Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1, ( - )
Hiwa O. Ahmed
College of Medicine - University of Sulaimani
Tahir Arif, *
Alla Abdulkadir Shalli **
*Sulaimani
**Sulaimani Technical Institute
SUMMARY
In this work the authors have tried a prospective study over 5 years to evaluate the role
of ultrasound, in non selected groups of patients with lower abdominal pain & suspicion of
acute appendicitis, all the ultrasound examinations done by two ultrasonographists.
Although ultrasound is a simple, cost-effective, non-invasive investigation with high
acceptance by the patients, clinical examination remains a cornerstone of the diagnosis of
acute appendicitis and it is superior to ultrasound examination in diagnosis of cases of acute
appendicitis.
INTRODUCTION
Although the treatment options for acute appendicitis stood the test of time &
remain the same, but continuously diagnostic techniques are emerging to improve
clinical diagnosis. With this ever-changing sphere and new generations of
diagnostic facilities, there are increasing number of papers in the current literature
about the role of ultrasound in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis, with the value
in the literature, suggesting that ultrasonic evaluation of appendicitis is not a
diagnostic tool limited to few experienced ultrasonographist [1], & ultrasound is
valuable in decreasing the unnecessary appendectomy operations [2]. As long as
ultrasound is available in most hospitals ,it could be done on an outpatient base,
as a part of the routine evaluation of the suspected cases of acute appendicitis [3],
specially when performed by concerned surgeons[4,5],& it helps in narrowing the
list of the differential diagnosis of acute appendicitis[6]. In the contrary there are
occasional papers suggesting that with clear-cut clinical diagnosis; ultrasound is
not necessary [7],& the clinical decision remains the perfect tool in decision for
operations in this suspected cases [8]. Ultrasound may also confuse the clinician in
the final diagnosis [9, 10], & implementing of ultrasound examination will not
decrease the incidence of the complications of acute appendicitis [11].
1
Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani, (KAJ), Part A, 2001, No.1, ( - )
RESULTS
Most of the patients were between the ages of 10 to 20 years. The ratio of male
to female was 0.9-1.2. Most of them presented within 24 hours from the onset of
the pain (table 1). Pain was a constant symptom in all the patients. It was at onset,
around the umbilicus in 300 patients, and shifted to right iliac fossa within 10
hours in 293 patients (table 2). Anorexia was present in 401 patients, vomiting
after the onset of the pain in 68 patients, change of bowel motion in the form of
constipation in 412 patients and diarrhea in 12 patients. There were associated
respiratory features in 49 patients and urinary features like dysurea, frequency in
187 patients.
History of attacks of similar pains was positive in 42 patients and a family
history of appendectomy in 136 patients.
On clinical examination; temperature was elevated up to one degree centigrade
in 234 patients, localized tenderness was present in 428 patients and rebound
tenderness in 386 patients and tenderness in right lower abdomen on rectal and
bimanual examination of the abdomen( table 3 ).
WBC count was within normal range in 390 patients, less than 4000 / mm3 in 2
patients & more than 11.000 / mm3 in 88 patients.
2
Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani, (KAJ), Part A, 2001, No.1, ( - )
Sp
Se
Ac
ed
ns
ec
cu
i ct
i f ic
i t iv
ra c
3
iv e
it y
it y
y
v ..
.
Percentage
Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani, (KAJ), Part A, 2001, No.1, ( - )
60y-70y, 1
50y-60y, 2
0y-10y
30y-40y, 87 10y-20y
20y-30y
30y-40y
10y-20y, 243 40y-50y
20y-30y, 141
50y-60y
60y-70y
Table 1: time of the presentation of the patients, from the onset of the pain
4
Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani, (KAJ), Part A, 2001, No.1, ( - )
General 22
abdominal pain
Right 24
Hypochondrium
Inflamed, subcaecal 12
Inflamed, retrocaecal 18
5
Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani, (KAJ), Part A, 2001, No.1, ( - )
Macroscopically normal
retrocaecal (3), subcaecal
10
(7)microscopically
turned out to be inflamed
Salpingio-oophoritis 4
Histopathological results
60 55
50 Normal
40 Appendices
25
30
20 Acutely Inflamed
10
10 5 Appendices
0
No. of Patients %
6
Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani, (KAJ), Part A, 2001, No.1, ( - )
DISCUSSION
. In the present work we tried to evaluate the role of ultrasonic examination in
diagnosis of acute appendicitis, we found that ultrasound is of little help in
increasing the accuracy of diagnosis of acute appendicitis, but it has a role in
diagnosis of complicated appendicitis with unusual presentations.
In current studies sensitivity of around 90% has been claimed [13], we found
ultrasound to have 92% sensitivity ,76.66 % accuracy, 100 % specificity and
100% predictive value of positive results. Accuracy of ultrasound in our study is
comparable with the results of Dreuw-B and Goudet-P; while it is less than other
studies.
No.
No. of of
Accur
patien nega
Author acy of Sensi Speci
ts in tive
s sonog tivity ficity
the lapa
raphy
study roto
mies
Tarjan- 298 96.3 94.9 97.9 ---
Z et.
al. (14)
Niebuhr --- --- 90 94 11
-H et.
al.(15)
Dreuw- --- 64 100 --- ---
B et.
al. (16)
Goudet- --- 76 --- --- ---
P et.
al.(17)
Crady - --- 91.8 85 94 ---
SK et.
al. (18)
Zielke- --- 84.2 55.3 94.6 ---
A
et. al.
Chesba 236 86 --- --- ---
ugh-
RM (19)
7
Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani, (KAJ), Part A, 2001, No.1, ( - )
True Negative
Ultrasound True Negative
False Negative
Examination False Negative
Positive Positive
True Negative
Clinical
False Negative
Examination
Positive
Ultrasound 368 32 80
Examination
8
Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani, (KAJ), Part A, 2001, No.1, ( - )
CONCLUSION
This work looks at the role & benefits of ultrasound in diagnosis of the cases of
acute appendicitis.
Although ultrasound is a simple, cost-effective, non-invasive investigation
with high acceptance by the patients, clinical examination remains a cornerstone
of the diagnosis of acute appendicitis and it is superior to ultrasound examination
in diagnosis of cases of acute appendicitis. But it is helpful in diagnosis of
complicated appendicitis with unusual presentation & other causes of acute
abdomen which may simulate features of acute appendicitis
AKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors thank all the medical, and paramedical workers in ultrasound
clinic, the 16th Surgical Unit and Surgical Casualty Department in Sulaimani
Teaching Hospital for their technical help & cooperation and Miss. (Rezan hama
Rashid) for her statistical help.
9
Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani, (KAJ), Part A, 2001, No.1, ( - )
REFERENCES
13. Peter Armstrong & Martin Lewisite , A concise textbook of Radiology ,first
Edition, 2001,Arnold, London Page 103-104.
14. Tarjan –Z, Mako –E et al, The value of ultrasonic diagnosis in acute
appendicitis, Orv-Hetil, 1995, 2,136(4), 713-7.
10
Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani, (KAJ), Part A, 2001, No.1, ( - )
11
Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani, (KAJ), Part A, 2001, No.1, ( - )
Za†ò‹ŽîíØóÜü²Š@ô䆋Ùäb“ïånò†@óÜ@Šóäü@ôÜûŠ@
@
ôäbáŽïÝ@õüÙäaŒ@ôÙ“îq@õ‰ïÜüØ@–@‡¼c@‹áÈ@aíïè@
ôäbáŽïÝ@@M@ÓŠbÈ@èbm@
ôäbáŽïÝ@ôÙïåÙŽïm@õb ˆüàb÷@––@ôÜb’@łb÷
@
Zón‚íq@
NoŽî‹åïiò†@a‡äbØóïÙ“îq@òìa‹Øì⁄i@óÜ@a†ò‹ŽîíØ@óÜü²Š@ô䆋Ùäb“ïånò†@óÜ@Šóäü@ôÜûŠ@õòŠbiŠò†@‹mbîŒ@õòìóåïÜüÙŽïÜ@~oŽî†@bm@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
ã@ b−ó÷@òìóØòŠó Šón’óä@çóîý@óÜ@•óØòŠóäü@ìòìa‹Ø@òìíióè@çbïÙ@óäaˆ@óØ@ìa‹Žî‰jÜóè@ô’ü‚óä@óqì‹ @Šó@óÜ@óäaìóåïÜüÙŽïÜ@ãó÷@ìíàóè
NŠóäü@õ‡äó¸ójîbm@ôÙ“îq@Ûóä@~òìaŠ†@
ì@ @~çóÙïi@óàaŠbØ@ôÙŽïäaŒŠóäü@bïèóm@óïä@ÚŽîŠbØ@~ò‹ŽîíØ@óÜü²Š@ô䆋Ùäb“ïånò†@üi@Šóäü@ói@µåÙ“q@óØ@~æŽïÜó÷@óäaìóåïÜüÙŽïÜ@ãóÜ@ÚŽî‡äóè
ò@ ìómbØó÷@ãóØ@çbØónîíŽïqbä@óîŠó Šón’óä@õòŠbàˆ@~pa†ó÷@ò‹ŽîíØ@óÜü²Š@ô䆋Ùäb“ïånò†@õ‹mbîŒ@ì@‹mbîŒ@ômóàŠbî@~a‡îaŒòŠb’@Žßó óÜ
@ ïè@óØ@æŽïÜó÷@òìóäaìó›Žïq@ói@‹m@ôÙŽî‡äóè@~a‡äbØóïõŠó Šón’óä@òŠbØ@óÜ@óäaˆûŠ@ónŽïji@óåïåÙ“q@ãó÷@óØ@çóØó÷@òìa†@aì@çbî‹m@ôÙŽî‡äóè
NôäbØóØbà@õòìó䆋Ø@ãóØ@ì@熋Ùäb“ïånò†@ììŒ@ômóàŠbî@ìóïä@a†ò‹ŽîíØ@óÜü²Š@ô䆋Ùäb“ïånò†@õbäaím@ô䆋؆bîŒ@óÜ@õìbšŠói@ôÙÜûŠ@
~@ òìa‹Ø@Ž¶@çbîò‹ŽîíØ@óÜü²Š@ôäbàí @Nòìíióè@çbïÙ@óäaˆ@çbîìíàóè@óØ@òìóåïÜüÙi@•ü‚@480@óÜ@a‡Üb@6@õòìbàóÜ@a†óîòìóåïÜüÙŽïÜ@ãóÜ@óáŽï÷
@Nçìa‹åŽïÙ“q@òìòŠóäü@ôÙ“îq@2@çóîý@óÜ@çbîìíàóèŠóè@
ó@ îóè@ô−òìbä@ãbà@ôØóîbäaím@ãýói@ò‡äóóq@òìó’ü‚óä@ñýói@~ñòíŽïi@~çaŒŠóè@~çbb÷@ôÙŽïåïåÙ“q@Šóäü@ôšŠó @µŽïÝi@µäaímó÷@ãb−ó÷Šò†
@ò‹ŽîíØóÜü²Š@ô䆋Ùäb“ïånò†@õóÌbåi@õ†Šóiói@ì@ò’bi@Šóäü@óÜ@ôŽïuŠó@ôåïåÙ“q@Na†ò‹ŽîíØóÜü²Š@ô䆋Ùäb“ïånò†@õŠbØìbè@óÜ
NoŽî‹äó÷a†@
@
@
ó@ î†ì‡Üa@ò‡÷aÜa@lbénÜa@˜ïƒ“m@À@óïmí—Üa@×íÐ@xaíàýa@óïÝibÔ@õ‡à
ò†b¨a@
óïäbáïÝÜa@óÉàbu@–@kÜa@óïÝØ@–‡¼c@‹áÈ@aíïè@
óïäbáïÝÜa@M@ÓŠbÈ@‹èb @
óïäbáïÝÜa@–@ÑÜa@‡éÉà@–@@MôÜb’@łb÷@
@
@
12
Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani, (KAJ), Part A, 2001, No.1, ( - )
Zó–þ©a@
@@@
ë@ ‰è@öa‹ua@@~@ò†b¨a@óî†ì‡Üa@ò‡÷aÜa@lbénÜa@˜ïƒ“m@À@óïmí—Üa@×íÐ@xaíàýa@ßbáÉna@ßíy@óïjÜa@tb¢ýa@æà@@‡îanà@†‡È@ÚÜbåè@@@@
Nóïmí—Üa@×íÐ@xaíàýa@˜zÐ@öa‹ubi@çíya‹§a@ãbÔ@ŠbäíÜa@öbj a@†íuì@æà@âÌ‹Übi@ì@~ôš‹¾a@æà@òŠbn¬@Êïàbª@ôÝÈ@tb¢a@
@ ÙÉÜbi@‹‚ýa@ÉjÜa@æÙÜì~óîŠì‹›Üa@ÍÜa@óî†ì‡Üa@ò‡÷aÜa@ßb—øna@pbïÝáÈ@ÞjÝÕm@¶a@ñ†üm@@ŠbäíÜbi@˜ïƒ“nÜa@ça@“m@tízjÜa@ë‰è@Éi
N@óÝána@pbÑÈb›¾a@ÞïÝÕm@ì@‹Ùj¾a@˜ïƒ“m@ôÝÈ@‡Èbm@ý@béäa@õ‹î@
×@ íÐ@xaíàþÜ@˜ïƒ“nÜa@óïÝibÔ@âïÕnÜ@ò†b¨a@æjÜa@ãýa@Êà@ôš‹¾a@æà@òŠbn¬@Ì@óÜby@H480@IóaŠ†@paíå@o@ßþ‚@båÜìby@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Npýb¨a@ôÝÈ@˜zÑÜa@öa‹ubi@Šbäí@bjïj @bàbÔì@Œ@óî†ì‡Üa@ò‡÷aÜa@lbénÜþÜ@óïmí—Üa@
˜
@ nÜa@À@ò‡Èb¾a@À@ò†‡«@óïÝibÔ@ìˆ@béåÙÜì@~@ôš‹¾a@ÞjÔ@æà@a‡u@ßíjÕà@ì@µàa@ì~˜j‚Š~Âïi@óïmí—Üa@×íÐ@xaíàýa@˜zÐ@ça@Êà
Nóî†ì‡Üa@ò‡÷aÜa@pýby@˜ïƒ“m@À@‘býa@‹vy@ñ‹î‹Üa@˜zÑÜa@ôÕjmì@~óî†ì‡Üa@ò‡÷aÜa@pýby@
13