OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of CT on the diagnosis and management of acute abdominal pain in patients who did not undergo surgery and to determine what population of patients would profit most from CT examination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical data and CT reports of 91 patients with acute abdomen (41 men and 50 women, 22-96 years old) were analyzed retrospectively. The accuracies of clinical evaluation and CT in revealing the cause of acute abdomen were compared, and the effect of CT on patient management was assessed. Analysis included the entire population of patients and these subgroups: (1) patients who had symptoms for fewer than 24 hr versus patients who had symptoms for 24 hr or more and (2) patients who had a history of abdominal diseases versus patients who had no such history. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients had signs or symptoms for fewer than 24 hr, and 62 patients had signs or symptoms for 24 hr or more. Fifty-nine patients had a history of abdominal disease, and 32 had no history of abdominal disease. In the entire population of patients, CT was superior to clinical evaluation for diagnosing the cause of acute abdomen (sensitivity was 90% for CT and 76% for clinical evaluation, p < .0005). Management was changed after CT in 25 patients (p < .0005). Similar differences were observed in the subgroups of patients with signs and symptoms for fewer than 24 hr, patients with signs and symptoms for 24 hr or more, and patients with no history of abdominal disease (p < .05). In the subgroup of patients with a history of abdominal disease, the differences between clinical evaluation and CT were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: CT is an excellent examination technique for patients with acute abdomen, regardless of the duration of signs and symptoms. CT is particularly useful in defining the cause and therapeutic strategy in patients with acute abdomen who have no history of abdominal disease.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of CT on the diagnosis and management of acute abdominal pain in patients who did not undergo surgery and to determine what population of patients would profit most from CT examination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical data and CT reports of 91 patients with acute abdomen (41 men and 50 women, 22-96 years old) were analyzed retrospectively. The accuracies of clinical evaluation and CT in revealing the cause of acute abdomen were compared, and the effect of CT on patient management was assessed. Analysis included the entire population of patients and these subgroups: (1) patients who had symptoms for fewer than 24 hr versus patients who had symptoms for 24 hr or more and (2) patients who had a history of abdominal diseases versus patients who had no such history. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients had signs or symptoms for fewer than 24 hr, and 62 patients had signs or symptoms for 24 hr or more. Fifty-nine patients had a history of abdominal disease, and 32 had no history of abdominal disease. In the entire population of patients, CT was superior to clinical evaluation for diagnosing the cause of acute abdomen (sensitivity was 90% for CT and 76% for clinical evaluation, p < .0005). Management was changed after CT in 25 patients (p < .0005). Similar differences were observed in the subgroups of patients with signs and symptoms for fewer than 24 hr, patients with signs and symptoms for 24 hr or more, and patients with no history of abdominal disease (p < .05). In the subgroup of patients with a history of abdominal disease, the differences between clinical evaluation and CT were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: CT is an excellent examination technique for patients with acute abdomen, regardless of the duration of signs and symptoms. CT is particularly useful in defining the cause and therapeutic strategy in patients with acute abdomen who have no history of abdominal disease.
Authors: Joseph P Coyle; Cressida R Brennan; Shane F Parfrey; Owen J O'Connor; Patrick D Mc Laughlin; Sebastian R Mc Williams; Michael M Maher Journal: Emerg Radiol Date: 2012-04-25
Authors: Chaan S Ng; Christopher J E Watson; Christopher R Palmer; Teik Choon See; Nigel A Beharry; Barbara A Housden; J Andrew Bradley; Adrian K Dixon Journal: BMJ Date: 2002-12-14
Authors: Tiina Lehtimäki; Petri Juvonen; Hannu Valtonen; Pekka Miettinen; Hannu Paajanen; Ritva Vanninen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 5.315