...
首页> 外文期刊>AJR: American Journal of Roentgenology : Including Diagnostic Radiology, Radiation Oncology, Nuclear Medicine, Ultrasonography and Related Basic Sciences >Abdominal 64-MDCT for suspected appendicitis: the use of oral and IV contrast material versus IV contrast material only.
【24h】

Abdominal 64-MDCT for suspected appendicitis: the use of oral and IV contrast material versus IV contrast material only.

机译:腹部64-MDCT用于可疑阑尾炎:仅使用口服和IV对比材料对比IV对比材料。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of IV contrast-enhanced 64-MDCT with and without the use of oral contrast material in diagnosing appendicitis in patients with abdominal pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a randomized trial of a convenience sample of adult patients presenting to an urban academic emergency department with acute nontraumatic abdominal pain and clinical suspicion of appendicitis, diverticulitis, or small-bowel obstruction. Patients were enrolled between 8 am and 11 pm when research assistants were present. Consenting subjects were randomized into one of two groups: Group 1 subjects underwent 64-MDCT performed with oral and IV contrast media and group 2 subjects underwent 64-MDCT performed solely with IV contrast material. Three expert radiologists independently reviewed the CT examinations, evaluating for the presence of appendicitis. Each radiologist interpreted 202 examinations, ensuring that each examination was interpreted by two radiologists. Individual reader performance and a combined interpretation performance of the two readers assigned to each case were calculated. In cases of disagreement, the third reader was asked to deliver a tiebreaker interpretation to be used to calculate the combined reader performance. Final outcome was based on operative, clinical, and follow-up data. We compared radiologic diagnoses with clinical outcomes to calculate the diagnostic accuracy of CT in both groups. RESULTS: Of the 303 patients enrolled, 151 patients (50%) were randomized to group 1 and the remaining 152 (50%) were randomized to group 2. The combined reader performance for the diagnosis of appendicitis in group 1 was a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI, 76.8-100%) and specificity of 97.1% (95% CI, 92.7-99.2%). The performance in group 2 was a sensitivity of 100% (73.5-100%) and specificity of 97.1% (92.9-99.2%). CONCLUSION: Patients presenting with nontraumatic abdominal pain imaged using 64-MDCT with isotropic reformations had similar characteristics for the diagnosis of appendicitis when IV contrast material alone was used and when oral and IV contrast media were used.
机译:目的:本研究的目的是比较在使用和不使用口服对比剂的情况下,IV对比增强的64-MDCT在诊断腹痛患者阑尾炎中的诊断准确性。材料和方法:我们对成年患者的便利性样本进行了随机试验,该成年患者因急性非创伤性腹痛并临床怀疑阑尾炎,憩室炎或小肠梗阻而出现在城市学术急诊科。当研究助理在场时,患者在上午8点至晚上11点之间入组。同意的受试者被随机分为两组:第1组受试者接受64-MDCT口服和IV造影剂治疗,第2组受试者接受64-MDCT单独进行IV造影剂治疗。三名放射线专家独立审查了CT检查,评估是否存在阑尾炎。每位放射科医生对202项检查进行解释,确保每次检查均由两名放射线医生进行解释。计算分配给每种情况的两名读者的个人读者表现和综合口译表现。在不同意的情况下,第三位读者被要求提供决胜局解释,以用于计算综合的读者表现。最终结果基于手术,临床和随访数据。我们将放射诊断与临床结果进行了比较,以计算两组的CT诊断准确性。结果:在303名患者中,有151名患者(50%)被随机分配到第1组,其余的152名患者(50%)被随机分配到第2组。在第1组中,用于诊断阑尾炎的综合阅读器性能为100 %(95%CI,76.8-100%)和特异性97.1%(95%CI,92.7-99.2%)。第2组的表现为100%(73.5-100%)的敏感性和97.1%(92.9-99.2%)的特异性。结论:当使用单独的静脉造影剂以及使用口服和静脉造影剂时,采用各向同性重建的64-MDCT成像的非创伤性腹痛患者具有相似的诊断阑尾炎的特征。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号