SpringerLink
Log in

Abdominal-pelvic scanning parameters revisited: a case for Z-axis reduction in patients with clinical suspicion for acute appendicitis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Emergency Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine if CT for appendicitis can be abbreviated to begin at the top of the L2 vertebral body level and still maintain the detection rate of appendicitis and other symptomatic pathology without omitting significant incidental findings.

Methods

Retrospective review of CT abdomen-pelvis exams for suspected appendicitis over a 5-month period was performed. The Z-axis scan length of the original full scans and theoretical limited scans from the top of L2 were recorded and calculated. Images were reviewed for incidental findings above the L2 vertebral body level and categorized by severity per American College of Radiology (ACR) white paper guidelines. Final diagnoses based on imaging findings were also recorded.

Results

One hundred nineteen patients (46 males, 73 females, mean age 29 ± 14) were included. Appendicitis was present in 26 cases (22%). Using a theoretical scan beginning at the top of the L2 vertebral body, none of the findings leading to diagnosis of appendicitis would have been missed. A total of 30 incidental findings were found above the L2 vertebral body. Per ACR white paper guidelines, 26 of these findings did not require additional imaging follow-up. Additional follow-up imaging was recommended for 3 of the findings above L2, and 1 right adrenal metastasis was found above L2 in a patient with previously undiagnosed NSCLC. This patient coincidentally also had appendicitis. No symptomatic pathology would have been missed had the scans begun at the top of the L2 vertebral body. Such an abbreviated scan would have resulted in a mean Z-axis reduction of 12.9 cm (30.3%).

Conclusions

CT using abbreviated Z-axis scan length can reduce radiation dose and provide necessary imaging needed to diagnose appendicitis or other symptomatic pathology without omitting significant incidental findings.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Doria AS, Moineddin R, Kellenberger CJ, Epelman M, Beyene J, Schuh S, Babyn PS, Dick PT (2006) US or CT for diagnosis of appendicitis in children and adults? A meta-analysis. Radiology 241(1):83–94. doi:10.1148/radiol.2411050913

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kim K, Rhee JE, Lee CC, Kim KS, Shin JH, Kwak MJ, Kim JH, Suh GJ, Hahn SK, Singer AJ (2008) Impact of helical computed tomography in clinically evident appendicitis. Emerg Med J 25(8):477–481. doi:10.1136/emj.2006.044552

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tsao K, St Peter SD, Valusek PA, Spilde TL, Keckler SJ, Nair A, Ostlie DJ, Holcomb GW 3rd (2008) Management of pediatric acute appendicitis in the computed tomographic era. J Surg Res 147(2):221–224. doi:10.1016/j.jss.2008.03.004

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Smith MP, Katz DS, Lalani T, Carucci LR, Cash BD, Kim DH, Piorkowski RJ, Small WC, Spottswood SE, Tulchinsky M, Yaghmai V, Yee J, Rosen MP (2015) ACR Appropriateness Criteria(R) right lower quadrant pain—suspected appendicitis. Ultrasound Q 31(2):85–91. doi:10.1097/RUQ.0000000000000118

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Raman SS, Lu DS, Kadell BM, Vodopich DJ, Sayre J, Cryer H (2002) Accuracy of nonfocused helical CT for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis: a 5-year review. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178(6):1319–1325. doi:10.2214/ajr.178.6.1781319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pickhardt PJ, Lawrence EM, Pooler BD, Bruce RJ (2011) Diagnostic performance of multidetector computed tomography for suspected acute appendicitis. Ann Intern Med 154(12):789–796, W-291. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-154-12-201106210-00006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pooler BD, Lawrence EM, Pickhardt PJ (2012) Alternative diagnoses to suspected appendicitis at CT. Radiology 265(3):733–742. doi:10.1148/radiol.12120614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Addiss DG, Shaffer N, Fowler BS, Tauxe RV (1990) The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. Am J Epidemiol 132(5):910–925

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim K, Kim YH, Kim SY, Kim S, Lee YJ, Kim KP, Lee HS, Ahn S, Kim T, Hwang SS, Song KJ, Kang SB, Kim DW, Park SH, Lee KH (2012) Low-dose abdominal CT for evaluating suspected appendicitis. N Engl J Med 366(17):1596–1605. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1110734

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kim SY, Lee KH, Kim K, Kim TY, Lee HS, Hwang SS, Song KJ, Kang HS, Kim YH, Rhee JE (2011) Acute appendicitis in young adults: low- versus standard-radiation-dose contrast-enhanced abdominal CT for diagnosis. Radiology 260(2):437–445. doi:10.1148/radiol.11102247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Seo H, Lee KH, Kim HJ, Kim K, Kang SB, Kim SY, Kim YH (2009) Diagnosis of acute appendicitis with sliding slab ray-sum interpretation of low-dose unenhanced CT and standard-dose iv contrast-enhanced CT scans. AJR Am J Roentgenol 193(1):96–105. doi:10.2214/AJR.08.1237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. van der Molen AJ, Geleijns J (2007) Overranging in multisection CT: quantification and relative contribution to dose--comparison of four 16-section CT scanners. Radiology 242(1):208–216. doi:10.1148/radiol.2421051350

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. McCollough CH (2008) CT dose: how to measure, how to reduce. Health Phys 95(5):508–517. doi:10.1097/01.HP.0000326343.35884.03

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fefferman NR, Roche KJ, Pinkney LP, Ambrosino MM, Genieser NB (2001) Suspected appendicitis in children: focused CT technique for evaluation. Radiology 220(3):691–695. doi:10.1148/radiol.2203001826

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA, McCabe CJ, Lawrason JN, Berger DL, Sacknoff R (1997) Helical CT technique for the diagnosis of appendicitis: prospective evaluation of a focused appendix CT examination. Radiology 202(1):139–144. doi:10.1148/radiology.202.1.8988203

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kamel IR, Goldberg SN, Keogan MT, Rosen MP, Raptopoulos V (2000) Right lower quadrant pain and suspected appendicitis: nonfocused appendiceal CT—review of 100 cases. Radiology 217(1):159–163. doi:10.1148/radiology.217.1.r00oc34159

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. de Leon AD, ** Y, Champine J, Costa DN (2014) Achieving ideal computed tomographic scan length in patient with suspected urolithiasis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 38(2):264–267. doi:10.1097/RCT.0000000000000016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Corwin MT, Bekele W, Lamba R (2014) Bony landmarks on computed tomographic localizer radiographs to prescribe a reduced scan range in patients undergoing multidetector computed tomography for suspected urolithiasis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 38(3):404–407. doi:10.1097/RCT.0b013e3182ab5f35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Corwin MT, Chang M, Fananapazir G, Seibert A, Lamba R (2015) Accuracy and radiation dose reduction of a limited abdominopelvic CT in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Abdom Imaging 40(5):1177–1182. doi:10.1007/s00261-014-0280-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Berland LL, Silverman SG, Gore RM, Mayo-Smith WW, Megibow AJ, Yee J, Brink JA, Baker ME, Federle MP, Foley WD, Francis IR, Herts BR, Israel GM, Krinsky G, Platt JF, Shuman WP, Taylor AJ (2010) Managing incidental findings on abdominal CT: white paper of the ACR incidental findings committee. J Am Coll Radiol 7(10):754–773. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2010.06.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Heller MT, Harisinghani M, Neitlich JD, Yeghiayan P, Berland LL (2013) Managing incidental findings on abdominal and pelvic CT and MRI, part 3: white paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee II on splenic and nodal findings. J Am Coll Radiol 10(11):833–839. doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2013.05.020

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Harish MG, Konda SD, MacMahon H, Newstead GM (2007) Breast lesions incidentally detected with CT: what the general radiologist needs to know. Radiographics 27(Suppl 1):S37–S51. doi:10.1148/rg.27si075510

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Bendeck SE, Nino-Murcia M, Berry GJ, Jeffrey RB Jr (2002) Imaging for suspected appendicitis: negative appendectomy and perforation rates. Radiology 225(1):131–136. doi:10.1148/radiol.2251011780

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Malone AJ Jr, Wolf CR, Malmed AS, Melliere BF (1993) Diagnosis of acute appendicitis: value of unenhanced CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 160(4):763–766. doi:10.2214/ajr.160.4.8456661

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Federle MP (1997) Focused appendix CT technique: a commentary. Radiology 202(1):20–21. doi:10.1148/radiology.202.1.8988184

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Song JH, Chaudhry FS, Mayo-Smith WW (2008) The incidental adrenal mass on CT: prevalence of adrenal disease in 1,049 consecutive adrenal masses in patients with no known malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 190(5):1163–1168. doi:10.2214/AJR.07.2799

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ozao-Choy J, Kim U, Vieux U, Menes TS (2011) Incidental findings on computed tomography scans for acute appendicitis: prevalence, costs, and outcome. Am Surg 77(11):1502–1509

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Furtado CD, Aguirre DA, Sirlin CB, Dang D, Stamato SK, Lee P, Sani F, Brown MA, Levin DL, Casola G (2005) Whole-body CT screening: spectrum of findings and recommendations in 1192 patients. Radiology 237(2):385–394. doi:10.1148/radiol.2372041741

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology (M/C 931), University of Illinois Hospital & Health Sciences System, 1740 West Taylor Street, Room 2483, Chicago, IL, 60612, USA

    Darshan C. Patel, Jonathan Meyer & Amir Sepahdari

  2. University of Illinois College of Medicine at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Yu-hui Huang

  3. Mercy Hospital and Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA

    Jonathan Meyer & Amir Sepahdari

Authors
  1. Darshan C. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yu-hui Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jonathan Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amir Sepahdari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Patel, D.C., Huang, Yh., Meyer, J. et al. Abdominal-pelvic scanning parameters revisited: a case for Z-axis reduction in patients with clinical suspicion for acute appendicitis. Emerg Radiol 24, 661–666 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-017-1539-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-017-1539-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation