The Lack Of Efficacy For Oral Contrast In The Diagnosis Of Appendicitis By Computed Tomography

Department of Surgery, Children's Mercy Hospital, Kansas City, Missouri 64108, USA.
Journal of Surgical Research (Impact Factor: 1.94). 03/2011; 170(1):100-3. DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2011.02.017
Source: PubMed


Oral contrast is often used with computed tomography (CT) for the diagnosis of appendicitis. This adjunct adds time to evaluation, not all patients can tolerate enteric bolus, and the diagnostic advantages have not been well defined. Therefore, we reviewed our experience to evaluate the impact of oral contrast on diagnostic efficiency and its impact on the patient.
After obtaining IRB approval, a retrospective review was conducted on patients who underwent CT with oral contrast for the indication of appendicitis over the last 4 years. Data recorded included demographics, CT results, emergency room course, operative findings, and pathology interpretation. All images were reviewed to identify presence/absence of contrast at or beyond the terminal ileum.
There were 1561 patients, of whom, 652 (41.8%) were diagnosed with appendicitis and 909 (58.2%) were not (non-appendicitis). Contrast was identified at least to the level of the terminal ileum in 72.4% of the entire population. The contrast was present in 76.2% of the non-appendicitis patients and 67.0% of the appendicitis patients (P = 0.01). Mean time from oral contrast administration to CT imaging was 105.5 min, which was longer in patients with appendicitis (112.2 min) compared with non-appendicitis patients (100.9 min) (P = 0.01). Emesis of the contrast occurred in 19.3% of those with appendicitis and 12.9% of those without appendicitis (P = 0.001). Nasogastric tubes were placed in 5.8% of those with appendicitis and 5.1% of those without (P = 0.37). Appendicitis was confirmed at operation in 94.3% of those with contrast in the area and 94.4% of those without (P = 1.0). Pathology confirmed appendicitis in 90.6% of those with contrast in the area and 94.0% of those without (P = 0.17).
Nearly 30% of patients receiving oral contrast for the CT diagnosis of appendicitis do not have contrast in the point of interest at the expense of emesis, nasogastric tube placement, and diagnostic delay. These detriments are amplified in patients who have appendicitis. Further, there appears to be no diagnostic compromise in those without contrast in the terminal ileum.

Download full-text


Available from: Shawn D St. Peter, Oct 13, 2014
29 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article discusses the critical protocol considerations in imaging patients with abdominal pain in the emergency department, specifically, the use of oral contrast, intravenous contrast, image postprocessing, and radiation dose. These considerations related to the use of computed tomography imaging of abdominal pain are reviewed in an evidence-based fashion.
    Radiologic Clinics of North America 01/2012; 50(1):137-47. DOI:10.1016/j.rcl.2011.08.009 · 1.98 Impact Factor
  • Academic radiology 10/2012; 19(10):1173-4. DOI:10.1016/j.acra.2012.07.004 · 1.75 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We examine the effects of Head Start participation on parenting and child maltreatment in a large and diverse sample of low-income families in large U.S. cities (N = 2,807), using rich data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS). To address the issue of selection bias, we employ several analytic approaches, including logistic regressions with a rich set of pretreatment controls as well as propensity score matching models, comparing the effects of Head Start to any other arrangements as well as specific types of other arrangements. We find that compared to children who did not attend Head Start, children who did attend Head Start are less likely to have low access to learning materials and less likely to experience spanking by their parents at age five. Moreover, we find that the effects of Head Start vary depending on the specific type of other child care arrangements to which they are compared, with the most consistently beneficial protective effects seen when Head Start is compared to being home in exclusively parental care.
    Children and Youth Services Review 07/2013; 35(7):1119-1129. DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.03.008 · 1.27 Impact Factor
Show more