Abdominal radiographs in the emergency department: current status and controversies

Current abdominal X-rays practice in accident and emergency

INTRODUCTION

Previous literature reviews revealed that abdominal X-rays (AXR) performed for the accident and emergency department (A&E), had low sensitivity, high further imaging and non-alignment rate to the Royal College of Radiologists (RCR) guidelines. A study was performed to investigate the current practice with the aim of making recommendations to improve practice, which can reduce patients' radiation exposures, while can re-routing resources to other priorities.

METHODS

A study was performed in one of the UK's largest A&Es, in accordance with the RCR guidelines. All the AXR requests from A&E, regardless of the patient's age, within a 28-day period, were retrospectively assessed. Non-A&E patients and abandoned examinations due to uncooperative patients were excluded. The total number of AXR requests received by the A&E imaging department was 169, with 28/169 falling into the exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Of the 141 included requests, five unjustified requests were correctly rejected. The remaining 136 requests were accepted and performed, though only 115/136 (84.6%) of these were justified. The most common justified and unjustified indications were obstruction and renal stones, respectively. Only 4% of reported AXR had pathological abnormalities, while 45/136 patients had further imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

The small proportion of significant findings echoed previous studies, suggesting an AXR overuse. Over 80% of non-compliant requests were performed, and awareness of the justification guidelines can be increased by clinical governance, posters, or an algorithm previously presented. The 32.4% further imaging rate recorded in this study, as opposed to the 73.7% reported in previous literature, merits attention.

IMPLICATIONS TO PRACTICE

Stopping the overuse of AXR can minimise the radiation dose received and relieve the mounting pressure in imaging and reporting, which can serve other patients who would benefit from the services otherwise.

The utility of the abdominal series in the emergency setting: a retrospective review

PURPOSE

The abdominal series (AXR) remains a frequently ordered test in the emergency department (ED), despite existing literature questioning its utility. The aim of this study was to characterize the use of the AXR in the ED by quantifying how often it is ordered and the frequency of subsequent imaging. Additionally, a time estimate in ED associated with the AXR was quantified. We hypothesized that there would be a low clinical utility of the AXR, and long associated time period spent in the ED.

METHODS

A retrospective audit of AXRs performed in the ED from January to December 2019 was performed. The local picture archiving and communication system (PACS) and electronic medical record were used to collect the variables.

RESULTS

Of 701 AXRs, 438 (62.4%) were reported normal, and 263 (37.6%) were abnormal. A Chi Squared test showed that the two variables (abdominal series result and follow up imaging completion) were significantly related, with p < 0.001. However, the effect size was small (Nagelkerke R square = 0.022). The average time spent in the ED for these patients was 7.27 h, and the average time between the AXR being ordered and interpreted was 1.31 h.

CONCLUSION

The majority of AXRs were reported as normal. Our results showed that AXR had a statistically significant, but low clinically significant predictive ability on subsequent imaging ordering. This supports our hypothesis that the AXR is of low clinical utility with respect to the rate of ordering follow up imaging. The AXR also translated to a quantifiable time interval during the patient's stay in ED. Minimizing overuse of the AXR may result in a decrease in patient duration in the ED.

The effect of erect abdomen radiography on absorbed doses to internal organs and tissues: A clinical study

BACKGROUND

As low as reasonably achievable principles (ALARA) should be applied during all X-ray examinations. In some institutions, an acute abdomen series includes both erect and supine radiography. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effect of an erect position on absorbed dose to internal abdominal organs when compared with the supine position.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A prospective study was undertaken where 81 patients were imaged in both supine and erect positions. The PCXMC Monte Carlo software was used to estimate individual organ doses using dose area product (DAP). Absorbed doses were calculated for the large intestines, active bone marrow, liver, lungs, small intestine, stomach, gallbladder, breasts, uterus, ovaries, urinary bladder, kidneys, testicles, and prostate.

RESULTS

The results showed a significant increase of absorbed dose by 1.4% when moving from a supine to an erect position. The testes were found to be the organs most affected by the erect position and then the urinary bladder.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the study's findings, using the erect position during abdominal radiography increases the radiation dose for all of the selected organs compared to using a supine position. Therefore, it is advised that the use of erect abdomen radiography be restricted to certain circumstances.

Concordance between a gastrointestinal consultant radiologist, a consultant radiologist and qualified reporting radiographers interpreting abdominal radiographs

INTRODUCTION

Radiographers can accurately report musculoskeletal and chest radiographs, but there is paucity of research comparing the performance of reporting radiographers (RRs) with consultant radiologists when interpreting and reporting abdominal radiographs. This study assessed interobserver agreement in the clinical setting between reporting radiographers and a consultant radiologist compared to an expert gastrointestinal radiologist in a District General Hospital. Major discordant reports affecting patient management were also examined.

METHODS

126 abdominal radiographs reported by 3 RRs in clinical practice were randomly selected and reported by a consultant radiologist and index gastrointestinal radiologist. The reports of the RRs and consultant radiologist were compared against the reports made by the index radiologist for agreement by a colorectal consultant surgeon. All 126 reports were scored as being in either complete agreement, minor disagreement or major disagreement which would have resulted in a change to patient management.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in overall agreement between the consultant radiologist (CR) and RRs when compared to the index radiologist (CR: n = 90/126, 71.4% and RRs: n = 94/126, 74.6%. p = 0.57). Major disagreements were found, but there was no significant difference between both groups (CR: n = 23/126, 18.3% and RRs: n = 17/126, 13.5%. p = 0.30).

CONCLUSION

RRs can report abdominal radiographs to a comparable level of agreement as a consultant radiologist in the clinical setting. There was no significant difference in reports deemed to affect patient management.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study addresses the gap in assessing the performance of RRs reporting abdominal radiographs. This small scale study indicates that radiographers could provide additional support in the reporting of abdominal radiographs. This would help to reduce radiologist workload and enhance the role of the reporting radiographer.

CLASSIFICATION

Agreement between reporting radiographers and radiologists interpreting and reporting abdominal radiographs.