Acute surgical conditions of the abdomen

Prospective validation of two systems of classification for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were (1) to validate the Alvarado score and pediatric appendicitis score (PAS) in a prospectively identified pediatric cohort and (2) to assess abdominal ultrasonography (AUS) as a tool to increase the diagnostic reliability of both scores.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Prospective study conducted from January 10, 2008, to January 1, 2009. All patients attended at the emergency department with suspected acute appendicitis (AA) who had a blood sample collected were included. Items from both scores were recorded. The performance of an AUS, the decision to admit the patient, and the therapeutics were decided by the physician, disregarding the scores values. Nonadmitted patients were contacted by telephone.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine patients were included. Mean age was 11 years, and 62.6% were males. Appendectomy was performed in 44.4% patients. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the Alvarado score was 0.96 and that for PAS was 0.97. Not a single patient with an Alvarado score less than 5 or PAS less than 4 had AA. All patients with an Alvarado score greater than 8 or PAS greater than 7 had AA. For both scores, the optimum cutoff point was 6 (sensibility of 90.4% and specificity of 91.2% for the Alvarado score and sensibility of 88.1% and specificity of 98.2% for PAS). Abdominal ultrasonography was performed on 31 patients (sensibility of 84.6% and specificity of 94.4%). We studied the value of scores and AUS together. Assuming an Alvarado score from 1 to 4 and PAS from 1 to 3 as no AA, an Alvarado score from 9 to 10 and PAS from 8 to 9 as AA, and proceeding according to the AUS for intermediate values, a sensibility of 93.3% and 97.2% and a specificity of 100% and 97.6%, respectively, were obtained.

CONCLUSIONS

Both scores are a useful tool in the evaluation of children with possible AA. For extreme values of scores, the results really ensure their use in the emergency department. The AUS can help on decision making for intermediate values.

Prospective validation of the pediatric appendicitis score

OBJECTIVE

To prospectively validate the Pediatric Appendicitis Score (PAS), developed on a cohort of children with abdominal pain suggestive of appendicitis, in unselected children with abdominal pain who present to the emergency department.

STUDY DESIGN

Over a 19-month period, we prospectively recruited children 1 to 17 years old who came to our tertiary pediatric emergency department, with a chief complaint of abdominal pain of duration less than 7 days. PAS components included fever >38 degrees C, anorexia, nausea/vomiting, cough/percussion/hopping tenderness (2 points), right-lower-quadrant tenderness (2 points), migration of pain, leukocytosis >10 000 cells/mm(3), and polymorphonuclear neutrophilia > 7500 cells/mm(3). A follow-up call was made to verify final outcome. Sensitivity, specificity, and the receiver operating characteristic curve of the PAS with respect to diagnosis of appendicitis were calculated.

RESULTS

We collected data on 849 children. 123 (14.5%) had pathologic study-proven appendicitis. Mean (median, range) score for children with appendicitis and without appendicitis was 7.0 (7, 2-10) and 1.9 (1, 0-9), respectively. If a cutoff PAS of <or=2 was used to discharge patients without further investigation, only 3 (2.4%) with appendicitis would be sent home. If a PAS of >or=7 was used to take children to the operating room without further investigation, only 29 (4%) would not have appendicitis. For the PAS the area under the receiver operator curve was 0.95.

CONCLUSIONS

The PAS is useful, because a value <or=2 (found in 73% of children without appendicitis) has high validity for ruling out appendicitis, and a score >or=7 (found in 61% of children with appendicitis) has a high validity for predicting the presence of appendicitis. Children with PAS of 3 to 6 (37% with appendicitis and 23% without appendicitis in this study) should undergo further investigation such as observation, ultrasonography, or computed tomography.

The effectiveness and safety of spinal anaesthesia in the pyloromyotomy procedure

BACKGROUND

Hypertrophic pyloric stenosis is a relatively common disorder of the gastrointestinal tract in infancy, causing projectile vomiting and metabolic abnormalities. Surgical management in the form of pyloromyotomy under general anaesthesia has been reported as safe for relieving the obstructed bowel. A number of studies have demonstrated the advantages of spinal anaesthesia over general anaesthesia in high risk infants undergoing minor infraumbilical surgery. The purpose of this study was to evaluate spinal anaesthesia as an alternative option to general anaesthesia in infants undergoing pyloromyotomy.

METHODS

Twenty-five infants undergoing pyloromyotomy under spinal anaesthesia were studied. Haemodynamic and respiratory parameters were noted before performing the spinal block, 5 min after the spinal block, and every 10 min after performing the spinal block; for a total period of 30 min. The spinal block was performed using spinal isobaric bupivacaine 0.5%, 0.8 mg.kg-1. Blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate and oxygen saturation values were recorded.

RESULTS

The sensory levels achieved ranged between T3-T5 thoracic segments within 6-8 min and were sufficient to perform surgery in 23 cases. There were no statistically significant differences in the oxygen saturation, systolic blood pressure and respiratory rate compared with before the spinal block and after 5, 10, 20 and 30 min.

CONCLUSIONS

This study proposes that spinal anaesthesia is an alternative option to general anaesthesia in infants undergoing pyloromyotomy, and should be considered in infants undergoing pyloromyotomy.

The approach to common abdominal diagnosis in infants and children

This article focuses on salient points in the evaluation of abdominal pain in infants and children. Specifically, the authors address appendicitis and abdominal pain associated with either vomiting, constipation, or gastrointestinal bleeding. A discussion of common abdominal masses, urologic, and gynecologic problems, and considerations in the evaluation of immunologically suppressed or neurologically impaired children, and children with recurrent abdominal pain is also presented. The authors establish logical, focused approaches to the initial evaluation and management of abdominal pain and suggest criteria for timely surgical referral.

A comparison of awake versus paralyzed tracheal intubation for infants with pyloric stenosis

This prospective, nonrandomized, observational study of 76 infants with pyloric stenosis was conducted at an academic children's hospital and compared awake versus paralyzed tracheal intubation in terms of successful first attempt rate, intubation time, heart rate (HR) and arterial hemoglobin oxygen saturation (SpO2) changes, and complications. Three groups were determined by intubation method: awake (A) with an oxygen-insufflating laryngoscope, after rapid-sequence induction (R), or after modified rapid-sequence induction (M) including ventilation through cricoid pressure. Successful first attempt intubation rate was 64% for Group A versus 87% for paralyzed Groups R and M (P = 0.028). Median intubation time was 63 s in Group A versus 34 s in Groups R and M (P = 0.004). Transient, mild decreases in mean HR and SpO2 and incidences of significant bradycardia and decreased SpO2 did not vary by group. Complications, including bronchial or esophageal intubation, emesis, and oropharyngeal trauma, were few. Senior anesthesiologists intervened in four tracheal intubations. We advocate anesthetized, paralyzed tracheal intubation because struggling with conscious infants takes longer, often requires multiple attempts, and prevents neither bradycardia nor decreased SpO2. After induction, additional mask ventilation with O2 confers no advantage over immediate tracheal intubation in preserving SpO2.

IMPLICATIONS

In our children's hospital, awake tracheal intubation was not superior to anesthetized, paralyzed intubation in maintaining adequate oxygenation and heart rate or in reducing complications, and should be abandoned in favor of the latter technique for routine anesthetic management of otherwise healthy infants with pyloric stenosis.

Gastric fluid volume in infants for pyloromyotomy

PURPOSE

To quantify gastric fluid volumes in infants with pyloric stenosis presenting for pyloromyotomy and to demonstrate endoscopically the efficacy of blind aspiration for gastric fluid recovery. We hypothesized that previous diagnostic contrast studies, preoperative nasogastric suction, and fasting interval would not affect these volumes.

METHODS

Seventy-five infants scheduled for pyloromyotomy were given atropine before induction of anaesthesia. For those who had undergone preoperative nasogastric suction, the nasogastric tube was aspirated and removed. A 14 F multiorificed orogastric catheter was blindly passed to aspirate gastric fluid for measurement. Following tracheal intubation, 15/75 subjects underwent gastroscopy to measure residual gastric fluid.

RESULTS

Gastric fluid volume removed by blind aspiration averaged 4.8 +/- 4.3 ml.kg-1 with 83% of patients having > 1.25 ml.kg-1. Although 14 of the 15 patients evaluated by endoscope had < or = 1 ml residual gastric fluid, one had 1.8 ml.kg-1. Recovery of total gastric fluid volume by blind aspiration averaged 96 +/- 7%. The large gastric fluid volumes were independent of a history of barium study, preoperative nasogastric suction, and fasting interval.

CONCLUSION

Infants with pyloric stenosis have large gastric fluid volumes which are not substantially reduced by preoperative nasogastric suction. Blind aspiration of gastric contents prior to induction of anaesthesia provides a reliable estimate of total gastric fluid for most of these infants, although the occasional infant may retain a small amount of gastric fluid. The clinical importance of such a residual volume is uncertain.

The evaluation of acute abdominal pain in children

The infant or child that presents with abdominal pain must be evaluated with a careful history, physical examination, and selective laboratory studies. There are a few diagnoses that the emergency physician should always consider as "life threatening." In the event of any uncertainty in the diagnosis of conditions like appendicitis, pyloric stenosis, or intussusception, the child or infant should be observed carefully over time with appropriate laboratory/radiologic studies ordered to further delineate pathology. Ultrasound evaluation of children with abdominal pain continues to be one of the most valuable tools to help diagnose different conditions.