RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: This case report presents a discrepancy in sonographic findings between a screening sonography performed by a Sonographer in the Basic Emergency Service (BES) and a subsequent ultrasound performed by a Radiologist physician in a Referral Hospital (RH). The aim of this report is to discuss the possible reasons for the discrepancy and its implications for patient care. CASE PRESENTATION: A patient with a history of epigastric pain and vomiting underwent screening sonography in a BES, which suggested Intrahepatic Biliary Dilatation Duct (IHBD) and main pancreatic duct dilatation. The patient was subsequently referred to the RH for further evaluation. However, the Radiologist in the RH did not confirm any of the initial suspicions from BES through a normal ultrasound procedure. The discrepancy raises questions regarding the quality of the screening ultrasound, misinterpretation of the BES images, or the potential for ambiguity in the point of care ultrasound (POCUS) exam. CONCLUSION: The differences in sonographic findings between BES and RH, in this case, suggest that the improvement of the patient's clinical condition and therapeutic interventions may have contributed to the discrepancy. Further investigation and standardization of POCUS training and interpretation may improve diagnostic accuracy and patient outcomes.
RESUMEN
Background and Aims: The use of ultrasound screening is primarily facilitated by point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) and its integration into healthcare systems is a result of the versatility of this imaging technique. This study intends to compare the accuracy and pertinence of sonographic findings obtained by a sonographer in a Basic Emergency Service (BES) with that of radiologists at referral hospital (RH) in Portugal. Methods: Twenty patients with right upper quadrant (RUQ) pain and suspected cholecystitis or biliary pathology underwent sonography screening using POCUS in the BES. They were then forwarded to the RH where a radiologist performed a conventional ultrasound exam on the same patients. The results of both exams were compared to determine if the findings obtained in the BES were confirmed by the radiologist in the RH. Results: In our sample, 60% of cases were related to biliary pathology, 20% were liver-related, 10% had hepatopancreatic biliary etiology, and 10% had unknown etiology. A strong association between the sonographic findings in the BES and the RH was found in the variables "Sonographic Murphy sign" (V = 0.859; p = 0.001), "Cholelithiasis/Gallbladder sludge" (V = 0.840; p = 0.001), and "Intrahepatic biliary tract dilatation" (V = 0.717; p = 0.006). Adequate measures of agreement between the findings of the radiographer and radiologist were obtained for the "Sonographic Murphy sign" (k = 0.664; p = 0.001) and the presence of "Cholelithiasis/Gallbladder sludge" (k = 0.712; p = 0.000). Conclusion: Major biliary abnormalities were detected in patients with RUQ pain in BES using sonography. The correlation between the sonographic findings obtained by the sonographers at BES and those obtained by radiologists at the RH in Portugal was strong, showing that POCUS screening could be extended to other similar settings; however, more studies are needed.
