Akut appendisitte difüzyon ağırlıklı görüntülemenin tanıdaki etkisi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma, akut appendisitin kesin tanısında BT’ye alternatif olarak diffüzyon ağırlıklı görüntüleme (DAG) kullanmanın etkisini ortaya koymaktadır. Yöntem: 5 aylık bir dönemde, akut appendisit şüphesiyle başvuran ve ultrasonografik (US) değerlendirme ardından magnetik rezonans görüntüleme (MRG) yapılmak üzere radyoloji bölümüne yönlendirilen 41 hasta çalışmamıza dahil edildi. İki radyolog, diffüzyon ağırlıklı görüntüleri bağımsız olarak değerlendirdiler. Diffüzyon MRG değerlendirmesinde her B değeri için beş aralıklı bir puanlama sistemi kullanıldı. Puanlama 3 veya daha yüksekse, bu durum akut appendisit olarak kabul edildi. İstatistiksel analiz yapıldı ve karşılaştırmada ROC analizi kullanıldı. Bulgular: Çalışmamızda 41 hasta incelendi. 6 hastanın çalışmadan çıkartılmasından sonra, 35 hastanın (13 kadın, 22 erkek; ortalama yaş: 34, yaş aralığı: 16 ila 80) 19'u (%46) ameliyat edildi ve patoloji so-nuçları akut apandisiti doğruladı. Ameliyat edilen tüm hastaların sonuçları ultrasonografi raporlarıyla uyumluydu. Ancak ultrasonografinin 3 yanlış pozitif sonucu mevcuttu. Bu hastalardan ikisi, iki göz-lemci tarafından, biri ise tek gözlemci tarafından DAG ile appendisit olmadığı şeklinde saptanabildi. DAG için sensitivite, spesifite, pozitif prediktif değer, negatif prediktif değer ve doğruluk oranı sırasıyla %52-89, %50-87.5, %59-80, %68-84 ve %65-80 olarak ölçüldü. Sonuç: Çalışmamıza göre, teknolojinin ilerlemesiyle appendisit vakalarında MRG kullanımının artabi-leceğini ve özellikle seçili vakalarda radyasyon dozu endişesi olmaması nedeniyle BT’yi potansiyel olarak geçebileceğine inanmaktayız.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Appendisit
• Akut batın
• Manyetik Rezonans Görüntüleme

Diagnostic impact of diffusion weighted imaging in acute appendicitis

Öz

Objective: This study reveals the impact of using diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) to accurately diagnose acute appendicitis as an alternative to CT. Methods: In our study, 41 patients with suspected acute appendicitis, who had undergone magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) following sonographic (US) evaluation, and been referred to the radiology department during a period of 5 months were included. Two radiologists separately evaluated diffusion-weighted images. A five-range scoring system was used in the evaluation of diffusion MRI for each B-value. Any score that is 3 or higher is considered acute appendicitis. Statistical analysis was performed, and ROC curves were used for comparison. Results: In our study, 41 patients were examined. After the exclusion of 6 patients, out of the 35 patients (13 women, 22 men; mean age: 34, age range: 16 to 80) included in the study, 19 (46%) underwent surgery, and pathology results confirmed acute appendicitis. The results of all operated patients were consistent with the ultrasonography reports. However, ultrasonography had three false-positive results. Of these patients, two were identified by two observers and one by a single observer as not having appendicitis via DWI. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy rate for DWI were measured as 52-89%, 50-87.5%, 59-80%, 68-84%, and 65-80%, respectively. Conclusion: According to our study, with the advancement of technology, we believe that MRI usage in appendicitis will possibly increase, potentially surpassing CT, especially in selected cases due to the absence of radiation dose concerns.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Appendicitis
• Acute abdomen
• Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Kaynakça

1. 1.Prystowsky JB, Pugh CM, Nagle AP. Appendicitis. Curr Probl Surg 2005;42:694–742.
2. 2. Hernanz-Schulman M. CT and US in the diagnosis of appendicitis: An argument for CT. Radiology 2010;255:3–7.
3. 3.Rosen MP, Ding A, Blake MA, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® right lower quadrant pain—Suspected appendicitis. J Am Coll Radiol 2011;8:749–755.
4. 4.Pickhardt PJ, Lawrence EM, Pooler BD, Bruce RJ. Diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomography for suspected acute appendicitis. Ann Intern Med 2011;154:789.
5. 5.Van Breda Vriesman AC, Kole BJ, Puylaert JB Effect of ultrasonography and optional computed tomography on the outcome of appendectomy. Eur Radiol 2003 13:2278–2282
6. 6.Cobben LP, Groot I, Haans L et al MRI for clinically suspected appendicitis during pregnancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004 183:671–675
7. 7.Hormann M, Paya K, Eibenberger K et al MR imaging in children with nonperforated acute appendicitis: value of unenhanced MR imaging in sonographically selected cases. AJR 1998 171:467–470
8. 8. Hörmann M, Puig S, Prokesch SR, Partik B, Helbich TH. MR imaging of the normal appendix in children. Eur Radiol. 2002 Sep;12(9):2313-6. doi: 10.1007/s00330-002-1351-0. Epub 2002 May 9. PMID: 12195487.

9. 9. Incesu L, Coskun A, Selcuk MB, Akan H, Sozubir S, Bernay F. Acute appendicitis: MR imaging and sonograp-hic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997 Mar;168(3):669-74. doi: 10.2214/ajr.168.3.9057512. PMID: 9057512.
10. 10. Nitta N, Takahashi M, Furukawa A et al MR imaging of the normal appendix and acute appendicitis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005 21:156–165
11. 11.Pedrosa I, Levine D, Eyvazzadeh AD et al. MR imaging evaluation of acute appendicitis in pregnancy. Radiology 2006 238:891–899
12. 12.Bijnen CL, Van Den Broek WT, Bijnen AB et al Implications of removing a normal appendix. Dig Surg 2003 20:215–221
13. 13.Singh A, Danrad R, Hahn PF, Blake MA,Mueller PR, Novelline RA. MR imaging of the acute abdomen and pelvis: acute appendicitis and beyond. RadioGraphics 2007;27:1419–31.
14. 14.Hörmann M, Paya K, Eibenberger K, et al. MR imaging in children with nonperforated acute appendicitis: value of unenhanced MR imaging in sonografically selected cases. AJR 1998;171:467–70.
15. 15.Nitta N, Takahashi M, Furukawa A, Murata K, Mori M, Fukushima M. MR imaging of the normal appendix and acute appendicitis. J Magn Reson Imaging 2005;21:156–65.
16. 16.Balthazar EJ, Birnbaum BA, YeeJ, et al.. Acute appendicitis: CT and US correlation in 100 patients. Radiology. 1994;190:31–35(imaging.consult.com)
17. 17.Zhang H, Liao M, Chen J, Zhu D, Byanju S. Ultrasound, computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging - which is preferred for acute appendicitis in children? A Meta-analysis. Pediatr Radiol. 2017;47(2):186-96.
18. 18.Barger RJ, Nandalur KR. Diagnostic performance of magnetic resonance imaging in the detection of appendicitis in adults: a meta-analysis. Acad Radiol. 2010;17(10):1211-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2010.05.003.
19. 19.Rosenbaum DG, Askin G, Beneck DM, Kovanlikaya A. Differentiating perforated from non-perforated appendicitis on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Pediatr Radiol. 2017;47(11):1483-90. [PubMed ID: 28578474]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-017-3900-3.
20. 20.Gorter RR, Eker HH, Gorter-Stam MA, Abis GS, Acharya A, Ankersmit M, et al. Diagnosis and management of acute appendicitis. EAES consensus development conference 2015. Surg Endosc. 2016;30(11):4668-90. [PubMed ID: 27660247]. [PubMed Central ID: PMC5082605]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-016-524