ORIGINAL PAPER
Faster magnetic resonance imaging in emergency room patients with right lower quadrant pain and suspected acute appendicitis
Publication date: 2018-07-09
Pol J Radiol, 2018; 83: 340-347
KEYWORDS
magnetic resonance imagingacute appendicitisright lower quadrant paindiffusion weighted imagingemergency
ABSTRACT
Purpose:
Emergency Departments (ED) are becoming busier, with a resultant increase in the number of imaging referrals. The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of an abbreviated two sequence magnetic resonance (MR) protocol for evaluating ED patients with right lower quadrant pain and suspected acute appendicitis, with a view to expediting patient turnaround times and imaging costs.
Material and methods:
Fifty patients (49 females, one male; mean age 25.4 ± 5.2 years) who underwent ED MR imaging from July 2014 to March 2015 for right lower quadrant pain were retrospectively reviewed. MR abdomen/pelvis was performed on 1.5 T MR obtaining axial T1 gradient echo in/out of phase, transverse fast spin echo T2 with fat sat/motion correction, axial/coronal T2 HASTE (half-Fourier acquisition single-shot turbo spin-echo), and axial DWI (diffusion-weighted imaging) sequences. Images were reviewed by two fellowship-trained radiologists on a five-point confidence scale. Mean acquisition/interpretation times for the standard departmental protocol and the proposed abbreviated MR protocol (comprising T2 HASTE and DWI images) were calculated. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy for the abbreviated protocol against the full protocol were also calculated.
Results:
Mean scanning time for abbreviated protocol and standard protocol was calculated to be 21.1 minutes and 40.5 minutes, respectively. Mean interpretation time for abbreviated protocol for reader one and two was 4.1 ± 1.5 minutes and 4.5 ± 1.4 minutes, respectively, and for standard protocol was 8.1 ± 1.8 minutes and 7.1 ± 1.4 minutes, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the FAST protocol were calculated to be 100% each for reader one and 75%, 100%, and 94%, respectively, for reader two.
Conclusions:
The proposed abbreviated MR protocol has comparable diagnostic accuracy in diagnosing ED patients with right lower quadrant pain, with significant reduction in imaging/interpretation times. It thus has the potential to be implemented in ED imaging with significant reduction in patient turnaround times and costs.
Emergency Departments (ED) are becoming busier, with a resultant increase in the number of imaging referrals. The purpose of this study was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of an abbreviated two sequence magnetic resonance (MR) protocol for evaluating ED patients with right lower quadrant pain and suspected acute appendicitis, with a view to expediting patient turnaround times and imaging costs.
Material and methods:
Fifty patients (49 females, one male; mean age 25.4 ± 5.2 years) who underwent ED MR imaging from July 2014 to March 2015 for right lower quadrant pain were retrospectively reviewed. MR abdomen/pelvis was performed on 1.5 T MR obtaining axial T1 gradient echo in/out of phase, transverse fast spin echo T2 with fat sat/motion correction, axial/coronal T2 HASTE (half-Fourier acquisition single-shot turbo spin-echo), and axial DWI (diffusion-weighted imaging) sequences. Images were reviewed by two fellowship-trained radiologists on a five-point confidence scale. Mean acquisition/interpretation times for the standard departmental protocol and the proposed abbreviated MR protocol (comprising T2 HASTE and DWI images) were calculated. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy for the abbreviated protocol against the full protocol were also calculated.
Results:
Mean scanning time for abbreviated protocol and standard protocol was calculated to be 21.1 minutes and 40.5 minutes, respectively. Mean interpretation time for abbreviated protocol for reader one and two was 4.1 ± 1.5 minutes and 4.5 ± 1.4 minutes, respectively, and for standard protocol was 8.1 ± 1.8 minutes and 7.1 ± 1.4 minutes, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the FAST protocol were calculated to be 100% each for reader one and 75%, 100%, and 94%, respectively, for reader two.
Conclusions:
The proposed abbreviated MR protocol has comparable diagnostic accuracy in diagnosing ED patients with right lower quadrant pain, with significant reduction in imaging/interpretation times. It thus has the potential to be implemented in ED imaging with significant reduction in patient turnaround times and costs.
REFERENCES (21)
1.
De Florio R, Coughlin B, Coughlin R, et al. Process modification and emergency department radiology service. Emerg Radiol 2008; 15: 405-412.
2.
Shuaib W, Vijayasarathi A, Tiwana MH, et al. The diagnostic utility of rib series in assessing rib fractures. Emerg Radiol 2014; 21: 159-164.
3.
Piechowiak El, Peter JF, Kleb B, et al. Intravenous Iodinated Contrast Agents Amplify DNA Radiation Damage at CT. Radiology 2015; 275: 692-697.
4.
Puylaert JB. Ultrasound of the acute abdomen: gastrointestinal conditions. Radiol Clin North Am 2003; 41: 1227-1242.
5.
Binnebosel M, Otto J, Stumpf M, et al. Acute appendicitis. Modern diagnostics – surgical ultrasound. Chirurg 2009; 80: 579-587.
6.
Doria AS, Moineddin R, Kellenberger CJ, et al. US or CT for diagnosis of appendicitis in children and adults? A meta-analysis. Radiology 2006; 241: 83-94.
7.
Pedrosa I, Levine D, Eyvazzadeh AD, et al. MR imaging evaluation of acute appendicitis in pregnancy. Radiology 2006; 238: 891-899.
8.
Barger R, Nandalur K. Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of appendicitis in adults: a meta-analysis. Acad Radiol 2010; 17: 1211-1216.
9.
Avcu S, Cetin FA, Arslan H, et al. The value of diffusion-weighted imaging and apparent diffusion quantification in the diagnosis of perforated and nonperforated appendicitis. Diagn Interv Radiol 2013; 19: 106-110.
10.
Incesu L, Coskun A, Selcuk MB, et al. Acute appendicitis: MR imaging and Sonographic Correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168: 669-674.
11.
Birnbaum BA, Wilson SR. Appendicitis at the millennium. Radiology 2000; 215: 337-339.
12.
Lally KP, Cox CS Jr, Andrassy RJ. Appendix. In: Sabiston textbook of surgery. Townsend CM Jr, Mattox KL, Evers BM, et al. (eds.). Sabiston textbook of surgery. 17th ed. Saunders, New York 2004; 1381-1395.
13.
Naganawa S, Sato C, Kumada H, et al. Apparent diffusion co-efficient in cervical cancer of the uterus: comparison with the normal uterine cervix. Eur Radiol 2005; 15: 71-78.
14.
Tamai K, Koyama T, Saga T, et al. Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of uterine endometrial cancer. J Magn Reson Imaging 2007; 26: 682-687.
15.
Kilickesmez O, Atilla S, Soylu A, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging of the rectosigmoid colon: preliminary findings. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2009; 33: 863-866.
16.
Inci E, Kilickesmez O, Hocaoglu E, et al. Utility of diffusion-weighted imaging in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Eur Radiol 2011; 21: 768-775.
17.
Bayraktutan U, Oral A, Kantarci M, et al. Diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted MR imaging in detecting acute appendicitis in children: comparison with conventional MRI and surgical findings. J Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 39: 1518-1524.
18.
Fonseca AL, Schuster KM, Kaplan LJ, et al. The use of magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of suspected appendicitis in pregnancy: shortened length of stay without increase in hospital charges. JAMA Surg 2014; 149: 687-693.
19.
Dillman J, Gadepalli S, MD, Sroufe N, et al. Equivocal pediatric appendicitis: unenhanced MR imaging protocol for nonsedated children – a clinical effectiveness study. Radiology 2015; doi:10.1148/radiol.2015150941.
20.
Koning JL, Naheedy JH, Kruk PG. Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced MR for acute appendicitis and alternative causes of abdominal pain in children. Pediatr Radiol 2014; 44: 948-955.
21.
Moore MM, Kulaylat AN, Brian JM, et al. Alternative diagnoses at paediatric appendicitis MRI. Clin Radiol 2015; 70: 881-889.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
