Journal of pediatric surgery · 2020
The use of computed tomography versus clinical acumen in diagnosing appendicitis in children: A two-institution international study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
El-Gohary Yousef, Molina Maria, Chang Jeremy, Dodd Ashley, Miller Emily, Harrell Camden, Wang Fang, Zhang Hui, Davidoff Andrew M, Fernandez-Pineda Israel, Murphy Andrew J, Huang Eunice Y
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Appendicitis in children can be diagnosed utilizing clinical and laboratory findings, with the assistance of ultrasound (US) and/or computed tomography (CT). However, repeated exposure to ionizing radiation increases the lifetime risk of cancer. We compared the work-up of suspected appendicitis between a children's hospital in the United States (USA) and one in Spain to identify differences in imaging use and associated outcomes.
METHODS: A two-institution retrospective review was performed for surgical consultations of suspected appendicitis from 2015-2017. We compared imaging use, the utilization of overnight observation, and diagnostic accuracy rates between the two centers.
RESULTS: A total of 1,952 children were evaluated. Among the 1,288 in the USA center, 754(58.5%) underwent CT during their evaluation. The most common imaging modality was US only (39.9%), then CT only (39.3%), CT+US (19.3%), and no imaging (i.e. only clinical acumen) (1.6%). In Spain, only 19 (2.9%) of 664 children underwent CT compared to the USA (p < 0.0001). Only clinical acumen was the most common modality employed (48.6%), followed by US only (48.5%), US+CT (2.4%), and CT only (0.5%). In the USA, 16.8% were observed overnight, 2.3% of whom received no imaging. In Spain, 33.4% were observed overnight, 32.4% of whom had no imaging (p < 0.0001). The accuracy rates for diagnosing appendicitis in the USA and Spain centers were 94.7% and 95.1%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Use of clinical acumen and/or US have similar clinical outcomes and similar accuracy rates compared to heavy reliance on CT imaging for diagnosing appendicitis, with associated decrease in radiation exposure. The disparate diagnostic approach of the two centers may reflect that physical examination is a dying art in North America.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
METHODS: A two-institution retrospective review was performed for surgical consultations of suspected appendicitis from 2015-2017. We compared imaging use, the utilization of overnight observation, and diagnostic accuracy rates between the two centers.
RESULTS: A total of 1,952 children were evaluated. Among the 1,288 in the USA center, 754(58.5%) underwent CT during their evaluation. The most common imaging modality was US only (39.9%), then CT only (39.3%), CT+US (19.3%), and no imaging (i.e. only clinical acumen) (1.6%). In Spain, only 19 (2.9%) of 664 children underwent CT compared to the USA (p < 0.0001). Only clinical acumen was the most common modality employed (48.6%), followed by US only (48.5%), US+CT (2.4%), and CT only (0.5%). In the USA, 16.8% were observed overnight, 2.3% of whom received no imaging. In Spain, 33.4% were observed overnight, 32.4% of whom had no imaging (p < 0.0001). The accuracy rates for diagnosing appendicitis in the USA and Spain centers were 94.7% and 95.1%, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Use of clinical acumen and/or US have similar clinical outcomes and similar accuracy rates compared to heavy reliance on CT imaging for diagnosing appendicitis, with associated decrease in radiation exposure. The disparate diagnostic approach of the two centers may reflect that physical examination is a dying art in North America.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.