The role of plain radiographs in patients with acute abdominal pain at the ED

Item does not contain fulltextOBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the added value of plain radiographs on top of clinical assessment in unselected patients presenting with acute abdominal pain at the emergency department (ED). METHODS: In a multicenter prospective trial, patients with abdominal pain more than 2 hours and less than 5 days presented at the ED were evaluated clinically, and a diagnosis was made by the treating physician. Subsequently, all patients underwent supine abdominal and upright chest radiographs, after which the diagnosis was reassessed by the treating physician. A final (reference) diagnosis was assigned by an expert panel. The number of changes in the primary diagnosis, as well as the accuracy of these changes, was calculated. Changes in the level of confidence were evaluated for unchanged diagnoses. RESULTS: Between March 2005 and November 2006, 1021 patients, 55% female, mean age 47 years (range, 19-94 years), were included. In 117 of 1021 patients, the diagnosis changed after plain radiographs, and this change was correct in 39 patients (22% of changed diagnoses and 4% of total study population). Overall, the clinical diagnosis was correct in 502 (49%) patients. The diagnosis after evaluation of the radiographs was correct in 514 (50%) patients, a nonsignificant difference (P = .14). In 65% of patients with unchanged diagnosis before and after plain radiography, the level of confidence of that diagnosis did not change either. CONCLUSION: The added value of plain radiographs is too limited to advocate their routine use in the diagnostic workup of patients with acute abdominal pain, because few diagnoses change and the level of confidence were mostly not affected

Saccular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Patient Characteristics, Clinical Presentation, Treatment, and Outcomes in the Netherlands

Objective: The aim of this was to analyze differences between saccularshaped abdominal aortic aneurysms (SaAAAs) and fusiform abdominal aortic aneurysms (FuAAAs) regarding patient characteristics, treatment, and outcome, to advise a threshold for intervention for SaAAAs.Background: Based on the assumption that SaAAAs are more prone to rupture, guidelines suggest early elective treatment. However, little is known about the natural history of SaAAAs and the threshold for intervention is not substantiated.Methods: Observational study including primary repairs of degenerative AAAs in the Netherlands between 2016 and 2018 in which the shape was registered, registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA). Patients were stratified by urgency of surgery; elective versus acute (symptomatic/ruptured). Patient characteristics, treatment, and outcome were compared between SaAAAs and FuAAAs.Results: A total of 7659 primary AAA-patients were included, 6.1% (n = 471) SaAAAs and 93.9% (n = 7188) FuAAAs. There were 5945 elective patients (6.5% SaAAA) and 1714 acute (4.8% SaAAA). Acute SaAAApatients were more often female (28.9% vs 17.2%, P = 0.007) compared with acute FuAAA-patients. SaAAAs had smaller diameters than FuAAAs, in elective (53.0mm vs 61 mm, P = 0.000) and acute (68mm vs 75 mm, P = 0.002) patients, even after adjusting for sex. In addition, 25.2% of acute SaAAA-patients presented with diameters <55mm and 8.4% <45 mm, versus 8.1% and 0.6% of acute FuAAA-patients (P = 0.000). Postoperative outcomes did not significantly differ between shapes in both elective and acute patients.Conclusions: SaAAAs become acute at smaller diameters than FuAAAs in DSAA patients. This study therefore supports the current idea that SaAAAs should be electively treated at smaller diameters than FuAAAs. The exact diameter threshold for elective treatment of SaAAAs is difficult to determine, but a diameter of 45mm seems to be an acceptable threshold.Vascular Surger