Ultraschall in der Medizin (Stuttgart, Germany : 1980) · 1997
[Ultrasonography of the normal vermiform appendix].
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Rettenbacher T, Hollerweger A, Macheiner P, Gritzmann N
Аннотация
AIM: To study the detectability and the appearance of the vermiform appendix with ultrasound in asymptomatic adults.
METHODS: A prospective study was performed on 300 patients, selected without regard to age, sex and weight. We tried to visualize the appendix with a 3.5 MHz annular array and a 5 MHz linear array transducer.
RESULTS: In 63% of the patients the appendix was clearly visualised. The main reasons for non-visualisation were obesity with insufficient ultrasound penetration (38%) and the caecum laying in pelvic or atypical position (24%). In 31%, no cause was apparent but we assume that the appendix often lies behind the caecum. The sonographic image showed an aperistaltic target originating at the caecum, and ending blindly. In 42% of cases the appendix was ovoid in transverse section; in 32%, round; and in 26% both forms were found within one appendix. Intraluminal gas was visible in 86%. The mean transverse diameter was 5.2 mm (min. 3 mm, max. 13 mm) and in 76% the transverse diameter was lower than 6 mm.
CONCLUSION: The sonographic detectability, the appearance and the size of the normal appendix show considerable variations.
METHODS: A prospective study was performed on 300 patients, selected without regard to age, sex and weight. We tried to visualize the appendix with a 3.5 MHz annular array and a 5 MHz linear array transducer.
RESULTS: In 63% of the patients the appendix was clearly visualised. The main reasons for non-visualisation were obesity with insufficient ultrasound penetration (38%) and the caecum laying in pelvic or atypical position (24%). In 31%, no cause was apparent but we assume that the appendix often lies behind the caecum. The sonographic image showed an aperistaltic target originating at the caecum, and ending blindly. In 42% of cases the appendix was ovoid in transverse section; in 32%, round; and in 26% both forms were found within one appendix. Intraluminal gas was visible in 86%. The mean transverse diameter was 5.2 mm (min. 3 mm, max. 13 mm) and in 76% the transverse diameter was lower than 6 mm.
CONCLUSION: The sonographic detectability, the appearance and the size of the normal appendix show considerable variations.