Advertisement

Emergency Radiology

, Volume 10, Issue 5, pp 256–258 | Cite as

Current trends in imaging evaluation of acute cholecystitis

  • Mohammad Alobaidi
  • Rahul Gupta
  • Syed Z. Jafri
  • Darlene M. Fink-Bennet
Original Article

Abstract

This study was designed to retrospectively determine recent clinical trends of initial radiological evaluation in patients pathologically proven to have acute cholecystitis (AC) and to assess the methodology that led to its diagnosis. Over a 28-month period, the medical records and imaging studies of 117 consecutive patients who had pathologically confirmed AC were retrospectively analyzed. The sensitivities of ultrasound (US) and hepatobiliary 99mTc-iminodiacetic acid (HIDA) were computed. The false-negative scans were retrospectively reviewed by a blinded radiologist to determine the limitations and advantages of each modality. The 117 patients were grouped into six categories based on the type of imaging examination they underwent prior to cholecystectomy: initial US evaluation only (n=80, 68.4%), initial US followed by HIDA (n=17, 14.5%), initial HIDA only (n=2, 1.7%), initial HIDA followed by US (n=3, 2.6%), initial CT (n=5, 4.3%), and no imaging evaluation (n=10, 8.6%). HIDA scan had a calculated sensitivity of 90.9% (20 true-positive, 2 false-negative) while US had a sensitivity of 62% (62 true-positive, 38 false-negative). Current practice in the initial radiological evaluation of acute cholecystitis remains outdated. The vast majority of patients in our study group were initially worked up using US, although HIDA scan has been shown to have greater sensitivity for the diagnosis of acute cholecystitis.

Keywords

Cholecystitis Gallbladder Ultrasound HIDA (hepatobiliary 99mTc-iminodiacetic acid) Gallstones 

References

  1. 1.
    Johnson HJ, Cooper B (1995) The value of HIDA scans in the initial evaluation of patients for cholecystitis. J Natl Med Assoc 87:27–32PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kalimi R, Gecelter GR, Caplin D, et al (2001) Diagnosis of acute cholecystitis: sensitivity of sonography, cholescintigraphy, and combined sonography-cholescintigraphy. J Am Coll Surg 193:609–613CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gupta SM, Owshalimpur D, Herrera NE (1982) Radionuclide scanning for the rapid diagnosis of acute cholecystitis. Aust N Z J Med 12:265–268.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mauro MA, McCartney WH, Melmed JR (1982) Hepatobiliary scanning with 99mTc-PIPIDA in acute cholecystitis. Radiology 142:193–197PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hakansson K, Leander P, Ekberg O, Hakansson HO (2000) MR imaging in clinically suspected acute cholecystitis. A comparison with ultrasonography. Acta Radiol 41:322–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Massie JD, Austin HM, Kuvula M, Tarcan Y (1982) HIDA scanning and ultrasonography in the expeditious diagnosis of acute cholecystitis. South Med J 75:164–168PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Watari M, Mutsukura T, Akashi T, et al (1992) The usefulness of the emergency hepatobiliary scintigraphy to rule out acute cholecystitis—43 patients report. Kaku Igaku 29:1013–1018PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eldar S, Eitan A, Bickel A, et al (1999) The impact of patient delay and physician delay on the outcome of laparascopic cholecystectomy for acute cholecystitis. Am J Surg 178:303–307CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meo G, Arico A, Lavagna F, et al (1990) Acute cholecystitis. Early diagnostic study using cholescintigraphy with Tc99m-IDA. Minerva Chir 45:75–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kendall JL, Shimp RJ (2001) Performance and interpretation of focused right upper quadrant ultrasound by emergency physicians. J Emerg Med 21:7–13CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freitas JE, Mirkes SH, Fink-Bennet DM, Bree RL (1982) Suspected acute cholecystitis. Comparison of hepatobiliary scintigraphy versus ultrasonography. Clin Nucl Med 7:364–367PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chatziioannou SN, Moore WH, Ford PV, Dhekne R (2000) Hepatobiliary scintigraphy is superior to abdominal ultrasonography in suspected acute cholecystitis. Surgery 127:609–613CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Klingensmith WC 3rd, Turner WM (1990) Cholescintigraphy for acute cholecystitis: false positive results caused by chronic cholecystitis. Gastrointest Radiol 15:129–132PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Am Soc Emergency Radiol 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammad Alobaidi
    • 1
  • Rahul Gupta
    • 1
  • Syed Z. Jafri
    • 1
  • Darlene M. Fink-Bennet
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Diagnostic RadiologyWilliam Beaumont HospitalRoyal OakUSA
  2. 2.Department of Nuclear MedicineWilliam Beaumont HospitalRoyal OakUSA

Personalised recommendations