Plain abdominal radiography in acute abdominal pain—is it really necessary?

Don't be thrown for a loop: a review of internal hernias for the abdominal imager

Internal hernias are herniations of abdominal viscera, usually small bowel, through congenital or acquired openings of the peritoneum or mesentery. Congenital hernias may involve anatomic fossae such as the epiploic foramen as well as those related to abnormal peritoneal or mesenteric defects; these include left and right paraduodenal, transomental, transmesenteric, pericecal and broad ligament hernias. Acquired hernias are due to defects in the mesentery or peritoneum, usually resulting from prior surgeries, and include those associated with Roux-en-Y surgery as well as colorectal cancer resections. Internal hernias account for 5.8% of small obstructions. Obstructed internal hernias are considered surgical emergencies due to the high risk of bowel strangulation. This review summarizes the various types of congenital and acquired internal hernias, their relevant anatomy, embryology, associated surgical history and imaging appearance. We will also discuss a location-based approach to identifying internal hernias on CT, as well as complications and relevant signs, of which abdominal imagers should be vigilant.

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.

Characterizing and quantifying low-value diagnostic imaging internationally: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate and wasteful use of health care resources is a common problem, constituting 10-34% of health services spending in the western world. Even though diagnostic imaging is vital for identifying correct diagnoses and administrating the right treatment, low-value imaging-in which the diagnostic test confers little to no clinical benefit-is common and contributes to inappropriate and wasteful use of health care resources. There is a lack of knowledge on the types and extent of low-value imaging. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to identify, characterize, and quantify the extent of low-value diagnostic imaging examinations for adults and children.

METHODS

A scoping review of the published literature was performed. Medline-Ovid, Embase-Ovid, Scopus, and Cochrane Library were searched for studies published from 2010 to September 2020. The search strategy was built from medical subject headings (Mesh) for Diagnostic imaging/Radiology OR Health service misuse/Medical overuse OR Procedures and Techniques Utilization/Facilities and Services Utilization. Articles in English, German, Dutch, Swedish, Danish, or Norwegian were included.

RESULTS

A total of 39,986 records were identified and, of these, 370 studies were included in the final synthesis. Eighty-four low-value imaging examinations were identified. Imaging of atraumatic pain, routine imaging in minor head injury, trauma, thrombosis, urolithiasis, after thoracic interventions, fracture follow-up and cancer staging/follow-up were the most frequently identified low-value imaging examinations. The proportion of low-value imaging varied between 2 and 100% inappropriate or unnecessary examinations.

CONCLUSIONS

A comprehensive list of identified low-value radiological examinations for both adults and children are presented. Future research should focus on reasons for low-value imaging utilization and interventions to reduce the use of low-value imaging internationally.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD42020208072.

Are chest X-rays valuable for patients presenting to emergency departments with acute abdominal pain?

BACKGROUND

Emergency department patients presenting with acute abdominal pain are often prescribed a chest X-ray; however, the value of chest X-rays in acute abdominal pain is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to assess the value of chest X-rays in acute abdominal pain.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of 944 chest X-rays performed for acute abdominal pain was conducted. Patient clinical information, radiology reports, and findings of other diagnostic investigations were also collected. MedCal® software was used to calculate diagnostic performance of chest X-rays. A Chi-Square test was used to assess the association between positive chest X-ray findings and both age and gender.

RESULTS

Of the 944 chest X-rays identified as satisfying inclusion factors, only 10 cases (approximately 1%) demonstrated pathology that was likely to be the cause of the abdominal pain. Further analysis demonstrated the following performance metrics at 95%CI: sensitivity (12.8; 8.78-17.72); specificity (100; 98.4-100); positive predictive value (100%); negative predictive value (52.76; 51.54-53.98); accuracy (55.82; 51.17-60.40).

CONCLUSION

Chest X-ray has limited sensitivity and diagnostic value in patients presenting to the emergency department with abdominal pain and does not appear to be a useful diagnostic investigation for abdominal pain.

The use of abdominal imaging studies in children visiting emergency department was variable and unsystematic

AIM

As imaging is used for various reasons in children with acute gastrointestinal complaints, we evaluated the indications and diagnostic yield of abdominal imaging, particularly ultrasound at emergency department (ED).

METHODS

Indications and imaging reports of consecutive children who had undergone abdominal imaging in general, surgical and paediatric EDs in the Tampere University Hospital, Finland, in 2015 were collected. Symptoms, clinical findings, imaging indications and findings were categorised and further analysed.

RESULTS

Altogether 394 imaging studies, 310 ultrasounds, 72 X-rays and 12 computed tomographies (CT), for 348 children (55% boys) aged 0-16.9 years, median 7.1 years, were performed. The most common indications for ultrasound were suspected appendicitis or infection (36%) and explanation for symptoms (32%), for X-ray suspected foreign body (39%) and obstruction (39%) and for CT trauma (50%). The cause of the symptoms or a clinically significant finding was established in 23% of ultrasounds, varying from 0% to 50% depending on the indication, symptoms and age.

CONCLUSION

There was wide variation in the indications and yield of abdominal imaging. The clinical benefits, particularly those of US, were often questionable, even leading to delayed diagnosis and complications. More uniform imaging guidelines are needed in the paediatric ED.

Appropriateness of adult plain abdominal radiograph requesting in a regional Emergency Department

INTRODUCTION

Although commonly ordered, abdominal x-rays are thought to be overused and unhelpful in many emergency department patients. Our objectives were to evaluate the appropriateness of plain abdominal X-ray (AXR) requests in adult patients presenting to a Victorian regional emergency department (ED).

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was performed of all adult patients with a plain AXR requested by ED medical staff members in a regional healthcare centre in Victoria, Australia in 2016. Patient demographics, ED disposition and any further imaging results were extracted from the medical record. Indications for X-ray and clinician seniority were determined from the radiology request slips signed by the treating emergency doctor. Appropriateness of imaging was determined by comparing the indication for abdominal radiograph to local evidence-based guidelines.

RESULTS

One hundred and nine episodes of plain AXR requests met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 40 were considered inappropriate according to clinical guidelines. Overall, 36% (39/109) had normal or non-specific findings and 42% (46/109) demonstrated faecal loading, while 22% (24/109) identified pathology. Thirty-three patients had further imaging, mostly with computed tomography (CT). Junior staff members were responsible for most of the AXR requests.

CONCLUSION

In our regional hospital ED, over one third of AXRs requested for adult patients were inappropriate according to clinical guidelines. AXRs have a low diagnostic yield and frequently do not reduce the need for further imaging. The use of a clinical practice guideline and education of junior medical staff may increase the appropriate use of plain AXRs in the regional ED setting.

The evaluation of compliance with iRefer guidelines for abdominal imaging and the impact of the normal abdominal radiograph on the clinical confidence and decision making of emergency clinicians

INTRODUCTION

Attendance of adult patients to the Emergency Department (ED) with acute abdominal pain is a frequent event. Abdominal X-ray imaging (AXR) is commonly the first line of investigation but previous studies have suggested that the AXR has no place in assessing acute abdominal pain because of its low diagnostic yield and limited contribution to direct clinical decision making. However, no evaluation of the impact of a negative AXR on the clinical confidence and decision making of emergency clinicians has been undertaken. This study aims to fill this gap.

METHOD

A self-designed paper questionnaire was distributed to medical clinicians on ED placement at a single NHS trust in the South of England. The survey sought to explore the impact of the negative AXR on clinical confidence and decision making and compliance with iRefer guidelines for referring to alternative imaging modalities (ultrasound and computed tomography) should the option to refer for AXR be restricted.

RESULTS

A total of 28 (n = 28/41; 68.3%) completed questionnaires were returned. Most clinicians (n = 18/28; 64.3%) indicated that negative AXR had little impact on their clinical decision making although a small majority (n = 10/18; 55.6%) acknowledged it provided greater clinical confidence in their decision making. Variable compliance with iRefer guidelines for referral to ultrasound and computed tomography was noted.

CONCLUSION

Whilst the negative AXR did not impact on the clinical decision making of most ED clinicians, it did increase clinical confidence. Consequently, the AXR should remain a referral option in the workup for adult patients presenting with acute abdominal pain to the emergency department.

Acute Abdominal Pain Assessment in the Emergency Department: The Experience of a Greek University Hospital

Background

Acute abdominal pain (AAP) is a common symptom in the emergency department (ED). Because abdominal pain can be caused by a wide spectrum of underlying pathology, evaluation of abdominal pain in the ED requires a comprehensive approach, based on patient history, physical examination, laboratory tests and imaging studies. The aim of this study was to investigate predictive factors for admission to the hospital in patients who presented to the ED with AAP as the main symptom.

Methods

This prospective observational study enrolled 125 patients who presented with AAP in the ED of the Patras University Hospital in western Greece. The sample of patients who enrolled in the study was representative of patients who receive care in this academic institution. All patients underwent clinical examination, laboratory testing and radiological assessment. Clinical and laboratory data were analyzed in an attempt to identify clinical or laboratory factors predicting hospital admission.

Results

Based on clinical, laboratory and radiologic evaluation, 37.6% of patients enrolled in the study were admitted to the hospital, whereas 62.4% were not admitted. Compared to patients who were not admitted, patients admitted to the hospital had higher age and significantly higher inflammatory markers, white blood count and C-reactive protein (CRP). Binary logistic regression analysis showed that abnormal imaging findings (odds ratio (OR) = 6.47, 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.11 - 19.77, P < 0.001) and elevated serum CRP levels (OR = 6.24, 95% CI: 2.16 - 18.03, P < 0.001) were significant predictive factors for hospital admission.

Conclusions

Assessment of AAP remains a challenging problem in the ED. Comprehensive history combined with detailed clinical examination, appropriate laboratory testing and radiologic imaging facilitates effective assessment of patients who present in the ED with AAP and guides the decision to admit patients to the hospital for further care.