Use of CT scan in the diagnosis of pediatric acute appendicitis

Quality and Safety of Pediatric Inpatient Care in Community Hospitals: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Although the majority of children are hospitalized in nonchildren's hospitals, little is known about the quality and safety of pediatric care in community hospitals.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to conduct a scoping review and synthesize literature on the quality and safety of pediatric inpatient care in United States community hospitals.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search in October 2016 to identify pediatric studies that reported on safety, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, patient-centeredness, or equity set in general, nonuniversity, or nonchildren's hospitals. We extracted data on study design, patient descriptors, and quality outcomes and assessed the risk of bias using modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scales.

RESULTS

A total of 44 articles met the inclusion criteria. Study designs, patient populations, and quality outcome measures were heterogeneous; only three clinical domains, (1) perinatal regionalization, (2) telemedicine, and (3) imaging radiation, were explored in multiple studies with consistent directionality of results. A total of 30 studies were observational, and 22 studies compared community hospital quality outcomes with other hospital types. The remaining 14 studies reported testing of interventions; 12 showed improved quality of care postintervention. All studies reported an outcome addressing safety, effectiveness, or efficiency, whereas timeliness, patient-centeredness, and equity were infrequently addressed. Risk of bias was moderate or high for 72% of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Literature on the inpatient care of children in community hospitals is limited, making it difficult to evaluate healthcare quality. Measures of timeliness, patient-centeredness, and equity are underrepresented. The field would benefit from more multicenter collaborations to facilitate the application of robust study designs and to enable a systematic assessment of individual interventions and community hospital quality outcomes.

Acute abdominal pain in children

Acute abdominal pain is a common complaint in childhood, and it can be caused by a wide range of underlying surgical and non-surgical conditions. The most common non-surgical condition is gastroenteritis, while the most common surgical condition is appendicitis. Abdominal pain in children varies with age, associated symptoms, and pain location. Although acute abdominal pain is usually benign and self-limiting, there are uncommon but life-threatening conditions that require urgent care. Meticulous history taking and physical examinations are essential to determine the cause of acute abdominal pain and to identify children with surgical conditions such as appendicitis.

Prospective evaluation of emergency physician performed bedside ultrasound to detect acute appendicitis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the accuracy of emergency physicians using bedside ultrasound to detect appendicitis (BUSA).

METHODS

Patients presenting to the emergency department with a clinical suspicion of appendicitis were prospectively enrolled and received a 5-min BUSA. Patients received routine work-up for acute appendicitis as deemed appropriate by the attending physician. Radiologists and consulting surgeons were blinded to BUSA results. The criterion standard for the presence or absence of acute appendicitis was the pathology report for patients who received appendectomies, and telephone follow-up for patients discharged home without surgical intervention.

RESULTS

A total of 132 patients were enrolled. In 44 cases BUSA was positive. Of these, 37 had surgical pathology reports consistent with acute appendicitis, whereas seven did not have appendicitis. In 82 cases, BUSA was negative. Of these, 62 were determined not to have appendicitis, whereas 20 had appendicitis by pathology. Sensitivity for BUSA was 65% [95% confidence interval (CI) 52-76], specificity was 90% (95% CI 81-95), positive predictive value was 84% (95% CI 71-92), and negative predictive value was 76% (95% CI 65-84). The likelihood ratio of a positive BUSA was 6.4 (95% CI 3.1-13.2). Five patients discharged home with a diagnosis other than appendicitis were unable to be reached by telephone, and were excluded from data analysis.

CONCLUSION

Our study gives insufficient evidence to support the use of bedside ultrasound by emergency physicians to rule out appendicitis. The high specificity in our study, however, suggests that with further training, BUSA may be useful to rule-in appendicitis in some patients.

'To have...or not to have'. Should computed tomography and ultrasonography be implemented as a routine work-up for patients with suspected acute appendicitis in a regional hospital?

INTRODUCTION

Appendicitis is a common diagnosis, but is by no means a simple one to establish. This retrospective study investigated the value of medical imaging (ultrasonography and/or computed tomography [CT]) for patients with suspected appendicitis. Negative appendicectomy rate and appendiceal perforation with or without medical imaging were used as end points for this investigation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This study retrospectively reviewed all patients admitted in one district general hospital with suspected acute appendicitis. The patient cohort was identified from the Unit Registry and an International Classification of Diseases-based Review of medical records. The medical records were analysed, and the outcome of patients were followed up.

RESULTS

Between 12 January 2004 to 27 May 2005, 168 patients' medical records were audited. The negative appendicitis rate was 6.7% and appendiceal perforation rate was 3.2%. Among them, only 20 in-patients (12%) had medical imaging (ultrasonography and/or CT scan) after clinical assessment for suspected acute appendicitis. Medical imaging had a 70% prediction rate for acute appendicitis, 20% false-negative rate, and 10% false-positive rate. Overall, the prediction rate for appendicitis by clinical assessment supplemented by laboratory tests and medical imaging at clinician's discretion was 93.2%.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite studies advocating routine use of medical imaging for patients with suspected acute appendicitis, this study showed that the clinical evaluation is still paramount to the management of patients with suspected acute appendicitis before considering medical imaging.

Pediatric CT scan usage in Japan: results of a hospital survey

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to examine the usage parameters of diagnostic computed tomography (CT) in children because of concerns of possible overuse in Japanese hospitals, including the "technical" CT exposure settings and the "clinical" grounds for CT requests.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We examined the methodology at the radiology department to reduce radiation exposure to children and performed a retrospective study on pediatric CT requests during a 1-year period at Nagasaki University Hospital. The parameters of diagnostic CT usage for minor head trauma and acute appendicitis were studied in detail.

RESULTS

CT radiation dose settings are adjusted for children based on guidelines issued by the Japan Radiological Society, with few limitations. CT requests were made for 62% of minor head trauma cases and 76% of cases clinically suspected to be acute appendicitis. These figures are considerably higher than those reported by studies in the United Kingdom, Canada, or the United States. No specific guidelines are advocated regarding CT usage for minor head trauma. The diagnosis of acute appendicitis in children is almost routinely referred for "confirmation" by CT.

CONCLUSION

CT radiation risks to children at Japanese hospitals need to be considered more seriously. Physicians should be encouraged to follow diagnostic algorithms that help avoid unnecessary CT usage in children.

Evaluation of perforated and nonperforated appendicitis with CT

Fifty-three patients with 38 cases of perforated appendicitis and 15 cases of appendicitis without perforation were evaluated based on the computed tomography (CT) appearances of appendiceal diameter, phlegmon, abscess, extraluminal air, appendiceal wall enhancement, lateroconal fascial thickening, appendicolith, bowel wall thickening, ascites, ileal wall enhancement, peritoneal enhancement, periappendiceal fluid, omental haziness, retrocecal appendix, intraluminal air, and the combination of intraluminal air and appendicolith. The result of appendiceal diameter was compared using two-sample Student's t test, and the other CT findings were analyzed by Fisher's Exact Test. Our results showed that appendix was larger in caliber in perforated appendix (P< .05). Direct CT signs (i.e., phlegmon, abscess, and extraluminal air) were more specific for perforated appendicitis (P< .05). Indirect signs (bowel wall thickening, ascites, ileal wall enhancement, intraluminal air, and combined intraluminal air and appendicolith) were also found in higher incidence in appendiceal perforation (P< .05). Appendiceal enlargement and ileal wall enhancement were the two predominant findings in one case of perforation. We concluded that direct and indirect CT appearances can differentiate appendicitis with and without perforation. Indirect signs may be helpful in difficult case.

[Diagnostic yield of abdominal ultrasonography in acute appendicitis]

INTRODUCTION

Acute appendicitis (AA) is the first cause of surgical abdomen in childhood but diagnosis continues to be difficult in some cases. Abdominal ultrasonography has been shown to be useful when there is doubt about the diagnosis and can be quickly and easily performed at the patient's bedside.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of abdominal ultrasonography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in our hospital.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All patients who visited the emergency department for abdominal pain and who underwent abdominal ultrasonography to rule out AA between January 1, 1999 and December 31, 2000 were retrospectively studied.

RESULTS

During the study period, 4217 children were evaluated in our service for abdominal pain. Ultrasonography was performed in 528 children. Of these, the procedure was performed to rule out AA in 308 patients. Of these 308 patients who met the study's inclusion criteria, the results of ultrasonography were compatible with AA in 102 and were normal in 196. Ultrasonographic diagnosis differed from the final diagnosis in 16 patients. In eight children with ultrasonographic findings suggestive of AA, laparotomy revealed normal appendices. In the remaining eight patients, ultrasonographic findings were normal and surgery revealed AA. Based on these findings, the diagnostic yield of abdominal ultrasonography was: sensitivity: 96.6 %; specificity: 95.9 %, positive predictive value: 86 %; negative predictive value: 95.9 %.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall diagnostic yield of abdominal ultrasonography in AA our hospital is acceptable. Because ultrasonographic diagnosis is not always accurate, others diagnostic methods such as computed tomography should be used in doubtful cases.