• Pediatric radiology · Dec 2015

    Development and validation of an ultrasound scoring system for children with suspected acute appendicitis.

    • Sara C Fallon, Robert C Orth, R Paul Guillerman, Martha M Munden, Wei Zhang, Simone C Elder, Andrea T Cruz, Mary L Brandt, Monica E Lopez, and George S Bisset.
    • Division of Pediatric Surgery, Texas Children's Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
    • Pediatr Radiol. 2015 Dec 1; 45 (13): 1945-52.

    BackgroundTo facilitate consistent, reliable communication among providers, we developed a scoring system (Appy-Score) for reporting limited right lower quadrant ultrasound (US) exams performed for suspected pediatric appendicitis.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate implementation of this scoring system and its ability to risk-stratify children with suspected appendicitis.Materials And MethodsIn this HIPAA compliant, Institutional Review Board-approved study, the Appy-Score was applied retrospectively to all limited abdominal US exams ordered for suspected pediatric appendicitis through our emergency department during a 5-month pre-implementation period (Jan 1, 2013, to May 31, 2013), and Appy-Score use was tracked prospectively post-implementation (July 1, 2013, to Sept. 30,2013). Appy-Score strata were: 1 = normal completely visualized appendix; 2 = normal partially visualized appendix; 3 = non-visualized appendix, 4 = equivocal, 5a = non-perforated appendicitis and 5b = perforated appendicitis. Appy-Score use, frequency of appendicitis by Appy-Score stratum, and diagnostic performance measures of US exams were computed using operative and clinical finding as reference standards. Secondary outcome measures included rates of CT imaging following US exams and negative appendectomy rates.ResultsWe identified 1,235 patients in the pre-implementation and 686 patients in the post-implementation groups. Appy-Score use increased from 24% (37/155) in July to 89% (226/254) in September (P < 0.001). Appendicitis frequency by Appy-Score stratum post-implementation was: 1 = 0.5%, 2 = 0%, 3 = 9.5%, 4 = 44%, 5a = 92.3%, and 5b = 100%. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were 96.3% (287/298), 93.9% (880/937), 83.4% (287/344), and 98.8% (880/891) pre-implementation and 93.0% (200/215), 92.6% (436/471), 85.1% (200/235), and 96.7% (436/451) post-implementation - only NPV was statistically different (P = 0.012). CT imaging after US decreased by 31% between pre- and post-implementation, 8.6% (106/1235) vs. 6.0% (41/686); P = 0.048). Negative appendectomy rates did not change (4.4% vs. 4.1%, P = 0.8).ConclusionA scoring system and structured template for reporting US exam results for suspected pediatric appendicitis was successfully adopted by a pediatric radiology department at a large tertiary children's hospital and stratifies risk for children based on their likelihood of appendicitis.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…