Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Visualization of the normal appendix in children: feasibility of a single contrast-enhanced radial gradient recalled echo MRI sequence

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) assessment for appendicitis is limited by exam time and patient cooperation. The radially sampled 3-dimensional (3-D) T1-weighted, gradient recalled echo sequence (radial GRE) is a free-breathing, motion robust sequence that may be useful in evaluating appendicitis in children.

Objective

To compare the rate of detection of the normal appendix with contrast-enhanced radial GRE versus contrast-enhanced 3-D GRE and a multi-sequence study including contrast-enhanced radial GRE.

Materials and methods

This was a retrospective study of patients ages 7–18 years undergoing abdominal-pelvic contrast-enhanced MRI between Jan. 1, 2012, and April 1, 2016. Visualization of the appendix was assessed by consensus between two pediatric radiologists. The rate of detection of the appendix for each sequence and combination of sequences was compared using a McNemar test.

Results

The rate of detection of the normal appendix on contrast-enhanced radial GRE was significantly higher than on contrast-enhanced 3-D GRE (76% vs. 57.3%, P=0.003). The rate of detection of the normal appendix with multi-sequence MRI including contrast-enhanced radial GRE was significantly higher than on contrast-enhanced 3-D GRE (81.3% vs. 57%, P<0.001). There was no significant difference between the rate of detection of the normal appendix on contrast-enhanced radial GRE alone and multi-sequence MRI including contrast-enhanced radial GRE (76% vs. 81.3%, P=0.267).

Conclusion

Contrast-enhanced radial GRE allows superior detection of the normal appendix compared to contrast-enhanced 3-D GRE. The rate of detection of the normal appendix on contrast-enhanced radial GRE alone is nearly as good as when the contrast-enhanced radial GRE is interpreted with additional sequences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Addiss DG, Shaffer N, Fowler BS, Tauxe RV (1990) The epidemiology of appendicitis and appendectomy in the United States. Am J Epidemiol 132:910–925

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Muehlstedt SG, Pham TQ, Schmeling DJ (2004) The management of pediatric appendicitis: a survey of North American pediatric surgeons. J Pediatr Surg 39:875–879

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brown JJ (1991) Acute appendicitis: the radiologist's role. Radiology 180:13–14

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Strouse PJ (2010) Pediatric appendicitis: an argument for US. Radiology 255:8–13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Smith MP, Katz DS, Lalani T et al (2015) ACR appropriateness criteria® right lower quadrant pain--suspected appendicitis. Ultrasound Q 31:85–91

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Doria AS, Moineddin R, Kellenberger CJ et al (2006) US or CT for diagnosis of appendicitis in children and adults? A meta-analysis. Radiology 241:83–94

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Baldisserotto M, Marchiori E (2000) Accuracy of noncompressive sonography of children with appendicitis according to the potential positions of the appendix. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:1387–1392

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kaiser S, Frenckner B, Jorulf HK (2002) Suspected appendicitis in children: US and CT–a prospective randomized study. Radiology 223:633–638

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Trout AT, Sanchez R, Ladino-Torres MF et al (2012) A critical evaluation of US for the diagnosis of pediatric acute appendicitis in a real-life setting: how can we improve the diagnostic value of sonography? Pediatr Radiol 42:813–823

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Peletti AB, Baldisserotto M (2006) Optimizing US examination to detect the normal and abnormal appendix in children. Pediatr Radiol 36:1171–1176

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Garcia Peña BM, Mandl KD, Kraus SJ et al (1999) Ultrasonography and limited computed tomography in the diagnosis and management of appendicitis in children. JAMA 282:1041–1046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Moore MM, Kulaylat AN, Hollenbeak CS et al (2016) Magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric appendicitis: a systematic review. Pediatr Radiol 46:928–939

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Baldisserotto M, Valduga SG, da Cunha CF (2008) MR imaging evaluation of the normal appendix in children and adolescents. Radiology 249:278–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Swenson DW, Schooler GR, Stamoulis C, Lee EY (2016) MRI of the normal appendix in children: data toward a new reference standard. Pediatr Radiol 46:1003–1010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Herliczek TW, Swenson DW, Mayo-Smith WW (2013) Utility of MRI after inconclusive ultrasound in pediatric patients with suspected appendicitis: retrospective review of 60 consecutive patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 200:969–973

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Koning JL, Naheedy JH, Kruk PG (2014) Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced MR for acute appendicitis and alternative causes of abdominal pain in children. Pediatr Radiol 44:948–955

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kovanlikaya A, Rosenbaum D, Mazumdar M et al (2012) Visualization of the normal appendix with MR enterography in children. Pediatr Radiol 42:959–964

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dillman JR, Gadepalli S, Sroufe NS et al (2016) Equivocal pediatric appendicitis: unenhanced MR imaging protocol for nonsedated children — a clinical effectiveness study. Radiology 279:216–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hormann M, Paya K, Eibenberger K et al (1998) MR imaging in children with nonperforated acute appendicitis: value of unenhanced MR imaging in sonographically selected cases. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171:467–470

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Johnson AK, Filippi CG, Andrews T et al (2012) Ultrafast 3-T MRI in the evaluation of children with acute lower abdominal pain for the detection of appendicitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:1424–1430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Chandarana H, Block KT, Winfeld MJ et al (2014) Free-breathing contrast-enhanced T1-weighted gradient-echo imaging with radial k-space sampling for paediatric abdominopelvic MRI. Eur Radiol 24:320–326

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lin W, Guo J, Rosen MA, Song HK (2008) Respiratory motion-compensated radial dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE)-MRI of chest and abdomen lesions. Magn Reson Med 60:1135–1146

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Wu X, Raz E, Block TK et al (2014) Contrast-enhanced radial 3D fat-suppressed T1-weighted gradient-recalled echo sequence versus conventional fat-suppressed contrast-enhanced T1-weighted studies of the head and neck. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:883–889

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cho HH, Choi YH, Cheon JE et al (2016) Free-breathing radial 3D fat-suppressed T1-weighted gradient-echo sequence for contrast-enhanced pediatric spinal imaging: comparison with T1-weighted turbo spin-echo sequence. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207:177–182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Petkovska I, Martin DR, Covington MF et al (2016) Accuracy of unenhanced MR imaging in the detection of acute appendicitis: single-institution clinical performance review. Radiology 279:451–460

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rosines LA, Chow DS, Lampl BS et al (2014) Value of gadolinium-enhanced MRI in detection of acute appendicitis in children and adolescents. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:543–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Lyons GR, Renjen P, Askin G et al (2017) Diagnostic utility of intravenous contrast for MR imaging in pediatric appendicitis. Pediatr Radiol 47:398–403

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Blumfield E, Moore MM, Drake MK et al (2017) Survey of gadolinium-based contrast agent utilization among the members of the society for pediatric radiology: a quality and safety committee report. Pediatr Radiol 47:665–673

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Gulani V, Calamante F, Shellock FG et al (2017) Gadolinium deposition in the brain: summary of evidence and recommendations. Lancet Neurol 16:564–570

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, New York University School of Medicine, 660 First Ave., New York, NY, 10016, USA

    Shailee V. Lala, Naomi Strubel, Nicole Nocera, Mark E. Bittman & Nancy R. Fefferman

Authors
  1. Shailee V. Lala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Naomi Strubel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicole Nocera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mark E. Bittman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Nancy R. Fefferman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shailee V. Lala.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

None

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lala, S.V., Strubel, N., Nocera, N. et al. Visualization of the normal appendix in children: feasibility of a single contrast-enhanced radial gradient recalled echo MRI sequence. Pediatr Radiol 49, 770–776 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-019-04352-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-019-04352-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation