Correlation of USG findings and Clinical presentation of Appendix in Appendicitis: A Hospital-Based Study
Background: We have been knowing from our past that appendix is a vestigial organ, useless to man, with no known important function, but sometimes it can cause problems, when it may become the seat of infection. The diagnosis of appendicitis is not very easy, requiring the skills of the most experienced clinician. The objective of this study was to find out and compare accuracy of USG findings with that of per-operative findings of location & status of appendix.
Methods: The present prospective study was carried out in surgery department at Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Medical College, Kurud Rd, Kachandur, durg, Chhattisgarh. A total of 75 cases were selected on the basis of inclusion and exclusion criteria and subjected to ultrasound examination by a qualified radiologist to exclude any other associated pathology and also to confirm the diagnosis.
Results: Out of 30 cases, a total of 14 cases presented with clinical features suggestive of retrocaecal appendicitis, out of which 11 had typical presentation & 3 had atypical presentation with overall sensitivity of 73.25%, followed by pelvic position which had a sensitivity of 16.29% in which 3 patients had typical presentation & 2 had atypical presentation.
Conclusions: A total of five modalities that were used for the diagnosis of position of appendix & appendicitis, i.e. clinical features, lab Ix, ultrasound, intraoperative findings & histopathology, only 47% of cases all the modalities were positive.
2. Collins DC. 71,000 human appendix specimens: a final report, summarizing 40 years study. Am J Proctol 1963; 14:365-381.
3. Pickens G, Ellis H. The normal vermiform appendix at C.T visualization and anatomical location. Clin. Anat. 1993; 6:9.
4. Guidry SP, Poole GV. The anatomy of appendicitis. Am Surg. 1994 Jan; 60(1): 68-71
5. Poole GV. Anatomic basis for delayed diagnosis of appendicitis. South Med J. 1990 Jul; 83(7): 771-773.
6. Varshney S, Jhonson CD, Rangnekar GV. Retrocaecal appendix appears to be less prone to infection. Br J Surg 1996; 83:223-224.
7. Collins DC, Acute retro-caecal appendicitis. Arch Surg. 1938; 36:729-743.
8. Shen GK, Wong R, Daller J, Melcer S, Tsen A, Awry S, et al. Does the retrocaecal position of the vermiform appendix alter the clinical course of acute appendicitis? Arch Surg. 1991; 126:569-570.
9. Williamson WA, Bush RD, William LF. Retrocaecal appendicitis. Am J Surg 1981; 141:507-509.
10. Grunditz T, Rayden CI, Janzon L. Does the retrocaecal position influence the course of acute appendicitis? Acta Chir Scand. 1983;249:707-710.
11. Lewis FR, Holcroft JW, Boey, et al. Appendicitis: a critical review of the diagnosis and treatment in 1000 cases. Arch Surg 1975;110:677-684.
12. Addis DG, Shaffer N, Fowler BS. The epidemiology of acute appendicitis in United States. Am J Epidemiol 1990;132:910.
13. Korner H, Sondenna K, Soreide JA. Incidence of acute non-perforated and perforated appendicitis: Age specific and sex specific analysis. World J Surg. 1997; 21:313.
14. Berry J, Malt RA. Appendicitis near its centenary. Ann Surg 1984; 200:567.
15. Collins DC. Acute retro-caecal appendicitis. Arch Surg. 1938; 36:729-743.