medigraphic.com
ISSN 2007-8013 (Print)
Órgano oficial de la Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa

2020, Number 4

<< Back

Rev Med UAS 2020; 10 (4)

Acute appendicitis: normal anatomy, imaging findings and radiological diagnostic approach

Murúa-Millán OA, González-Fernández MA

Language: Spanish
References: 29
Page: 222-232
PDF size: 146.24 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Acute appendicitis is a frequent cause of emergency department attendance, and appendectomy predominates as one of the most commonly performed emergency surgeries in the world. The appendix is the most variable abdominal organ in terms of position and extension. The clinical diagnosis of acute appendicitis is uncertain in 30-40% of cases, the decision to operate based on it can lead to finding normal appendices in 15-30% of cases. The diagnostic imaging protocol includes ultrasound , computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Computed tomography is the method of choice, due to its high sensitivity and specificity, allowing a detailed evaluation of the anatomy, as well as assessing the presence of secondary findings and the presence of complications, in negative cases it is capable of detecting differential diagnoses of acute appendicitis


REFERENCES

  1. Humes DJ, Simpson J. Acute appendicitis. BMJ. 2006;333(7567):530-4.

  2. Ferris M, Quan S, Kaplan BS, Molodecky N, BallCG, Chernoff GW, et al. The Global Incidence ofAppendicitis: A Systematic Review of Population-based Studies. Ann Surg 2017; 266(2):237-41.

  3. Bachur RG, Callahan MJ, Monuteaux MC,Rangel SJ. Integration of Ultrasound Findingsand a Clinical Score in the Diagnostic Evaluationof Pediatric Appendicitis. J Pediatr. 2015 ;166(5):1134-9.

  4. Debnath J, Ravikumar R, Maurya V. Diagnosingacute appendicitis with blood markers: is thereany problem? Am J Surg. 2015;210(3):599-600.

  5. Langman J, Treviño HV. Embriología médica:desarrollo humano normal y anormal. Interamerica; 1976.

  6. González RCR, Álvarez JG, Téllez RT. Apendicitisaguda: Revisión de la literatura. Rev HospJua Mex. 2009;76(4):210-6.

  7. Gray H, Standring S, Anand N, Birch R, CollinsP, Crossman A, et al. Gray's anatomy: the anatomicalbasis of clinical practice. Elsevier; 2016.

  8. Latarjet M, Liard AR. Anatomía humana.Panamericana; 2006.

  9. Singh K, Gupta S, Mohi RS, Kumar S. Correlationbetween the position of appendix and incidenceof appendicitis. J Adv Med Dent Scie Res.2016 ; 4 (6): 220-222.

  10. Mwachaka P, El-busaidy H, Sinkeet S, Ogeng’oJ. Variations in the position and length of the vermiformappendix in a black kenyan population.ISRN Anat. 2014:871048

  11. de Souza SC, da Costa SRMR, de Souza IGS.Vermiform appendix: positions and length–astudy of 377 cases and literature review. J Coloproctol.2015;35(4):212-6.

  12. Jeffrey RB, Federle MP, Woodward PJ , BorhaniAA. Diagnostic Imaging: Abdomen .Marban;2011.

  13. Patel K, Thekdi PI, Nathwani P, Patel NK. A comparativestudy of different anatomical position,clinical presentation and USG findings with operativefindings in patients of appendicitis. IJRMS2017;1(4):349-53.

  14. Karul M, Berliner C, Keller S, Tsui TY, YamamuraJ. Imaging of Appendicitis in Adults. Rofo.2014. 2014;186(06):551-8.

  15. Jaramillo G, Mosquera J, Huilca V. Validez deldiagnóstico clínico y de las pruebas de laboratorioen la apendicitis aguda no complicada. RevFac Cien Med(Quito). 2017;32(1):34-9.

  16. Beltrán M, Villar R, Tapia TF, Cruces K. Sintomatologíaatípica en 140 pacientes con apendicitis.Rev Chil Cir. 2004;56:269-74.

  17. Motta-Ramírez G, Méndez-Colín E, Martínez-Utrera M, Bastida-Alquicira J, Aragón-Flores M,Garrido-Sánchez G, et al.Apendicitis atípica enadultos. Ana Rad México 2014 ; 13 (2) : 143-165.

  18. Sanabria Á, Mora M, Domínguez LC, Vega V,Osorio C. Validación de la escala diagnóstica deAlvarado en pacientes con dolor abdominal sugestivode apendicitis en un centro de segundonivel de complejidad. Rev Colomb Cir 2010 ; 25(3) : 195 -201.

  19. Viswanthan V, Shah NJ, Shah N. TherapeuticImpact of Computerized Tomography Scan inAcute Appendicitis. Int J Res Med.

  20. 2017;5(4):114-21.20. Levy AD, Mortele KJ, Yeh BM . GastrointestinalImaging. Oxford ; 2015.

  21. Federle MP, Raman SP. Diagnostic Imaging:Gastrointestinal , Elsevier; 2015.

  22. Chin CM, Lim KL. Appendicitis: Atypical andChallenging CT Appearances: Resident and FellowEducation Feature. RadioGraphics.2015;35(1):123-4.

  23. Aspelund G, Fingeret A, Gross E, Kessler D,Keung C, Thirumoorthi A, et al. Ultrasonography/MRI Versus CT for Diagnosing Appendicitis.Pediatrics. 2014;133(4):586-93.

  24. Srinivasan A, Servaes S, Peña A, Darge K. Utilityof CT after sonography for suspected appendicitisin children: integration of a clinical scoringsystem with a staged imaging protocol. Eur Radiol.2015;22(1):31-42.

  25. Kotagal M, Richards MK, Chapman T, Finch L,McCann B, Ormazabal A, et al. Improving ultrasoundquality to reduce computed tomographyuse in pediatric appendicitis: the Safe and Soundcampaign. Am J Surg. 2015;209(5):896-900.

  26. O’Malley ME, Alharbi F, Chawla TP, MoshonovH. CT following US for possible appendicitis: anatomiccoverage. Eur Radiol. 2016;26(2):532-8.

  27. Atema JJ, Gans SL, Van Randen A, Laméris W,van Es HW, van Heesewijk JPM, et al. Comparisonof Imaging Strategies with Conditional versusImmediate Contrast-Enhanced ComputedTomography in Patients with Clinical Suspicionof Acute Appendicitis. Eur Radiol.2015;25(8):2445-52.

  28. Pinto F, Pinto A, Russo A, Coppolino F, BracaleR, Fonio P, et al. Accuracy of ultrasonography inthe diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adult patients:review of the literature. Critic UltrasoundJ. 2013;5(1): 2036-7902.

  29. Sauvain M-O, Slankamenac K, Muller MK, WildiS, Metzger U, Schmid W, et al. Delaying surgeryto perform CT scans for suspected appendicitisdecreases the rate of negative appendectomieswithout increasing the rate of perforation norpostoperative complications. Langenbecks ArchSurg . 2016;401(5):643-9.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com