Main Logo
Logo

Society for Pediatric Radiology – Poster Archive

  391
  0
  0
 
 


Final ID: Poster #: SCI-010

Characterization and Quantification of Abdominal Fluid by Ultrasound and Magnetic Resonance in Suspected Pediatric Appendicitis

Purpose or Case Report: Despite being recognized as a secondary sign of appendicitis, no clear definition exists about the amount of intra-abdominal fluid considered physiologic in children. The purpose is (1) to assess the amount of intra-abdominal free fluid by US and MRI in children with suspected appendicitis, (2) to detect the performance characteristics of US for detecting free fluid, and (3) to determine the association between fluid volume and perforated appendicitis. An additional ex-vivo study was done to assess the validity of US measurement abdominal free fluid volume using phantoms.
Methods & Materials: Ex-vivo: Tissue-mimicking phantoms filled with distilled water and put inside a chicken were used to simulate abdominal fluid. In-vivo: In children with suspected appendicitis and abdominal fluid in US the formula for ellipsoid volume was used [4/3 x width x height x length x pi]. Measurements were independently performed by two readers.
Results: Ex-vivo: no difference was noted between actual phantom fluid amount and measured volume using the ellipsoid formula for both US (P=0.19) and MRI (P=0.08). In-vivo: Abdominal fluid was present in 212/591(35.9%) children with suspected appendicitis; 75/212 (35.4%) of these patients had final diagnosis of appendicitis and 77/212 (36.3%) had a final diagnosis of physiologic abdominal fluid with no appendicitis or other abdominal pathology. Good inter-rater agreement was noted between the measurements made by the two readers with an intraclass correlation coefficient of ICC = 0.79 (p<0.001, 95%CI = 0.62 - 0.88) on US and ICC = 0.75 (p<0.0001, 95%CI = 0.56 - 0.86) on MRI. In patients with proven appendicitis, US had a sensitivity of 84% (95%CI,71%-93%) and specificity of 65%(95%CI,52%–77%) for detecting fluid; the volume of fluid in this subgroup of patients ranged from 0.7 ml to 1.1 liters. No association between increasing fluid volume and perforated appendicitis (Odds ratio,1.01, P=0.01).
Conclusions: The ellipsoid volume formula is a good method for quantifying abdominal fluid. Abdominal fluid is frequent in US of patients with suspected appendicitis although it might be present in patients with no final proven diagnosis of appendicitis. There is no association between greater volume of fluid and presence of perforated appendicitis.
Session Info:

Posters - Scientific

GI

SPR Posters - Scientific

More abstracts on this topic:
Diastematomyelia, Prenatal Diagnosis Case Report

Pelizzari Mario, Montalvetti Pablo, Joulia Vulekovich Lara, Ledesma Ricardo

Tubo Ovarian Abscess in Non-sexually Active Girls: A Case Review

Jackson Dana, Gould Sharon, Reichard Kirk, Epelman Monica

More abstracts from these authors:
What are the Short-Term Effects of Physical Activity on the Cartilage of Healthy Adolescent Boys? Preliminary Functional Imaging Perspective

Ahmed Humayun, Wang Kuan Chung, Sussman Marshall, Amirabadi Afsaneh, Moineddin Rahim, Wells Greg, Man Carina, Blanchette Victor, Doria Andrea

Clinical-Genetic-Imaging Review of Autoinflammatory Diseases in Children: Single-Center Experience

Alsharief Alaa, Laxer Ronald, Stimec Jennifer, Babyn Paul, Man Carina, Doria Andrea

Preview
Poster____SCI-010.pdf
You have to be authorized to contact abstract author. Please, Login or Signup.

Please note that this is a separate login, not connected with your credentials used for the SPR main website.

Not Available

Comments

We encourage you to join the discussion by posting your comments and questions below.

Presenters will be notified of your post so that they can respond as appropriate.

This discussion platform is provided to foster engagement, and stimulate conversation and knowledge sharing.

Please click here to review the full terms and conditions for engaging in the discussion, including refraining from product promotion and non-constructive feedback.

 

You have to be authorized to post a comment. Please, Login or Signup.

Please note that this is a separate login, not connected with your credentials used for the SPR main website.


   Rate this abstract  (Maximum characters: 500)