ライフサイエンスコーパス: appendicitis

1 appendicitis; and a score of 5b, perforated appendicitis).

2 ic but nonsensitive for perforated pediatric appendicitis.

3 ere interpreted as being equivocal for acute appendicitis.

4 aphic examination with results equivocal for appendicitis.

5 n be considered in nonperforated complicated appendicitis.

6 able to that with CT for equivocal pediatric appendicitis.

7 s in the management of pediatric complicated appendicitis.

8 iagnostic algorithm, 267 were diagnosed with appendicitis.

9 crobiota in a population of children without appendicitis.

10 y comprised 2756 children operated for acute appendicitis.

11 A total of 203 (26%) patients had appendicitis.

12 ad a histopathologic diagnosis of perforated appendicitis.

13 tion of equivocal US examinations to predict appendicitis.

14 dividual clinical variables as predictors of appendicitis.

15 an 18 years old who were evaluated for acute appendicitis.

16 as the histopathologic finding of perforated appendicitis.

17 onged postoperatively because of complicated appendicitis.

18 nt performance of US for depicting pediatric appendicitis.

19 1 patient after 9 months for recurrent acute appendicitis.

20 ective procedures for the treatment of acute appendicitis.

21 0) million children were diagnosed as having appendicitis.

22 imaging for the imaging work-up of pediatric appendicitis.

23 my within 1 year of initial presentation for appendicitis.

24 gical versus conservative treatment of acute appendicitis.

25 phy (CT) criteria for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

26 investigation included 52,153 children with appendicitis.

27 r treating patients with uncomplicated acute appendicitis.

28 ystem for more accurate diagnostics of acute appendicitis.

29 r patients with perforated and nonperforated appendicitis.

30 luding intussusception, pyloric stenosis and appendicitis.

31 7%) patients had pathologically proved acute appendicitis.

32 ad a histopathologic diagnosis of perforated appendicitis.

33 endicitis, including 392 (47%) patients with appendicitis.

34 imilar to that of US for suspected pediatric appendicitis.

35 low 11 were classified as low probability of appendicitis.

36 does affect access to surgical services for appendicitis.

37 can be eliminated in CT scans for suspected appendicitis.

38 e below 11, and none of them had complicated appendicitis.

39 adopted in the treatment of pediatric acute appendicitis.

40 d positive, negative, or equivocal for acute appendicitis.

41 343 (47%) of patients with complete data had appendicitis.

42 is study, 34 of whom had pathology-confirmed appendicitis.

43 scopic surgery performed for suspected acute appendicitis.

44 harges were similar in those with vs without appendicitis.

45 older, to determine the underlying cause of appendicitis.

46 sm as the cause of presentation for presumed appendicitis.

47 supporting a semielective approach to acute appendicitis.

48 stinguish patients with and patients without appendicitis.

49 coliths should prompt the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

50 ning and PCR to identify undiagnosed amoebic appendicitis.

51 as the histopathologic finding of perforated appendicitis.

52 on had histologically proven recurrent acute appendicitis.

53 pediatric patients with acute, nonperforated appendicitis.

54 ies were performed in 57 patients with acute appendicitis.

55 operated on had pathologically proven acute appendicitis.

56 ent an appendectomy for acute, nonperforated appendicitis.

57 underestimation of the incidence of amoebic appendicitis.

58 ica is not a common causative agent of acute appendicitis.

59 y comprised 2756 children operated for acute appendicitis.

60 ificity of 97.1% (1470 of 1514 patients) for appendicitis.

61 tion-based studies reported the incidence of appendicitis.

62 urgical and conservative treatment for acute appendicitis.

63 5) who underwent surgery for suspected acute appendicitis.

64 75.4% to 24.2% (P < 0.0001) in patients with appendicitis.

65 ify patients with a low likelihood of having appendicitis.

66 operation was not related to risk of complex appendicitis [12-24 hours odds ratio (OR) 0.98 (P = 0.86

67 tion: 13.6% vs 17.5%, P < 0.001 (RCV = 14%); appendicitis: 13.4% vs 24.4%, P < 0.001 (RCV = 5%)].

68 ppendicitis (18.0% [$66205117]), complicated appendicitis (14.1% [$51702402]), gastroschisis (9.5% [$

69 bowel obstruction 10.6% vs 14.9%, P < 0.001; appendicitis 15.2% vs 21.8%, P < 0.001).

70 burden from all 30 conditions: uncomplicated appendicitis (18.0% [$66205117]), complicated appendicit

71 ndix (6.3% vs 4.3%; P < .001) and perforated appendicitis (27.3% vs 26.7%; P = .04).

72 2.0%; P < .001) and patients with perforated appendicitis (27.6% vs 23.6% vs 23.6%; P = .005).

73 e than 24 hours because of acute complicated appendicitis (29.3%).

74 records were evaluated of which 493,569 were appendicitis, 395,838 were cholecystitis, and 412,163 we

75 ultrasonography (US) performed for suspected appendicitis (53 male and 40 female; age, 1-56 years; me

76 S performance in the detection of perforated appendicitis (5b) was as follows: a sensitivity of 44.0%

77 %; 95% CI, 72.0% to 90.8%) had uncomplicated appendicitis, 7 (10.0%; 95% CI, 4.1% to 19.5%) had compl

78 The most common diagnosis was appendicitis (77.4%), followed by perforated abdominal v

79 Establish a protocol of management of acute appendicitis (AA) in ambulatory surgery (AmbSurg) on the

80 ypically been regarded as the cause of acute appendicitis (AA).

81 atients clinically suspected of having acute appendicitis, abdominopelvic CT frequently identifies an

82 intussusception is a rare phenomenon, acute appendicitis accompanying multiple transient intussuscep

83 The Appendicitis Acuta (APPAC) multicenter, open-label, noni

84 11) for all patients with diagnosis of acute appendicitis, acute cholecystitis, and diverticulitis.

85 In addition, any patient evaluated for appendicitis after implementation of the algorithm was a

86 eatment failure in children with complicated appendicitis, although existing studies comparing intrav

87 itis by utilizing histopathologically proven appendicitis and 6-week clinical follow-up as diagnostic

88 ssociated with increased risk of complicated appendicitis and adverse events.

89 for visibility of the appendix, presence of appendicitis and appendiceal perforation, and establishm

90 confidence intervals (CIs) for diagnosis of appendicitis and appendiceal perforation.

91 and point RI values than do patients without appendicitis and are distinguishable with high specifici

92 fied as positive, negative, or equivocal for appendicitis and correlated with surgical and pathology

93 plinary CER efforts, while the management of appendicitis and gastrostomy should be considered high-p

94 y invasive surgery for common disorders like appendicitis and hypertrophic pyloric stenosis are all s

95 al of 184 patients with a diagnosis of acute appendicitis and indicated for surgery were included in

96 of these underwent an appendectomy for acute appendicitis and laparoscopy was used in 74.4% of these

97 nfected individuals who presented with acute appendicitis and later underwent appendectomy at our hos

98 o appendectomy (TTA) and risk of complicated appendicitis and postoperative complications.

99 of melanoma of the appendix presenting with appendicitis and review our institutional experience wit

100 ical delay before appendectomy for suspected appendicitis and the finding of perforated appendicitis

101 ting perforated from nonperforated pediatric appendicitis and to investigate the association between

102 risk of death from delayed diagnosis (missed appendicitis), and LE loss attributable to radiation-ind

103 maging findings that were positive for acute appendicitis, and 336 had negative findings.

104 95% CI, 4.1% to 19.5%) had complicated acute appendicitis, and 5 (7.1%; 95% CI, 2.4% to 15.9%) did no

105 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1%, 7%) missed appendicitis, and 8% (10 of 125; 95% CI: 4%, 14%) false-

106 h patients showed clinical evidence of acute appendicitis, and an appendectomy was performed.

107 city of MR imaging in the detection of acute appendicitis, and corresponding 95% confidence intervals

108 mong children's hospitals after treatment of appendicitis, and outliers can be identified at both end

109 nce, mortality rates from surgery and missed appendicitis, and radiation doses from CT were elicited

110 rate in categorizing patients with suspected appendicitis, and roughly halves the need of diagnostic

111 roup had histopathologically confirmed acute appendicitis, and there were no significant complication

112 f 4, equivocal; a score of 5a, nonperforated appendicitis; and a score of 5b, perforated appendicitis

113 Among patients with CT-proven, uncomplicated appendicitis, antibiotic treatment did not meet the pres

114 0.95; 95% CI: -0.25, 2.17) and nonperforated appendicitis (APC=0.44; 95% CI: -0.84, 1.73).

115 f US and unenhanced MR imaging for pediatric appendicitis appears to be effective.

116 Antibiotics for suspected acute appendicitis are safe and effective and may avoid unnece

117 Management of appendicitis as an urgent rather than emergency procedur

118 s or older, operated on because of suspected appendicitis at 2 university hospitals between 1992 and

119 cohort study of 13,328 patients treated with appendicitis at 34 children's hospitals (9/2010-9/2011).

120 and June 2012 for cases of appendectomy for appendicitis at 6 institutions (preoperative characteris

121 8-month period, 122 children with perforated appendicitis at a tertiary referral children's hospital

122 lated cost associated with the management of appendicitis at freestanding children's hospitals.

123 going acute appendectomy for suspected acute appendicitis at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockhol

124 going acute appendectomy for suspected acute appendicitis at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockhol

125 developed for all children with complicated appendicitis at Monroe Carell Jr Children's Hospital at

126 developed for all children with complicated appendicitis at Monroe Carell Jr Children's Hospital at

127 US studies performed for suspected pediatric appendicitis at one institution from July 1, 2013, to Ju

128 h abdominal pain and a clinical suspicion of appendicitis at the emergency room.

129 A total of 577 patients with a diagnosis of appendicitis at US met the study criteria (468 with a sc

130 Patients treated for appendicitis before and after pathway implementation wer

131 xamination (n = 217) because of suspicion of appendicitis between January 1, 1996, and August 31, 201

132 years or older operated on for assumed acute appendicitis between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2

133 and underwent appendectomy for uncomplicated appendicitis between January 1, 2012, and December 31, 2

134 Differences in outcomes of pediatric appendicitis between the United States and Canada are in

135 5 (7.1%; 95% CI, 2.4% to 15.9%) did not have appendicitis but received appendectomy for suspected rec

136 e diagnostic performance of CT for suspected appendicitis, but generalizability has not been demonstr

137 f surgical care for children with perforated appendicitis by improving outcomes and lowering costs.

138 d between patients with and patients without appendicitis by utilizing histopathologically proven app

139 mple appendicitis (SA, acute) or complicated appendicitis (CA, gangrenous/ruptured)).

140 Pediatric uncomplicated appendicitis can be treated with open or laparoscopic te

141 Atypically located acute appendicitis can show atypical presentation and result i

142 However, amoebic appendicitis can sometimes be severe and life threatenin

143 Two of the acute appendicitis cases had normal, the other two had elevate

144 infection was confirmed in 9 (15.8%) of the appendicitis cases.

145 cious clinical and imaging findings of acute appendicitis coexisting with multiple spontaneously reso

146 e probability of rupture in individuals with appendicitis, compared with living in a service area wit

147 aged 18 to 60 years with uncomplicated acute appendicitis confirmed by a CT scan.

148 in patients operated on because of suspected appendicitis demonstrated a significant difference, favo

149 th MR imaging may replace conditional CT for appendicitis detection.

150 ed to antibiotic treatment for uncomplicated appendicitis did not require appendectomy during the 1-y

151 uded comparisons of the rates of complicated appendicitis, disability days, and health care costs bet

152 The primary outcome was complicated appendicitis documented at operation.

153 imaging in pregnant patients with suspected appendicitis does not affect clinical outcomes or hospit

154 ithout the need for surgery and no recurrent appendicitis during a 1-year follow-up period.

155 only 1 patient (5%) had recurrence of acute appendicitis during follow-up.

156 with visualized appendices at US, those with appendicitis exhibit significantly higher point PSV and

157 lysis, seasonal variation was found in acute appendicitis (F = 119.62, P < 0.0001), acute cholecystit

158 The odds ratios of complicated appendicitis for late vs early TTA across hospitals rang

159 ents who had undergone imaging for suspected appendicitis from January 1, 2011, through December 31,

160 Only 4% of patients with appendicitis had a score below 11, and none of them had

161 199 (58%) patients with appendicitis had score value at least 16 and were classi

162 al cavity during appendectomy for perforated appendicitis has been debated extensively.

163 c spread to the appendix presenting as acute appendicitis has rarely been reported.

164 The treatment of acute appendicitis has seen changes in diagnosis and therapy i

165 evaluation of abdominal MR images for acute appendicitis improved after training with direct feedbac

166 Conditional MR missed appendicitis in 2% (two of 118; 95% CI: 0%, 6%) and gene

167 o scores correctly predicted the presence of appendicitis in 61.1% (22 of 36) and 77.3% (34 of 44) of

168 findings in a larger cohort of children with appendicitis in addition to profiling the appendiceal mi

169 graphy (CT) utilization for the diagnosis of appendicitis in an academic children's hospital emergenc

170 However, the diagnosis of appendicitis in children can be difficult and many cente

171 uggests that nonoperative treatment of acute appendicitis in children is feasible and safe and that f

172 Implementation of a diagnostic algorithm for appendicitis in children significantly decreases CT util

173 nt with antibiotics versus surgery for acute appendicitis in children.

174 commonly used in the evaluation of suspected appendicitis in children.

175 ith "usual care" for treatment of perforated appendicitis in children.

176 d appendicitis and the finding of perforated appendicitis in children.

177 t discharged without operation returned with appendicitis in either group.

178 and specific for the diagnosis of equivocal appendicitis in nonsedated pediatric patients.

179 phils or C - reactive protein) in predicting appendicitis in patients presenting with abdominal pain

180 l contrast does not improve CT evaluation of appendicitis in patients undergoing appendectomy.

181 ssion rates following appendectomy for acute appendicitis in pediatric patients.

182 tive and 97.1% specific for the diagnosis of appendicitis in pediatric patients.

183 Making an accurate diagnosis of appendicitis in pregnancy is critical for maternal and f

184 Estimates of the incidence of acute appendicitis in pregnancy remain imprecise and inconsist

185 ng into the clinical workup for suspicion of appendicitis in pregnant patients at this institution wa

186 iew was conducted of patients diagnosed with appendicitis in the ED at Children's Mercy Hospital from

187 There were no cases with complicated appendicitis in the low probability group.

188 All inpatients with a diagnosis of appendicitis in these studies (1988/1989, 1996/1997, 200

189 3 cases were clinically diagnosed as amoebic appendicitis, including 2 diagnosed at the time of appen

190 adults presenting with clinical suspicion of appendicitis, including 392 (47%) patients with appendic

191 rategy for children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis, incurring less morbidity and lower costs t

192 UC of Alvarado score 0.790 (0.758-0.823) and Appendicitis inflammatory response score 0.810 (0.779-0.

193 = 725) was compared with Alvarado score and Appendicitis inflammatory response score.

194 In 2010, a total of 159 patients [mean AIR (Appendicitis Inflammatory Response) score = 4.9 and mean

195 Complicated appendicitis is a common condition in children that caus

196 Appendicitis is a common disease, with a lifetime risk o

197 Appendicitis is a global disease.

198 Acute appendicitis is an emergent surgically treated disease g

199 Acute appendicitis is one of the most common abdominal emergen

200 Determining the etiology of perforated appendicitis is one reason to perform interval appendect

201 lized countries is sparse, but suggests that appendicitis is rising rapidly.

202 hat nonoperative management of uncomplicated appendicitis is safe, but overall effectiveness is deter

203 The incidence of appendicitis is stable in most Western countries.

204 Appendicitis is the most common abdominal diagnosis lead

205 Acute appendicitis is the most common nonobstetric surgical em

206 affect an individual's access to surgery for appendicitis is the relative supply of GSs.

207 ons, while the common surgical conditions of appendicitis, laparotomy, and hernia had no mentions at

208 han low-burden hospitals to treat perforated appendicitis (log %, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.03-0.12; P = .04) a

209 Since patients with acute appendicitis may not always show the typical signs and s

210 anada, hospital stay was longer after simple appendicitis (mean [SD], 2.0 [1.2] vs 1.7 [1.2] days; P

211 days; P < .001) and shorter after perforated appendicitis (mean [SD], 4.8 [3.6] vs 5.3 [3.7] days; P

212 Among the 93 patients, 36 (38.7%) had proven appendicitis (mean PSV, 19.7 cm/sec; mean RI, 0.69) and

213 se course suggests that some cases of simple appendicitis might be self-limiting or respond to antibi

214 e specific imaging strategy used to diagnose appendicitis minimally affects outcomes.

215 still a challenge, since the possibility of appendicitis must be entertained in any patient presenti

216 cidental appendectomy for reasons other than appendicitis (n = 18), or ileocecectomy for inflammatory

217 The natural history of acute appendicitis nonoperatively treated with antibiotics rem

218 group, US insurance status, and severity of appendicitis (nonperforated or perforated) were also per

219 in other neurological conditions, abortion, appendicitis, obstructed labour, and maternal sepsis.

220 was not associated with risk of complicated appendicitis (odds ratio per 1-hour increase in TTA, 0.9

221 RI greater than 0.65 yielded specificity for appendicitis of 88.9% each, with sensitivity of 100.0% a

222 RI greater than 0.65 yielded specificity for appendicitis of 94.7% and 96.5% with sensitivity of 88.9

223 hort study included 2510 patients with acute appendicitis, of whom 812 (32.4%) had complex findings.

224 od; none of these 6 patients had evidence of appendicitis on histopathological examination.

225 loping histologically proven recurrent acute appendicitis or a clinical diagnosis of recurrent append

226 nsurance who underwent a procedure for acute appendicitis or acute cholecystitis at inpatient hospita

227 ssociated with increased risk of complicated appendicitis or adverse outcomes.

228 ing the 21st century the pooled incidence of appendicitis or appendectomy (in per 100,000 person-year

229 We compared the incidence of appendicitis or appendectomy across the world and evalua

230 In the 21st century, the incidence of appendicitis or appendectomy is high in newly industrial

231 ion-based studies reporting the incidence of appendicitis or appendectomy.

232 th 120 studies reporting on the incidence of appendicitis or appendectomy.

233 ical records were reviewed to document acute appendicitis or other causes of abdominal pain.

234 ho presented to the ED with the diagnosis of appendicitis or who underwent an appendectomy in 35 US p

235 mission did not increase the risk of complex appendicitis (OR 0.97, P = 0.750).

236 Pediatric appendicitis outcomes have been shown to be influenced b

237 Appendicitis pain is undertreated in pediatrics, and rac

238 Clinical data were captured as Pediatric Appendicitis (PAS) or Alvarado scores and considered as

239 In contrast, 207 (54%) of non-appendicitis patients had score below 11.

240 The primary endpoint was the rate of complex appendicitis (perforation, gangrene, and/or abscess).

241 to operating room, percentage of complicated appendicitis, postoperative length of hospital stay, and

242 cant predictors for OSI included complicated appendicitis, preoperative sepsis, wound class III/IV, a

243 aged 7 to 17 years with acute uncomplicated appendicitis presenting at a single pediatric tertiary a

244 Appendicitis prevalence, test performance, mortality rat

245 ents (23.6%) were diagnosed with complicated appendicitis (range, 5.2%-51.1% across hospitals).

246 -25] days, respectively; P < .001) and lower appendicitis-related health care costs (median [IQR], $4

247 after conservative management of perforated appendicitis remains controversial.

248 after an appendectomy for acute complicated appendicitis remains unclear.

249 07; I = 1%) and the incidence of complicated appendicitis (RR 2.52; 95% CI 1.17-5.43; P = 0.02; I = 0

250 iage, and admission; and diagnosis as simple appendicitis (SA, acute) or complicated appendicitis (CA

251 erformed on 31 patients, 2 of whom had acute appendicitis secondary to malignant obstruction and pres

252 Although rare, the diagnosis of appendicitis should be considered in patients with melan

253 CI: -2.22, -0.86), whereas the incidence of appendicitis stabilized (APC=-0.36; 95% CI: -0.97, 0.26)

254 n are less likely to be diagnosed with acute appendicitis than nonpregnant women, with the lowest ris

255 ed appendix cases, including four with acute appendicitis that presented to our emergency department

256 Among children with suspected appendicitis, the use of US imaging has increased substa

257 In the traditional model of acute appendicitis, time is the major driver of disease progre

258 n with histologically proven recurrent acute appendicitis under active observation was 12% (95% CI 5-

259 In pediatric patients with acute appendicitis undergoing appendectomy, SDD is not associa

260 ion of Diseases, Ninth Revision diagnosis of appendicitis, using the National Hospital Ambulatory Med

261 ng characteristic curve for the diagnosis of appendicitis was 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.9

262 The incidence of complicated appendicitis was 2.7% in the nonoperative group (1 of 37

263 Results The frequency of appendicitis was 20.5% (407 of 1982 patients).

264 he time outside pregnancy, the rate of acute appendicitis was 35% lower during the antepartum period

265 after discharge in children with complicated appendicitis was associated with higher rates of both tr

266 Appendicitis was correctly identified in 573 (99.3%) of

267 tion between treatment delay and complicated appendicitis was examined across all hospitals by using

268 ed in pediatric patients suspected of having appendicitis was implemented at the authors' institution

269 64) for all ages; no increased risk of acute appendicitis was observed in the postpartum period compa

270 An alternative diagnosis other than appendicitis was suggested in 496 of 1571 (31.6%) patien

271 Appendicitis was the final diagnosis in 118 cases.

272 For patients with complicated appendicitis, we characterized a 12-fold difference in p

273 V, and NPV of MR imaging in the diagnosis of appendicitis were 89% (17 of 19), 97% (187 of 193), 74%

274 Appendicectomy and early appendicitis were associated with increased pregnancy ra

275 Absolute rates of acute appendicitis were calculated during the antepartum and p

276 17,732 treatments of patients diagnosed with appendicitis were collected.

277 nd mean Alvarado score = 5.2] with suspected appendicitis were enrolled and underwent nonoperative ma

278 lly significant associations with perforated appendicitis were longer duration of symptoms (odds rati

279 erformance study, adults suspected of having appendicitis were prospectively identified in the emerge

280 to a children's hospital with uncomplicated appendicitis were randomized to view 1 of 2 videos discu

281 ed with clinical or radiological evidence of appendicitis were randomly assigned to receive either LE

282 open or laparoscopic appendectomy for acute appendicitis were selected from the 2012 American Colleg

283 to operation, and the presence of perforated appendicitis were similar between groups.

284 , gastrointestinal bleed, bowel obstruction, appendicitis) where the best treatment option was uncert

285 nditional CT in patients suspected of having appendicitis, which implied that strategies with MR imag

286 hat likely contribute to the pathogenesis of appendicitis, which may one day be leveraged to improve

287 oportionate number of patients with advanced appendicitis while falling behind in the use of laparosc

288 tal readmission in children with complicated appendicitis who received oral versus intravenous antibi

289 ients seen with abdominal pain and suspected appendicitis who were followed up through delivery durin

290 All patients with complicated appendicitis who were treated with early appendectomy du

291 s with imaging-confirmed acute nonperforated appendicitis who would normally have had emergency appen

292 ears undergoing appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, who received postdischarge antibiotics at

293 e MR missed 3% (four of 117; 95% CI: 1%, 8%) appendicitis with 6% (seven of 120; 95% CI: 3%, 12%) fal

294 Eligible children had acute appendicitis with an appendix mass and were successfully

295 onoperative treatment of acute nonperforated appendicitis with antibiotics in children.

296 the CT findings of atypically located acute appendicitis with cases and remind the clinicians and ra

297 tive predictive value of 93.3% for depicting appendicitis, with 89 of 782 (11.4%) equivocal examinati

298 score of 5 or lower could be used to exclude appendicitis, with a 80.8% (21 of 26) and 90% (18 of 20)

299 same time due to a prior episode of presumed appendicitis, with pathologic examination significant fo

300 this manner to compare rates of complicated appendicitis within a time frame sensitive to each hospi