Comparison of ultrasonography and computed tomography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis

The compare the efficacy of ultrasonography and computed tomography (CT) in cases of suspected appendicitis. To study to what extent age, sex and habits of the patients, as well as the clinical context, influence the diagnostic yield of these two technique. Over a one-year period, 152 patients underwent ultrasonography and CT because of the clinical suspicion of appendicitis. The studies were carried out independently, and the results of each in terms of the presence or absence of appendicitis were unknown to the specialists performing the other. The final diagnoses were established by surgical treatment or clinical follow-up. The sensitivity of CT for the diagnosis of appendicitis was 82%, the specificity was 95%, the positive predictive value was 93%, the negative predictive value was 87% and the reliability was 90%. Ultrasonography has a sensitivity of 83%, a specificity of 97%, a positive predictive value of 95%, a negative predictive value of 88% and a reliability of 91%. Ultrasound was more efficient in patients in which there was a high clinical suspicion and in children, while the results with CT were better in patients in which the clinical diagnosis was less clear. The incidence of false negatives and positives was higher with ultrasound, while CT was more frequently able to identify a normal appendix. Sex and habits had no influence on the respective efficacies, although the performance of ultrasound was simplified in thin patients and that of CT in obese individuals. Ultrasonography and CT are highly reliable in cases of suspected appendicitis, especially when this diagnosis is conformed. Ultrasound is recommended as the technique of choice in children and in patients in which the clinical suspicion is strong. The yield of CT is somewhat greater when the clinical signs and symptoms are less clear. However, the efficacy of both techniques ultimately depends on the expertise of the specialist who interprets them. (Author) 62 refs