Mucocele of the Remnant Appendix Following Incomplete Appendectomy: A Case Report

Appendiceal mucoceles are rare lesions. There has been only one report of a mucocele of the remnant appendix not communicating with the cecum. We report a remnant appendiceal mucocele following an incomplete incidental appendectomy, which presented as a lobulated cystic mass on ultrasonography and a cystic mass with an irregular wall on computed tomography. A borderline malignant mucinous tumor of the appendix was diagnosed.

Which Factors Influence the Detection of an Inflamed Appendix: Comparative Assessment of Ultrasonography and CT

PURPOSE: To compare and assess factors influencing the detection of an inflamed appendix by both ultrasonography (US) and CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed US and CT findings of 58 patients with confirmed acute appendicitis (42 patients with perforation and 16 patients without perforation), in which both preoperative US and CT scans were performed. We compared the use of US and CT for the diagnostic accuracy of acute appendicitis, and determined the detection rate for an inflamed appendix. According to the location of the appendix, the amount of mesenteric fat content in lower abdominal cavity, the presence of cecal wall thickening, and the presence of pericecal fluid or an abscess, the use of US and CT were compared for the determination of the detection rate of an inflamed appendix. RESULTS: The diagnostic accuracies for US and CT for acute appendicitis in our study group were both 93.1%, and there was no difference between the use of the two modalities. Although the detection rate of an inflamed appendix was slightly higher for US (93.1%) than for CT (84.5%), the difference between the use of the two modalities was not significant (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the detection rate of an inflamed appendix between the use of US and CT according to location of appendix, the amount of mesenteric fat content and the presence of cecal wall thickening. A pelvic location of the inflamed appendix and the presence of pericecal fluid or an abscess, were factors that significantly increased the detection rate for US than for CT (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of US for diagnosis of acute appendicitis is as useful as the use of CT. US is especially useful to detect an inflamed appendix more effectively than CT in cases where the appendix is in a pelvic location and presents with pericecal fluid or an abscess.

High-Resolution Ultrasonography (US) of Appendiceal Specimens: Differentiation of Acute Non-perforated Appendicitis from Perforated Appendicitis

PURPOSE: To analyze surgical specimens from patients with acute non-perforated and perforated appendicitis using high-resolution ultrasonography (US), and to correlate the US features with the pathologic findings. MATERIALS and METHODS: One hundred and six surgical appendix specimens obtained from patients with suspected acute appendicitis were evaluated. The following US features were evaluated for differentiating acute non-perforated appendicitis from perforated appendicitis: circumferential loss of the echogenic submucosal layer, disruption of the serosal layer, asymmetrical wall thickening, the sum of opposing walls > or = 9 mm and the presence of appendicoliths. The sensitivity and specificity of the US findings for diagnosing perforated appendicitis were determined. RESULTS: All US features were detected significantly more often in the perforated appendicitis group of specimens. The disruption of the serosal layer was the most significant independent predictor of perforation (p or = 9 mm, and the presence of appendicoliths individually was 84.6%, 69.2%, 61.5%, 73.1% and 46.2%, respectively. The specificity for all of these findings was 86.3%, 98.7%, 95.0%, 85.0% and 85.0%, respectively. CONCLUSION: High-resolution US of appendiceal specimens was very useful for differentiating acute non-perforated from perforated appendicitis.

Evaluation of the Appendix Base Location in Acute Appendicitis Using Sonography and its Clinical Significance

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to investigate the location of appendiceal base using sonography in acute appendicitis and the usefulness of the appendiceal base marking in deciding the incision site of appendectomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed appendix sonography in 813 patients and 381 patients were diagnosed as acute appendicitis. During sonography, we marked the base of the appendix on the skin of the patients' abdomen. After appendiceal base marking, we measured the distance from McBurney's point to the appendiceal base. The marking was used as the guide for incision site for appendectomy by the surgeon. Among 381 patients, we excluded 78 patients due to nonvisualization of the cecoappendiceal junction (n = 6), pregnancy appendicitis (n = 2), false positive appendicitis (n = 3) and no reply from the surgeon (n = 67). So we investigated 303 patients prospectively. After operation, we asked the surgeon whether the appendiceal base marking was helpful for appendectomy or not. RESULTS: The base of the appendix at McBurney's point were 31%, lying within 2 cm from McBurney's point were 20%, within 5 cm were 28%, more than 5 cm were 21%. For the usefulness of appendiceal base marking, 95% showed good correlation with marking and surgical incision, and 5% revealed poor correlation. CONCLUSION: The base of the appendix was located in diverse areas of the abdomen, although most frequent in the McBurney's point and within 2 cm from the McBurney's point. Appendiceal base marking on the skin of the abdomen after diagnosis of acute appendicitis could be an useful method to guide the surgeon for decision of surgical incision site.

Sonography of Acute Appendicitis in Pregnant Women: Diagnostic Accuracy by the Stage of Gestation

PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a diagnosis of acute appendicitis in pregnant women according to the trimester. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on 103 pregnant women who underwent sonography with clinically suspected acute appendicitis. The sonographic technique used involved either the graded compression or a non-compression method. All the sonograms were obtained after changing the patient's position and identifying the diseased appendix. The criterion for a sonographic diagnosis of acute appendicitis was the visualization of a non-compressible appendix with a maximal diameter > or = 6 mm. The sonographic findings were correlated with the surgical findings and clinical follow-up. RESULTS: Acute appendicitis was confirmed by both the surgical and pathological findings in 48 out of 103 pregnant women. Ultrasound established the diagnosis in 34 of the 48 patients with proven appendicitis. There were false-positives in 2 patients and false-negatives in 14 patients. Among the 55 patients who had a normal appendix, 30 patients improved at the clinical follow-up and 25 patients had other intra-abdominal disorders. The diagnostic accuracy of the ultrasound was 94% in the first trimester, 81% in the second trimester, and 76% in the third trimester. The overall accuracy was found to be 84%, with a 71% sensitivity and a 96% specificity. CONCLUSION: No significant difference was found in the diagnostic accuracy of the ultrasound according to the trimester in which the acute appendicitis occurred. Therefore, regardless of the stage of gestation, sonography is a valuable procedure for diagnosing acute appendicitis.

Cystic Lymphangioma Arising from the Mesoappendix: A Case Report

Intra-abdominal lymphangiomas are a rare entity. We report a case of cystic lymphangioma arising from the mesoappendix of a 21-year-old female patient. Barium enema examination revealed a pliable submucosal lesion at the cecal base, without contrast filling in the appendiceal lumen. US and CT demonstrated a multiseptated cystic mass in the pericecal and periappendiceal areas.

The Diagnostic Role of US in Patients with Right Lower Quadrant Abdominal Pain

PURPOSE: To determine the frequency with which ultrasonography (US) provides a correct diagnosis and suggests appropriate guidance for the treatment of patients with right lower quadrant abdominal pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: During an 11-month period, US was consecutively performed in 84 patients who were presented with right lower quadrant abdominal pain. In the 76 [M ; F=16 ; 60, age range 14 -87 (mean, 41) years] who formed the study population, final diagnoses were made surgically or clinically. For US, a 5 -7-MHz convex-array, 4-MHz vector-array, and/or 7-MHz linear-array transducer was used, according to the patient 's body habitus. To determine how often our US reports had provided a correct diagnosis and suggested appropriate guidance for surgical or medical treatment, and to calculate their diagnostic value, the reports were retrospectively compared with final diagnoses. RESULTS: US diagnoses were acute appendicitis in 40 patients (53%), diseases other than this in 25 patients (33%), and no abnormality in 11 (14%). In 38 of the 40 patients (95%), the diagnosis of acute appendicitis was surgically confirmed as correct, and for other diseases, diagnoses based on the findings of US proved to be correct in 21 of 25 patients (84%). Overall, diagnosis was correct in 67 (88%). As regards appropriate guidance for treatment, 46 (61%) and 30 (39%) patients were diagnosed by US to have surgical and medical diseases, respectively. In 44 of the 46 (96%), it was confirmed guidance was appropriate, and for the 30 with medical disease, this was so in all but one case (97%). Overall, the treatment plan was appropriate in 72 patients (95%). CONCLUSION: Our study revealed that US was able to provide a correct diagnosis in 88% of patients with right lower quadrant abdominal pain, and in 95% of these, the treatment plan suggested was appropriate. US is, therefore, a valuable screening tool in the diagnosis and therapeutic guidance of such patients.

Diagnosis of Acute Appendicitis in the Community Hospital: Validity and Usefulness of Sonography

PURPOSE: To compare the accuracy of initial clinical diagnosis with that of ultrasonography(US) in diagnosingappendicitis and to determine its effect on the care of patients in a community hospital. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and fifty patients with suspected appendicitis were prospectively examined with US. Prior to this,they had been divided into three groups on the basis of clinical judgement regarding diagnosis and their treatmentplan: Group I : high suspicion (probability > 75%) - urgent surgery indicated ; Group II : equivocal (probability25 - 75%) - in hospital for observation, Group III : very unlikely (probability < 25%)- discharge without furthertesting. In order to determine the validity of these groupings, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, andaccuracy of sonographic examination, and the likelihood ratios of initial clinical diagnosis. RESULTS: USrevealed a sensitivity of 92%, specificity of 90%, positive predictive value of 95%, negative predictive value of85% and overall accuracy of 91%. The initial clinical impression showed a sensitivity of 70%, specificity of 82%,positive predictive value of 89%, negative predictive value of 58%, and overall accuracy of 74%. Among 79 patientsin the high clinical risk category (Group I), the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of US were 96%, 89%, and95%, respectively. Among 71 patients in the low- and intermediate- clinical categories (Groups II and III), thesensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of US were 83%, 90%, and 87%. The likelihood ratios were 3.9 in Group I,0.52 in Group II, and 0.15 in Group III. In 32 of 150 patients (21%), the findings of US led to changes in theproposed management plan. CONCLUSION: The overall accuracy of US in the diagnosis of appendicitis wasstatistically superior to that of the clinician's initial impression (p<0.05). In addition, US played an importantrole in making decisions regarding the treatment plan.

Primary Appendiceal Lymphoma Presenting as Acute Appendicitis: A Case Report

Because primary lymphoma of the appendix is a very rare disorder and commonly presented as acute appendicitis,it is seldom diagnosed by preoperative imaging study. We encountered a patient with pathologically proved primaryappendiceal lymphoma associated with acute and chronic appendicitis. Ultrasonogram revealed a non-compressiblesausage-shaped hypoechoic mass with a linear hyperechoic center caused by mucosa-lumen interface in right lowerquadrant. Post-contrast CT examination showed a markedly enlarged target-like appendix with obliteration of thelumen; the outer layer showed higher attenuation than the central portion. There were also multiple strands in theperiappendiceal fat and thickening of adjacent lateroconal fascia and colonic wall, and this suggested acuteappendicitis associated with appendiceal lymphoma.

Malignant Tumors of the Appendix: Imaging Findings

Malignant tumors of the appendix are rare and are histologically similar to those arising elsewhere in theintestines. The frequency of specific tumor types and the clinical presentation of symptomatic tumors are,however, significantly different. Before surgery, correct diagnosis of a malignant appendiceal tumor is rare; mosttumors are diagnosed by a pathologist while examining an appendectomy specimen. With the advent of high resolutionimaging modalities (ultrasound and helical CT), malignant tumors of the appendix may be more accurately diagnosed;this report describes the imaging findings of malignant appendiceal tumors.

The US Findings of Acute Nonperforated and Perforated Appendicitis in Children

PURPOSE: To analyse and interpret different sonographic findings in acute nonperforated and appendicitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 46 cases of acute appendicitis in children(26 girls, 20 boys) proven by surgery, sonographic findings were reviewed retrospectively. The findings of nonperforated and perforated appendicitis were analysed, focusing on the size, shape and echogenicity of the appendix, echo patterns of periappendiceal abscesses, mesenteric lymphadenopathy, and the prevalence of appendicolith. RESULTS: A noncompressible distended appendix was present in 18 of 21 patients with nonperforated appendicitis and in 13 of 25 patients with perforation. In 18 patients with nonperforated appendicitis, the average diameter of distended appendix was 8.6mm;target appearance was noted in 16 patients and loss of echogenic submucosa in two. In 13 patients with perforated appendicitis, the average diameter of appendix was 9.1 mm;target appearance was noted in four patientsand loss of echogenic submucosa in nine. periappendiceal abscesses were present in 21 of 25 cases of perforated appendicitis, and the echogenicity of abscesses was mixed in 12 patients, hypoechogenic in eight, and hyperechogenic in one. Mesenteric lymphadenopathy was present in two of 21 patients with nonperforated appendicitis and in four of 25 with perforation. Appendicolith was detected on sonography in three of 25 patients with perforated appendicitis, but was found in seven patients during surgery. One patients with perforated appendicitis also had right side hydronephrosis. Sonographically false-negative results were obtained in sixcases. CONCLUSION: A sonographic examination was useful to differenciate perforated and nonperforated appendicitis in children. Loss of echogenic submucosa in the distended appendix and periappendiceal abscess formation were important findings in diagnosis of perforated appendicitis.