title: Accuracy of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in adult patients: review of the literature.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Ultrasound is a widely used technique in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis; nevertheless, its utilization still remains controversial.
  
  
  METHODS
  The accuracy of the Ultrasound technique in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis in the adult patient, as shown in the literature, was searched for.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The gold standard for the diagnosis of appendicitis still remains pathologic confirmation after appendectomy. In the published literature, graded-compression Ultrasound has shown an extremely variable diagnostic accuracy in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis (sensitivity range from 44% to 100%; specificity range from 47% to 99% ). This is due to many reasons, including lack of operator skill, increased bowel gas content, obesity, anatomic variants, and limitations to explore patients with previuos laparotomies.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Graded-compression Ultrasound still remains our first-line method in patients referred with clinically suspected acute appendicitis: nevertheless, due to variable diagnostic accuracy, individual skill is requested not only to perform a successful exam, but also in order to triage those equivocal cases that, subsequently, will have to undergo assessment by means of Computed Tomography.
authors.affiliation: Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Marcianise Hospital, ASL Caserta (CE), Caserta, Italy. fpinto1966@libero.it.
authors.forename: Fabio
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Pinto
authors.forename: Antonio
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Pinto
authors.forename: Anna
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Russo
authors.forename: Francesco
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Coppolino
authors.forename: Renata
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Bracale
authors.forename: Paolo
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Fonio
authors.forename: Luca
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Macarini
authors.forename: Melchiorre
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Giganti
references.citation: Am Surg. 2000 Jun;66(6):548-54
references.pmid: 10888130
references.citation: Radiol Clin North Am. 2008 Jul;46(4):755-71, vi
references.pmid: 18922291
references.citation: Am J Epidemiol. 1990 Nov;132(5):910-25
references.pmid: 2239906
references.citation: Radiology. 1986 Feb;158(2):355-60
references.pmid: 2934762
references.citation: Radiol Med. 2012 Aug;117(5):759-71
references.pmid: 22228126
references.citation: Recenti Prog Med. 2012 Nov;103(11):483-8
references.pmid: 23096736
references.citation: Eur Radiol. 2003 Jun;13(6):1428-31
references.pmid: 12764662
references.citation: Recenti Prog Med. 2012 Nov;103(11):493-9
references.pmid: 23096738
references.citation: Int J Colorectal Dis. 2011 Sep;26(9):1191-6
references.pmid: 21538053
references.citation: Emerg Med Clin North Am. 2010 Feb;28(1):103-18, viii
references.pmid: 19945601
references.citation: Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2012 Aug;33(4):379-82
references.pmid: 22824127
references.citation: Korean J Radiol. 2005 Oct-Dec;6(4):267-77
references.pmid: 16374085
references.citation: Recenti Prog Med. 2012 Nov;103(11):489-92
references.pmid: 23096737
references.citation: Radiol Med. 2012 Aug;117(5):749-58
references.pmid: 22228127
references.citation: Radiology. 2002 Oct;225(1):131-6
references.pmid: 12354996
references.citation: Ann Intern Med. 2004 Oct 5;141(7):537-46
references.pmid: 15466771
references.citation: Radiology. 2004 Feb;230(2):472-8
references.pmid: 14688403
references.citation: Radiol Med. 2013 Mar;118(2):181-95
references.pmid: 22744346
references.citation: Radiology. 2000 May;215(2):337-48
references.pmid: 10796905
references.citation: Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2012 Aug;33(4):308-17
references.pmid: 22824121
references.citation: Radiology. 1994 May;191(2):557-60
references.pmid: 8153340
references.citation: Eur J Radiol. 2011 Dec;80(3):681-5
references.pmid: 21030174