Literature DB >> 20464353

[Rational diagnostics of acute abdomen].

C W Schildberg1, J Skibbe, R Croner, V Schellerer, W Hohenberger, T Horbach.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In view of the threat that comes with an acute abdomen, it is of major importance that diagnostics are executed quickly and efficiently. In the course of this two tendencies can be differentiated: 1) general use of complex examination (e.g. CT, MRT) of all potential patients and 2) step-by-step-diagnostics with advanced diagnostics as and when required.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 444 patients with an acute abdomen as admission diagnosis were investigated. All data were evaluated prospectively and analyzed retrospectively. All patients had the same basic diagnostics consisting of aclinical history, clinical examination, laboratory examination, abdominal sonography and x-ray overview images. These examinations were supplemented when required by advanced measures, such as CT, colon enema with contrast fluid, endoscopic examination and diagnostic laparotomy.
RESULTS: Three different disease groups of unequal diagnostic need could be identified. The first group, presented in the form of an appendicitis showed that in 80% of all patients a basic diagnosis was sufficient. Advanced examination such as CT affected 14%. The negative appendectomy rate amounted to 8%. Other diseases belonging to the first group were ileus, acute biliary diseases, perforation etc. In the second group presented in the form of a diverticulitis, an advanced radiological examination was required in 84% of all cases. Similar results are also expected in cases of pancreatitis. In the third group presented in the form of coprostasis, inflammatory etiology was found in 39% of all secondary diseases. However the symptoms became clinically apparent after treatment of the coprostasis. In this group a basic diagnosis was satisfactory in 84% of cases, however, a diagnostic laparotomy was inevitable for 3% of these patients.
CONCLUSION: Generally step-by-step diagnostic approach has proven itself to be efficient. For 80% of all patients it makes advanced diagnostic measures unnecessary. The exceptions are diseases in which it is necessary to know not only the diagnosis but also the disease stage. In these cases (e.g. pancreatitis, diverticulitis etc.) advanced diagnostics should be pursued from the onset. The necessity of a diagnostic laparotomy has lost importance for 1% of all patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20464353     DOI: 10.1007/s00104-010-1938-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Chirurg        ISSN: 0009-4722            Impact factor:   0.955


  21 in total

1.  Current surgical opinion of computed tomography for acute appendicitis.

Authors:  Inderpal S Sarkaria; Soumitra R Eachempati; Michael J Weyant; Lynn J Hydo; Catherine A Barie; Joshua J Bleier; Daniel J Boffa; Philip S Barie
Journal:  Surg Infect (Larchmt)       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 2.150

Review 2.  The natural history and traditional management of appendicitis revisited: spontaneous resolution and predominance of prehospital perforations imply that a correct diagnosis is more important than an early diagnosis.

Authors:  Roland E Andersson
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 3.352

3.  Diagnostic pitfalls and accuracy of diagnosis in acute abdominal pain.

Authors:  Helena Laurell; Lars-Erik Hansson; Ulf Gunnarsson
Journal:  Scand J Gastroenterol       Date:  2006-10       Impact factor: 2.423

4.  Interpretation of computed tomography does not correlate with laboratory or pathologic findings in surgically confirmed acute appendicitis.

Authors:  M J Weyant; S R Eachempati; M A Maluccio; D E Rivadeneira; S R Grobmyer; L J Hydo; P S Barie
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2000-08       Impact factor: 3.982

5.  Acute diverticulitis--clinical presentation and differential diagnostics.

Authors:  H Laurell; L-E Hansson; U Gunnarsson
Journal:  Colorectal Dis       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 3.788

6.  [Diagnostic laparoscopy and laparoscopic appendectomy in the diagnosis and therapy concept of abdominal pain of unknown origin].

Authors:  V Lippert; J Zaage; F Pilz
Journal:  Zentralbl Chir       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 0.942

7.  Defining the current negative appendectomy rate: for whom is preoperative computed tomography making an impact?

Authors:  Patrick L Wagner; Soumitra R Eachempati; Kevin Soe; Frederic M Pieracci; Jian Shou; Philip S Barie
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.982

8.  The value of plain abdominal radiographs in management of abdominal emergencies in Luth.

Authors:  J A Ashindoitiang; A O Atoyebi; R A Arogundade
Journal:  Nig Q J Hosp Med       Date:  2008 Jul-Sep

Review 9.  Nontraumatic abdominal emergencies: acute abdominal pain: diagnostic strategies.

Authors:  B Marincek
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2002-07-19       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  Acute abdominal pain: diagnostic impact of immediate CT scanning.

Authors:  Cecilia Strömberg; Gunnar Johansson; Anders Adolfsson
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 3.282

View more
  1 in total

1.  Diagnostic, Therapy and Complications in Acute Appendicitis of 19,749 Cases Based on Routine Data: A Retrospective Multicenter Observational Study.

Authors:  Claus W Schildberg; Kathrin Reissig; Richard Hunger; Christoph Paasch; Rosi Stillger; René Mantke
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2022-08-02       Impact factor: 4.964

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.