Transcript girls pts 2007

Evidence-based Imaging
of Acute Abdominal Pain
in Children
Kimberly E. Applegate, MD, MS
Emory University
Atlanta
Overview
{ Malrotation &
Midgut volvulus}
Pyloric stenosis
Intussusception
Appendicitis
Malrotation
3.9 per 10,000 live births births
90% age <1yr (75% neonatal)
Mortality 3-5%
Associated syndromes, anomalies
Difficult diagnosis in older children
Question 1- UGI
1. The normal duodenal-jejunal junction
is located
A. Left of spine
B. Left of left pedicle
C. Inferior to duodenal bulb
D. Anterior to duodenal bulb (on
lateral)
Answer 1- DJJ position
B. Left of left pedicle
-- and posterior, at the level of the bulb
Question 2- UGI images
2. Do you routinely image the duodenum
in the lateral view?
A. Yes
B. No
Importance of lateral view of
duodenum on UGI
Koplewitz BZ, Daneman A. Ped Rad 1999. The lateral
view: useful adjunct in the diagnosis of malrotation.
Normal: posterior position of 2nd-3rd-4th duodenum
Malrotation: If 3rd portion moves anteriorly
 19/27 (70%) children with surgically proven malrot
had this finding
The UGI series
Diagnostic Performance
Imaging gold standard
15% FP 3-6% FN
Volvulus: sensitivity 54%
Normal variant:
The wandering duodenum
…The more you know the harder it gets?
Malrotation Cases
Question 3
3. How often is the cecum abnormally
positioned in children with malrotation?
A. 20%
B. 50%
C. 80%
D. 100%
Answer 3
C. Cecum abnormally
positioned in 8085% of malrotation
cases
• Most common false positive:
• Ligamentous laxity in children
…False Positives:
Liver transplant
Spenomegaly
Dilated adjacent bowel
Enteral tubes
Helpful tips…
UGI technique
Document first pass of barium through
duodenum
Document DJJ on frontal and lateral
Do not overfill stomach
Use manual palpation
Review other imaging studies
If doubt, SBFT or enema
cecum
If clinical doubt, repeat UGI
Volvulus
A surgical emergency
Bowel gas pattern
in neonates“sad sausages” vs
“happy polygons”
Volvulus in neonate
Clinical presentation
in older children
Tricky!
Rarely bilious emesis
Less specific symptoms
Long average delays in diagnosis of
1.7 years to 5 years (3 published series)
Special situations
Volvulus limited to the colon


Neonates: distal (transverse) colon
Older children: cecal
Heterotaxy syndrome
Paraduodenal hernias
Acquired volvulus
Heterotaxy syndrome
malrotation and annular pancreas
Paraduodenal hernias
Right
Left
Cecal Volvulus around MACE
Malone antegrade catheterizable enema
Question 4
4. What is the most common cause of GI
obstruction in children?
A. Pyloric Stenosis
B. Intussusception
C. Appendicitis
Answer 4
A. Pyloric Stenosis
Incidence: 2-5 per 1,000 births
Peak age 4 wks (2-12 wks)
Intussusception is 2nd most common
Appendicitis most common abd surgery

SBO rare-- perforated appendicitis (1-2%)
Pyloric Stenosis
Earlier diagnosis
Increased reliance on imaging


Clin exam: 72% sens, 97% spec
US exam: 97% sens, 100% spec
Question 5
5. Which of the following is NOT
associated with pyloric stenosis?
A. Family history
B. Male gender
C. Prematurity
D. Erythromycin
Answer 5
C. Prematurity
Male: female 4:1
Mild increased incidence if family
history
Late gestation or neonatal use of
systemic erythromycin associated
with PS
Intussusception
Lack of seasonality

Viral peaks, year to year
Peak age: 5-9 months (range
3mo-4 yrs)
10% spontaneous reduction
10% recur (50% at 48hrs)*
5% lead points
* non-surgical reductions
Diagnostic performance of
imaging for intussusception
Test
Sensitivity
Specificity
Abdominal films
Ultrasound
Enema*
45%
98-100%
100%
88-100%
100%
Reducibility
#1: duration of
symptoms

>48 hours
Age <3 months,
dehydration, SBO
Sonography


Trapped fluid
Lack of color Doppler
Burkitt lymphoma with
Small bowel wall tumor seeding
And intussusception
Question 6
Intussusception
6. Which of the following enema
techniques has the highest successful
reduction rate?
A. Barium
B. Iodinated contrast
C. Air
D. US-guided Saline
Air vs Liquid Enema Outcomes
Studies with 100-1000 cases
# of
studies
13 82
(1.7)
Liquid
14 70
(1.7)
Air
14 1.0 (0.4)
Liquid
12 0.3 (0.1)
Reduction Air
(%)
Perforation
(%)
Wt Mean
(SE)
P<.001
Meta-analysis-100 studies
AJR 2015, Sadigh G et al.
-32,451 total children
Success rate combined (83% for air, 70% for liquid)
Perforation rate: air and liquid 1%
-
Air Enema Intuss Reduction
Intussusception Summary
Enema Goals: 80% success, <1% perf
Air superior to liquid
No barium
US for diagnosis
US-guided saline enema avoids radiation
Delayed repeat enema?
Appendicitis
Lifetime risk 7%
>260,000 cases (70,000 children)/yr USA
Peak age 10-19 yrs (rare under 3 yrs)
Clinical presentation overlaps benign
conditions (eg, gastroenteritis)
Children poorly localize pain
Goals of Imaging Test
Determine if child has appy
Dx or exclude early
Identify complications (perforation,
abscess) that alter management
Imaging Algorithm in Suspected
Appendicitis
Pain control in ED
If Alvarado Score 4-6, image:




Sonography RLQ (+pelvis in girls)
Structured reporting!
If negative/equivocal, repeat US or CT
Exception: Obesity or perforation
Some centers have MRI in ED (substitute
for CT)
Diagnostic Performance
Sensitivity, Specificity, PPV, NPV of a test
Imaging test: diagnoses or excludes appy

Requires hi sensitivity (rule out)
Surgical outcomes:


Good outcomes: acute appendicitis
Bad outcomes: normal appendectomy (and
perforated appendicitis)
Question 7
7. What are the sensitivity and specificity
of CT for the diagnosis of acute
appendicitis in children?
A. 90%, 90%
B. 95%, 90%
C. 90%, 95%
D. 95%, 95%
Historical Note: Diagnostic Performance
First US paper: Puylaert JCBM. Acute appendicitis: US
evaluation using graded compression. Radiology 1986
First CT paper: Radiology 2000. Evaluation of suspected
appendicitis in children and young adults: helical CT. Sivit
CJ, Applegate KE, Berlin SC et al.

Sens 95%. Spec 94% vs Puylaert US sens 89%
AJR 2001. Applegate K, Sivit CJ.‘The normal appendix may
measure up to 10 mm in maximal diameter but should not
have other CT signs of acute inflammation.’
Radiology 2001. Applegate, Sivit, et al. ‘There were
significantly higher rates of appendectomy with normal
pathologic findings ("negative appendectomy") in patients
who underwent no imaging (14%) or US (17%) versus the
rates in those who underwent CT only (2%).’
Answer 7
D. 95% sensitivity and
specificity for CT
Similar accuracy to
adults if performed
with meticulous
technique
CT and US for Appendicitis
Meta-analysis
A Doria et al. Radiology 2006
Children, adults sens, spec
15 peds, 29 adult articles
CT higher sens for both peds, adults
Children Results
Pooled Sensitivities and
Specificities
Sensitivity
Specificity
Peds US
Peds CT
88%*
94%
CI 0.86-0.90
CI 0.92-0.97
94%
95%
CI 0.92-0.95
CI 0.94-0.97
Efficacy vs Effefctiveness
Recent reports show both at Cincinnati
Childrens Hospital and at CHOA (our
own experience): vizualization of the
appendix is much lower: <50%
PQI: structured report; ongoing
systematic review and standardization
of protocol, training, and report
language; 24/7 US; decreased CT use
MDCT for Appendicitis
How We Do It
4x3mm volumetric--Ax,Cor,Sag
recons
IV contrast; oral limited--for young
pts, perforation cases
64 MDCT with ASIR 20%
PQI project presented at 2016 IPR
mtg: Avoid delayed or repeat
imaging
Enteral and IV contrast CT
Appendix size approximately same throughout life
MDCT for Appendicitis
How We Interpret
Enlarged, unfilled appendix >7mm
 May be normal up to 11 mm
Appendicoliths
Fat stranding
Appendiceal wall thick & enhances
…Not seeing an appendix is ok if no other
signs of inflammation
Lateral
Appy
Perforated
Appy
Alternative Diagnoses at CT, US
Mesenteric
lymphadenopathy
Ovarian cyst
Pyelonephritis
Ureteral Stone
TOA
Omental infarction
Ileo-colitis
* up to 50% of cases
MRI Systematic Review
11 studies comprising 1698 children
Methods: did not use PRISMA or AHRQ
quality rating systems


Stata with metaprop analysis
No discussion of handling outliers
Appy criterion similar to CT

Key is periappendiceal edema
Protocol
Dillman review of key sequences:




4-5 sequences
Key is SSFSE ax and Cor
Also SPAIR as and Cor (better than T2 fat sat
SSFSE)
IV and oral contrast not proven added value
Only 2/11 used IV contrast;
Diffusion: 4 papers used it

Only 1 provided data on it (Bayraktutan)
Sens 78%, Accuracy 77% (<40 pts)
Magnetic resonance imaging
in pediatric appendicitis:
a systematic review
Michael M. Moore, Afif N. Kulaylat, Christopher S. Hollenbeak,
Brett W. Engbrecht, Jonathan R. Dillman*, Sosamma T. Methratta
Pediatr Radiol (2016) 46:928–939 (July). Penn State; *Cinci Childrens
Sensitivity 96%
Specificity 96%
Negative appy rate: 1-3%
Question 8
What is the role of the
vermiform appendix?
A. There is no known function
B. There is a function
Answer 8
“Biofilms in the large bowel suggest an
apparent function of the human
vermiform appendix.”
Parker W and Bollinger R. (Duke) J Theor
Biol. 2007;249(4):826-31.
“We propose that the human appendix is well
suited as a "safe house" for commensal
bacteria, providing support for bacterial
growth and potentially facilitating reinoculation of the colon in the event that the
contents of the intestinal tract are purged
following exposure to a pathogen.”
Cocktail Party
Factoids
From birth to death, the human vermiform
("worm-like") appendix size stays the
same--it is a 5-10cm long and 0.5-1cm wide
pouch
The only other mammals known to have
appendices are rabbits, opossums and
wombats, and their appendices are
markedly different than the human
appendix.
Spontaneous Resolution vs.
Perforating Appendicitis
Likely that most people experience selflimited degrees of appendiceal
inflammation at some time in their lives


22% infants at autopsy had signs of
subacute appendicitis* Kraemer M. Eur J Surg 1999
Contributes to false neg/positive rates
(Migraine et al, Radiology 1997)
Cystic Fibrosis pts have enlarged
appendices, presumed chronic appy
Summary
Imaging depends on
clinical ddx
In older children, CT is
a useful tool
In younger children,
fluoro and US more
common tools
THANK YOU!
[email protected]
Are we getting better at enema
reduction? YES!
Reducti
on
Rate
(%)
Method
1980's
1990's
2000's
Liquid
66 (5.6)
72 (2.5)
79 (3.9)
Air
79 (2.9)
83 (1.8)
86 (2.5)
Perforati
on
Liquid
Rate
(%)
Air
0.4 (0.2) 0.5 (0.3) 0.4 (0.3)
0 1.3 (0.3) 0.6 (0.4)