ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound in children with suspected appendicitis. METHODS: In a single-centre diagnostic accuracy study, children with suspected appendicitis were prospectively identified at the emergency department. All underwent abdominal ultrasound and MRI within 2 h, with the reader blinded to other imaging findings. An expert panel established the final diagnosis after 3 months. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of three imaging strategies: ultrasound only, conditional MRI after negative or inconclusive ultrasound, and MRI only. Significance between sensitivity and specificity was calculated using McNemar's test statistic. RESULTS: Between April and December 2009 we included 104 consecutive children (47 male, mean age 12). According to the expert panel, 58 patients had appendicitis. The sensitivity of MRI only and conditional MRI was 100% (95% confidence interval 92-100), that of ultrasound was significantly lower (76%; 63-85, P < 0.001). Specificity was comparable among the three investigated strategies; ultrasound only 89% (77-95), conditional MRI 80% (67-89), MRI only 89% (77-95) (P values 0.13, 0.13 and 1.00). CONCLUSION: In children with suspected appendicitis, strategies with MRI (MRI only, conditional MRI) had a higher sensitivity for appendicitis compared with a strategy with ultrasound only, while specificity was comparable. KEY POINTS: ⢠In children, MRI has a higher sensitivity for appendicitis than ultrasound. ⢠Ultrasound followed by MRI in negative or inconclusive findings is accurate. ⢠The tolerance for ultrasound and MRI in children is comparable. ⢠MRI can be performed in children in an emergency setting.
Subject(s)
Appendicitis/diagnostic imaging , Appendicitis/pathology , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/standards , Patient Acceptance of Health Care , Acute Disease , Adolescent , Appendicitis/diagnosis , Child , Child, Preschool , Emergency Medical Services , Female , Humans , Magnetic Resonance Imaging/methods , Male , Predictive Value of Tests , Prospective Studies , Reproducibility of Results , Sensitivity and Specificity , Surveys and Questionnaires , UltrasonographyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIM: We aimed to prospectively determine patient burden and patient preference for magnetic resonance enteroclysis, capsule endoscopy and balloon-assisted enteroscopy in patients with suspected or known Crohn's disease (CD) or occult gastrointestinal bleeding (OGIB). METHODS: Consecutive consenting patients with CD or OGIB underwent magnetic resonance enteroclysis, capsule endoscopy and balloon-assisted enteroscopy. Capsule endoscopy was only performed if magnetic resonance enteroclysis showed no high-grade small bowel stenosis. Patient preference and burden was evaluated by means of standardized questionnaires at five moments in time. RESULTS: From January 2007 until March 2009, 76 patients were included (M/F 31/45; mean age 46.9 years; range 20.0-78.4 years): 38 patients with OGIB and 38 with suspected or known CD. Seventeen patients did not undergo capsule endoscopy because of high-grade stenosis. Ninety-five percent (344/363) of the questionnaires were suitable for evaluation. Capsule endoscopy was significantly favored over magnetic resonance enteroclysis and balloon-assisted enteroscopy with respect to bowel preparation, swallowing of the capsule (compared to insertion of the tube/scope), burden of the entire examination, duration and accordance with the pre-study information. Capsule endoscopy and magnetic resonance enteroclysis were significantly preferred over balloon-assisted enteroscopy for clarity of explanation of the examination, and magnetic resonance enteroclysis was significantly preferred over balloon-assisted enteroscopy for bowel preparation, painfulness and burden of the entire examination. Balloon-assisted enteroscopy was significantly favored over magnetic resonance enteroclysis for insertion of the scope and procedure duration. Pre- and post-study the order of preference was capsule endoscopy, magnetic resonance enteroclysis and balloon-assisted enteroscopy. CONCLUSION: Capsule endoscopy was preferred to magnetic resonance enteroclysis and balloon-assisted enteroscopy; it also had the lowest burden. Magnetic resonance enteroclysis was preferred over balloon-assisted enteroscopy for clarity of explanation of the examination, bowel preparation, painfulness and burden of the entire examination, and balloon-assisted enteroscopy over magnetic resonance enteroclysis for scope insertion and study duration.
