[Impact of computed tomography on patient's care in nontraumatic acute abdomen: 90 patients]

Transvaginal US vs. CT in non-pregnant premenopausal women presenting to the ED: clinical impact of the second examination when both are performed

Objective

To determine the clinical impact of the second examination when both CT and TVUS are obtained in the same ED visit for acute pelvic/lower abdominal symptoms in non-pregnant premenopausal women.

Methods

200 consecutive non-pregnant premenopausal women (mean age, 31.8 years; range, 18–49 years) who underwent both ED-based TVUS and abdominopelvic CT evaluation for acute symptoms over a 12 month period were included; 107 women had TVUS first, followed by CT; 93 women had CT first. All relevant clinical, radiologic, and pathologic findings were reviewed to establish a final diagnosis. Any additional clinical impact provided by the second imaging test was assessed by two experienced abdominal radiologists.

Results

Initial TVUS was interpreted as normal (n = 63) or mentioned incidental findings (n = 11) in 69% (74/107); subsequent CT established a non-gynecologic GI/GU etiology in 25 (34%). For 37% (34/93) of CT exams interpreted as normal, TVUS added no new information. In 32 cases (34%), TVUS further excluded ovarian torsion/adnexal pathology when initial CT was indeterminate/equivocal. Overall, CT following TVUS provided a key new or alternative diagnosis in 26% (28/107), whereas TVUS after CT provided a relevant new/alternative diagnosis in only 1/93 cases (p < 0.001). In nine cases (8%), CT confirmed a positive US diagnosis but detected relevant additional diagnostic information.

Conclusion

CT following negative TVUS frequently identified a non-gynecologic cause of acute pelvic or lower abdominal symptoms in non-pregnant premenopausal women, whereas the main benefit of TVUS after CT was more confident exclusion of ovarian torsion.

Graphical abstract

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00261-022-03504-6.

Added value of double reading in diagnostic radiology,a systematic review

Objectives

Double reading in diagnostic radiology can find discrepancies in the original report, but a systematic program of double reading is resource consuming. There are conflicting opinions on the value of double reading. The purpose of the current study was to perform a systematic review on the value of double reading.

Methods

A systematic review was performed to find studies calculating the rate of misses and overcalls with the aim of establishing the added value of double reading by human observers.

Results

The literature search resulted in 1610 hits. After abstract and full-text reading, 46 articles were selected for analysis. The rate of discrepancy varied from 0.4 to 22% depending on study setting. Double reading by a sub-specialist, in general, led to high rates of changed reports.

Conclusions

The systematic review found rather low discrepancy rates. The benefit of double reading must be balanced by the considerable number of working hours a systematic double-reading scheme requires. A more profitable scheme might be to use systematic double reading for selected, high-risk examination types. A second conclusion is that there seems to be a value of sub-specialisation for increased report quality. A consequent implementation of this would have far-reaching organisational effects.

Key Points

• In double reading, two or more radiologists read the same images.

• A systematic literature review was performed.

• The discrepancy rates varied from 0.4 to 22% in various studies.

• Double reading by sub-specialists found high discrepancy rates.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s13244-018-0599-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorised users.

Guideline for the diagnostic pathway in patients with acute abdominal pain

INTRODUCTION

Diagnostic practice for acute abdominal pain at the Emergency Department varies widely and is mostly based on doctor's preferences. We aimed at developing an evidence-based guideline for the diagnostic pathway of patients with abdominal pain of non-traumatic origin.

METHODS

All available international literature on patients with acute abdominal pain was identified and graded according to their methodological quality by members of the multidisciplinary steering group. A guideline was synthetized, providing evidence-based recommendations together with considerations based on expertise of group members, patient preferences, costs, availability of facilities, and organizational aspects.

DEFINITION

Uniform terminology is needed in patients with acute abdominal pain to avoid difficulty in interpretation and ease comparison of findings between studies. We propose the use of the following definition for acute abdominal pain: pain of nontraumatic origin with a maximum duration of 5 days. Clinical diagnosis: Clinical evaluation is advised to differentiate between urgent and nonurgent causes. The diagnostic accuracy of clinical assessment is insufficient to identify the correct diagnosis but can discriminate between urgent and nonurgent causes. Patients suspected of nonurgent diagnoses can safely be reevaluated the next day. Based on current literature, no conclusions can be drawn on the differences in accuracy between residents and specialists. No conclusions can be drawn on the influence of a gynecological consultation. In patients suspected of an urgent condition, additional imaging is justified. CRP and WBC count alone are insufficient to discriminate urgent from nonurgent diagnoses. Diagnostic imaging: There is no place for conventional radiography in the work-up of patients with acute abdominal pain due to the lack of added value on top of clinical assessment. Computed tomography leads to the highest sensitivity and specificity in patients with acute abdominal pain. Positive predictive value of ultrasound is comparable with CT and therefore preferred as the first imaging modality due to the downsides of computed tomography; negative or inconclusive ultrasound is followed by CT. Based on current literature, no conclusions can be drawn on the added value of a diagnostic laparoscopy in the work-up of patients with acute abdominal pain. Antibiotic treatment should be started within the first hour after recognition of sepsis. Administration of opioids (analgesics) decreases the intensity of the pain and does not affect the accuracy of physical examination.

2013 WSES guidelines for management of intra-abdominal infections

Despite advances in diagnosis, surgery, and antimicrobial therapy, mortality rates associated with complicated intra-abdominal infections remain exceedingly high.The 2013 update of the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) guidelines for the management of intra-abdominal infections contains evidence-based recommendations for management of patients with intra-abdominal infections.

Evaluation of the utility of abdominal CT scans in the diagnosis, management, outcome and information given at discharge of patients with non-traumatic acute abdominal pain

OBJECTIVES

The role of CT imaging in the diagnosis and management of acute abdominal pain is well established, but its utility is limited in a minority of cases. The aim of this study was to quantify the degree to which radiological and clinical findings differ. Interobserver variability in CT reporting was also assessed.

METHODS

Clinical data and CT reports were analysed retrospectively for any discrepancies by comparing CT diagnosis, clinical diagnosis as stated on the discharge summary and final diagnosis (based on consensus review of all information). Blinded review of all CT imaging was performed to determine interobserver variability.

RESULTS

120 consecutive scans fulfilled the inclusion criteria (114 patients; 79 women; mean age 55 years). The correct clinical diagnosis was made in 87.5% of cases based on CT findings. The lack of intravenous contrast limited diagnostic interpretation in 6 of the 15 discrepant cases. CT was unable to define early inflammatory changes in three patients and early caecal carcinoma in one. A right paraduodenal internal hernia was difficult to detect in another patient. Interobserver agreement was 93%, but with a low kappa value of 0.27. A paradox exists due to an imbalance in the positive and negative agreement of 96% and 31%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The utility of CT imaging in the diagnosis and management of patients presenting with acute abdominal pain is confirmed, but is limited in a minority of cases where poor negative interobserver agreement exists. Good communication to the reporting radiologist of the relevant patient history and clinical question becomes important.

WSES consensus conference: Guidelines for first-line management of intra-abdominal infections

Intra-abdominal infections are still associated with high rate of morbidity and mortality.A multidisciplinary approach to the management of patients with intra-abdominal infections may be an important factor in the quality of care. The presence of a team of health professionals from various disciplines, working in concert, may improve efficiency, outcome, and the cost of care.A World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) Consensus Conference was held in Bologna on July 2010, during the 1st congress of the WSES, involving surgeons, infectious disease specialists, pharmacologists, radiologists and intensivists with the goal of defining recommendations for the early management of intra-abdominal infections.This document represents the executive summary of the final guidelines approved by the consensus conference.

A focus on intra-abdominal infections

Complicated intra-abdominal infections are an important cause of morbidity and are frequently associated with poor prognosis, particularly in higher risk patients.

Well defined evidence-based recommendations for intra-abdominal infections treatment are partially lacking because of the limited number of randomized-controlled trials.

Factors consistently associated with poor outcomes in patients with intra-abdominal infections include increased illness severity, failed source control, inadequate empiric antimicrobial therapy and healthcare-acquired infection.

Early prognostic evaluation of complicated intra-abdominal infections is important to select high-risk patients for more aggressive therapeutic procedures.

The cornerstones in the management of complicated intra-abdominal infections are both source control and antibiotic therapy.

The timing and the adequacy of source control are the most important issues in the management of intra-abdominal infections, because inadequate and late control of septic source may have a negative effect on the outcomes.

Recent advances in interventional and more aggressive techniques could significantly decrease the morbidity and mortality of physiologically severe complicated intra-abdominal infections, even if these are still being debated and are yet not validated by limited prospective trials.

Empiric antimicrobial therapy is nevertheless important in the overall management of intra-abdominal infections. Inappropriate antibiotic therapy may result in poor patient outcomes and in the appearance of bacterial resistance.

Antimicrobial management is generally standardised and many regimens, either with monotherapy or combination therapy, have proven their efficacy. Routine coverage especially against Enterococci and candida spp is not always recommended, but can be useful in particular clinical conditions. A de escalation approach may be recommended in patients with specific risk factors for multidrug resistant infections such as immunodeficiency and prolonged antibacterial exposure.

Therapy should focus on the obtainment of adequate source control and adequate use of antimicrobial therapy dictated by individual patient risk factors. Other critical issues remain debated and more controversies are still open mainly because of the limited number of randomized controlled trials.