SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Annals of Medical Research / 2018 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 4

The value of the ileocolic vessels in acute appendicitis- a cross sectional study

Mehmet SİRİK
Serdar OLT
Pages
656–659
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In appendicitis group, diameters of ILC artery and vein were found significantly higher than control group (p values

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: To our knowledge, ileocolic (ILC) artery and vein have not been studied or mentioned in the medical literature so far in acute appendicitis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Thus our aim was to evaluate the value of ileocolic (ILC) artery and vein diameters in acute appendicitis.Material and Methods: Abdominal computed tomography (CT) features of 157 patients complaining of abdominal pain were reviewed retrospectively from our hospital records between January and June in 2015.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In appendicitis group, diameters of ILC artery and vein were found significantly higher than control group (p values
🔬Design:Review & Systematic Survey
📍Scope:2015 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: To our knowledge, ileocolic (ILC) artery and vein have not been studied or mentioned in the medical literature so far in acute appendicitis. Thus our aim was to evaluate the value of ileocolic (ILC) artery and vein diameters in acute appendicitis.Material and Methods: Abdominal computed tomography (CT) features of 157 patients complaining of abdominal pain were reviewed retrospectively from our hospital records between January and June in 2015. Patients were divided into two groups as appendicitis-detected group and CT-normal group. We compared ILC artery and vein diameters between the two groups.Results: In the patients with acute appendicitis, the mean diameter of the ileocolic artery was 3.31±0.69 mm; the mean diameter of the ileocolic vein was 5.21±0.9 mm. In the control group, the mean diameter of the ileocolic artery was 2.75±0.31 mm; the mean diameter of the ileocolic vein was 4.17±0.45 mm. In appendicitis group, diameters of ILC artery and vein were found significantly higher than control group (p values

🔖

Cite This Article

SİRİK, M., OLT, S. (2022). The value of the ileocolic vessels in acute appendicitis- a cross sectional study. Annals of Medical Research, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 4, 656–659. https://ajindex.com/articles/447360

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Bursali A, Arac M, Oner AY, et al. Evaluation of the normal appendix at low-dose non-enhanced spiral CT. Diagn Interv Radiol 2005;11:45-50.
  2. Shademan A, Tappouni RF. Pitfalls in CT diagnosis of appendicitis: pictorial essay. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol 2013;57:329-36.
  3. Al-Khayal KA, Al-Omran MA. Computed tomography and ultrasonography in the diagnosis of equivocal acute appendicitis.A meta-analysis. Saudi Med J 2007;28:173-80.
  4. Van Breda Vriesman AC, Puylaert JB. Mimics of appendicitis: alternative nonsurgical diagnoses with sonography and CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2006;186:1103-12.
  5. Nikolaidis P, Hwang CM, Miller FH, et al. The nonvisualized appendix: incidence of acute appendicitis when secondary inflammatory changes are absent. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:889-92.
  6. Poh AC, Lin M, Teh HS, Tan AG. The role of computed tomography in clinically-suspected but equivocal acute appendicitis. Singapore Med J 2004;45:379-84. Ishikawa H. Diagnosis and treatment of acute appendicitis. JMAJ. 2003;46:217-21.
  7. Petrosyan M, Estrada J, Chan S, et al. CT scan in patients with suspected appendicitis: clinical implications for the acute care surgeon. Eur Surg Res 2008;40:211-9.
  8. Wijetunga R, Tan BS, Rouse JC, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of focused appendiceal CT in clinically equivocal cases of acute appendicitis. Radiology 2001;221:747-53.
  9. Celep B, Ahmet B, Özsoy M, et al. Akut apandisit tanısında bilgisayarlı tomografinin yeri. Bozok Med J 2014;4:29-33. Gaitini D. Imaging acute appendicitis: state of the art. J Clin Imaging Sci 2011;1:49. Park G, Lee SC, Choi BJ, et al. Stratified computed tomography findings improve diagnostic accuracy for appendicitis. World J Gastroenterol 2014;20:13942-9.
  10. Chalazonitis, AN, Tzovara I, Samouti E, et al. “CT in appendicitis.” Diagn Interv Radiol 2008;14:19-25.
  11. Moteki T, Horikoshi H. New CT criterion for acute appendicitis: maximum depth of intraluminal appendiceal fluid. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188:1313-9.
  12. Ghorbani A, Forouzesh M, Kazemifar AM. Variation in anatomical position of vermiform appendix among Iranian population: An old issue which has not lost its importance. Anat Res Int 2014;2014:313575. Nuchh AB, Yatagiri SV, Patil BG, et al. “Study of arterial supply of caecum and appendix: a cadaveric study.” Int J Anat Res 2017;5:4158-62.
  13. Pober, JS,. Sessa WC. Inflammation and the blood microvascular system. Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biol 2015;7:a016345. Old JL, Dusing RW, Yap W, et al. Imaging for suspected appendicitis. Am Fam Physici