No abstract available.
Appendicitis* ; Diagnosis*

No abstract available.
Appendicitis* ; Diagnosis*

The study was conducted on 150 patients (82 males, 68 females) with acute appendicitis these were undergone appendectomy at the Military Central Hospital 108 between January 1998 and December 1999. These patients were examined retrospectively using Alvarado Practical Score combined with rate of neutrophil to lymphocyte more than 3.5. Mean age of patients was 3719.86 years (ranged from 92 to 2 years). Time from disease onset to operation is 20.8814.54 hours. The Alvarado practical score was applied easily, simple and appropriate for health clinics without modern equipment. For patient group in this study, the Alvarado practical score provided the sensitivity of 96.2% and specificity of 57.1% in diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Rate of neutrophil to lymphocyte produced the sensitivity of 73.6% and specificity of 85.7%. There was significant gender difference in diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Male is sevenfold more likely to be diagnosed accurately than female.
Appendicitis ; diagnosis

No abstract available.
Appendicitis* ; Diagnosis*

Study on 35 patients with ages of 10 suspected with the appendicitis diagnosed by ultrasound. The results have shown that the appendicitis most frequently occurred in persons with ages of 21-60. The diameter of appendicitis was about 8-10 mm by ultrasound. There was no suitability between ultrasound and operation for symptoms of fluid in the terminal bag of Douglas and pelvic cavity.
Appendicitis ; ultrasonography ; diagnosis

Advance study on 50 patients (male:22; female: 28) with appendicitis in the army central hospital 108 during 8/1999-8/2000. The patients received the abdominal endoscopy before operation, ages of 36,42+/- 18,62 oldest: 74, youngest:9. 46/50(92%) patients with the positive cytopathological diagnosis and 4/50 (8%) with the negative cytopathological diagnosis. These 4 patients were women. 3/4 patients diagnosed as cystic rupture of digraph, 1/4 received negative appendectomy. The correct clinical rate of diagnosis was 92%. The correct rate of laparoscopic diagnosis was 49/50= 98%, the sensitivity: 100%, the specificity: 75%. That reported that the laparoscopy(endoscopy) is very important method of diagnosis that reduces significantly the rate of the negative appendectomy.
Endoscopy ; appendicitis ; diagnosis

Although the ultrasonography has been regarded as a important procedure in the diagnosis of intraabdominalabscess, there were relatively few papers concerning the ultrasonographic findings of periappendiceal abscess.Nineteen cases of surgically proven periappendiceal abscess caused by perforated appendicitis were studied byultrasonography at the Kyung Hee University Hospital during last 34 months. The results were as follows; 1.Diagnostic accuracy of the real-time ultrasonography was 94.7%(18/19). There were only one false positive and onefalse negative. 2. The location of abscesses were ; periappendiceal 68.4%(13/19), pelvic 21.0%(4/19), subhepatic5.3%(1/19) and subphrenic 5.3%(1/19) in order of frequency. 3. Variable echo-patterns of abscesses wereencountered. But irregular, thick walled, posteriorly reinforcing, echo-free or mixed echo-patterns were mostcommon.
Abscess ; Appendicitis ; Diagnosis ; Ultrasonography

Tuboovarian abscess associated with pregnancy is not commonly reported. Diagnosis may be difficult if the obstetrician is not aware that this condition can occur during pregnancy. The diagnosis is often made at laparotomy by a physician expecting appendicitis or another inflam-matory condition. A case of ruptured tuboovarian abscess on 34 weeks' gestation of pregnancy was presented and reviewed briefly.
Abscess* ; Appendicitis ; Diagnosis ; Laparotomy ; Pregnancy*

Adult ; Appendicitis ; diagnosis ; Endometriosis ; diagnosis ; Female ; Humans

PURPOSE: Ultrasound (US) is one of the most useful modalities to diagnose appendicitis. However, without expert sonographers, the diagnosis of appendicitis via US is limited because it needs much experience to perform properly. Although many emergency physicians (EP) have used US successfully to diagnose appendicitis, there have been few studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of EP's US with that of experienced radiologists. The purpose of this study is comparing the agreement and the accuracy rate of diagnosis of EP's US with that of experienced radiologists. METHOD: During 2 months, we enrolled 102 patients clinically suspected of having acute appendicitis; then, US was performed by an EP or a radiologist. The US examiner was selected at the time of the patient's arrival. In group I patients US was performed by a senior EP, while in group II patient's, it was performed by a radiologist. If any Group I patients were still in the ED when the radiology department open, US was performed once more by a radiologist. Pathologic reports and final diagnoses were reviewed later. We calculated the sensitivity, the specificity, and the accuracy for each group; then, we compared the accuracies of the two groups and analyzed the agreement of the US diagnoses between the two groups. RESULTS: Of the 102 patients that were enrolled, 62 patients had US performed by an EP, 66 had US performed by a radiologist, and 26 had US performed by both departments' examiners. The accuracies of US in diagnosing acute appendicitis were 93.5% in group I and 90.9% in group II. The agreement of US diagnoses between the two departments' examiners, in the patients had performed US by both departments, results were significantly similar (Kappa=0.708). CONCLUSION: This study suggested that a properly educated EP's sonographic diagnosis of appendicitis has the same diagnostic accuracy as that of a radiologist. Thus for reducing complications of acute appendicitis, it would be valuable for an EP to use US in the diagnostic process.
Appendicitis* ; Diagnosis* ; Emergencies* ; Humans ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Ultrasonography*