approach.

Baek K, Park C Epidemiol Health. 2024; 46:e2024081.

PMID: 39363604 PMC: 11832239. DOI: 10.4178/epih.e2024081.


Does delayed phase imaging in CT angiography provide additional information in patients with suspected active bleeding?.

Khdhir M, Ghosn Y, Jabbour Y, Abbas N, Tarcha Z, Kayali M Emerg Radiol. 2024; 31(4):439-446.

PMID: 38760647 DOI: 10.1007/s10140-024-02239-9.


Parsimonious clinical prediction model for the diagnosis of complicated appendicitis.

Cai J, Zhou H, Liang D, Chen Q, Xiao Y, Li G Heliyon. 2023; 9(8):e19067.

PMID: 37636395 PMC: 10457507. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e19067.


Low-Dose Abdominal CT for Evaluating Suspected Appendicitis: Recommendations for CT Imaging Techniques and Practical Issues.

Park J, Kim H, Sim J, Lee K Diagnostics (Basel). 2022; 12(7).

PMID: 35885490 PMC: 9320604. DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12071585.


Low-Dose Abdominal CT for Evaluating Suspected Appendicitis in Adolescents and Young Adults: Review of Evidence.

Park J, Salminen P, Tannaphai P, Lee K Korean J Radiol. 2022; 23(5):517-528.

PMID: 35289145 PMC: 9081692. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2021.0596.


References
1.
Preston D, Ron E, Tokuoka S, Funamoto S, Nishi N, Soda M . Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors: 1958-1998. Radiat Res. 2007; 168(1):1-64. DOI: 10.1667/RR0763.1. View

2.
Flum D, Morris A, Koepsell T, Dellinger E . Has misdiagnosis of appendicitis decreased over time? A population-based analysis. JAMA. 2001; 286(14):1748-53. DOI: 10.1001/jama.286.14.1748. View

3.
Guite K, Hinshaw J, Ranallo F, Lindstrom M, Lee Jr F . Ionizing radiation in abdominal CT: unindicated multiphase scans are an important source of medically unnecessary exposure. J Am Coll Radiol. 2011; 8(11):756-61. PMC: 4131253. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacr.2011.05.011. View

4.
Cuschieri J, Florence M, Flum D, Jurkovich G, Lin P, Steele S . Negative appendectomy and imaging accuracy in the Washington State Surgical Care and Outcomes Assessment Program. Ann Surg. 2008; 248(4):557-63. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318187aeca. View

5.
Paulson E, Kalady M, Pappas T . Clinical practice. Suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348(3):236-42. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMcp013351. View