[Abdominal pain]. / Buikpijn.

Abdominal pain can be part of a variety of abdominal and non-abdominal conditions. Individual symptoms and signs from history taking and physical examination have limited discriminatory value for a clear diagnosis. Additional laboratory testing strategies and imaging techniques can provide more guidance in this respect. In this article, we will answer specific practical questions with respect to abdominal pain. Topics discussed include various abdominal conditions, diagnostic markers, the diagnostic value of imaging techniques and the most recent changes in the policies for the diagnosis of appendicitis, cholecystitis and diverticulitis.

Daytime versus Nighttime in Acute Appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about patients with appendicitis presenting at nighttime. It is hypothesized that patients presented at night more frequently have a complicated (gangrenous or perforated) appendicitis and therefore develop more postoperative complications. METHODS: In this study data were used from the nationwide, prospective SNAPSHOT study appendicitis, including 1975 patients undergoing surgery for suspected appendicitis. This study included only adults. Two primary outcomes were defined: (A) The proportion of patients with complicated appendicitis and (B) the proportion of patients with a complication postoperatively presenting during daytime versus nighttime period. Analysis for both complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis was performed, and a multivariate model was used to correct for baseline characteristics and time to surgery. RESULTS: In total, 1361 adult patients with appendicitis were analyzed. Both at nighttime and at daytime, 34% had complicated appendicitis. In patients presenting in the daytime, 12.1% developed a postoperative complication versus 18.6% for presentation at night (p = 0.008). In a multivariate analysis, the risk for a postoperative complication when presenting at night was significantly increased (adjusted OR 1.74; 95% CI 1.14-2.66, p = 0.01). Surgery within eight hours after presentation does not lower this risk (adjusted OR 1.37; 95% CI 0.97-1.95, p = 0.078). CONCLUSION: Complicated appendicitis is seen as frequently during the day as at nighttime. For patients who present at nighttime with acute appendicitis, the risk of a postoperative complication is higher compared with a presentation at daytime. In multivariate analysis, nighttime presentation but not surgery within 8 h after presentation is independently associated with postoperative complication risk.

Optimising diagnostics to discriminate complicated from uncomplicated appendicitis: a prospective cohort study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Growing evidence is showing that complicated and uncomplicated appendicitis are two different entities that may be treated differently. A correct diagnosis of the type of appendicitis is therefore essential. The Scoring system of Appendicitis Severity (SAS) combines clinical, laboratory and imaging findings. The SAS rules out complicated appendicitis in 95% (negative predictive value, NPV) and detects 95% (sensitivity) of patients with complicated appendicitis in adults suspected of acute appendicitis. However, this scoring system has not yet been validated externally. In this study, we aim to provide a prospective external validation of the SAS in a new cohort of patients with clinical suspicion of appendicitis. We will optimise the score when necessary. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The SAS will be validated in 795 consecutive adult patients diagnosed with acute appendicitis confirmed by imaging. Data will be collected prospectively in multiple centres. The predicted diagnosis based on the SAS score will be compared with the combined surgical and histological diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy for ruling out complicated appendicitis will be calculated. If the SAS does not reach a sensitivity and NPV of 95% in its present form, the score will be optimised. After optimisation, a second external validation will be performed in a new group of 328 patients. Furthermore, the diagnostic accuracy of the clinical perspective of the treating physician for differentiation between uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis and the patient's preferences for different treatment options will be assessed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was granted by the Amsterdam UMC Medical Ethics Committee (reference W19_416 # 19.483). Because of the observational nature of this study, the study does not fall under the scope of the Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act. Results will be presented in peer-reviewed journals. This protocol is submitted for publication before analysis of the results.

Re-Assessment in Patients with Suspected Acute Appendicitis.

Background: The effect of diagnosing appendicitis at re-assessment on post-operative outcomes is not clear. This study aims to compare patients diagnosed with appendicitis at initial presentation versus patients who were diagnosed at re-assessment. Patients and Methods: Data from the Dutch SNAPSHOT appendicitis collaborative was used. Patients with appendicitis who underwent appendectomy were included. Effects of diagnosis at re-assessment were compared with diagnosis at initial presentation. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients with complicated appendicitis and the post-operative complication rate. Results: Of 1,832 patients, 245 (13.4%) were diagnosed at re-assessment. Re-assessed patients had a post-operative complication rate comparable to those diagnosed with appendicitis at initial presentation (15.1% vs. 12.7%; p = 0.29) and no substantial difference was found in the proportion of patients with complicated appendicitis (27.9% vs. 33.5%; p = 0.07). For patients with complicated appendicitis, more post-operative complications were seen if diagnosed at re-assessment than if diagnosed initially (38.2% vs. 22.9%; p = 0.006). Conclusions: For patients in whom appendicitis was not diagnosed at first presentation, but at re-assessment, both the proportion of complicated appendicitis and the post-operative complication rate were comparable to those who were diagnosed with appendicitis at initial presentation. However, re-assessed patients with complicated appendicitis encountered more post-operative complications.

A Systematic review and meta-analysis of sensate versus non-sensate flaps for the prevention of pressure ulcer recurrence among individuals with spinal cord disease.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: To identify, critically appraise, and synthesize research findings on non-sensate versus sensate flaps among individuals with spinal cord disease and pelvic pressure ulcers, with pressure ulcer recurrence as primary outcome. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL were screened for relevant studies. Data on surgical characteristics, ulcer recurrence, and sensory outcomes were retrieved and tabulated. Risk of bias was assessed with MINORS. The level of evidence was evaluated with GRADE. Meta-analysis was performed when possible. RESULTS: Meta-analysis of 1794 non-sensate locoregional reconstructions indicated a recurrence rate of 34% within several years (95% CI, 27-42). Twenty-one articles provided data on 75 sensate reconstructions, performed in 74 individuals. Meta-analysis of the sensate reconstructions indicated a recurrence rate of 1% (95% CI, 0-8). Sensate reconstructions were not associated with an increase of wound complications (19%; 95% CI, 7-40) compared with non-sensate ones (34%; 95% CI, 27-42). A very low level of evidence was determined with use of GRADE. CONCLUSION: Although of a very low-level, the present evidence suggests that restoration of sensory innervation may be an effective intervention for the prevention of pressure ulcer recurrence among individuals with spinal cord disease. A prospective RCT is needed to confirm or refute the results of this systematic review.

A systematic review evaluating the influence of incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy on scarring.

Pathological scars can result in functional impairment, disfigurement, a psychological burden, itch, and even chronic pain. We conducted a systematic review to investigate the influence of incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy (iNPWT) on scarring. PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched for preclinical and clinical comparative studies that investigated the influence of iNPWT on scarring-related outcomes. Individual studies were assessed using the OHAT Risk of Bias Rating Tool for Human and Animal studies. The body of evidence was rated using OHAT methodology. Six preclinical studies and nine clinical studies (377 patients) were identified. Preclinical studies suggested that iNPWT reduced lateral tension on incisions, increased wound strength, and reduced scar width upon histological assessment. Two clinical studies reported improved patient-reported scar satisfaction as measured with the PSAS (1 year after surgery), POSAS, and a VAS (both 42, 90, and 180 days after surgery). Five clinical studies reported improved observer-reported scar satisfaction as measured with the VSS, SBSES, OSAS, MSS, VAS, and POSAS (7, 15, 30, 42, 90, 180, and 365 days after surgery). Three clinical studies did not detect significant differences at any point in time (POSAS, VAS, and NRS). Because of imprecision concerns, a moderate level of evidence was identified using OHAT methodology. Preclinical as well as clinical evidence indicates a beneficial influence of iNPWT on scarring. Moderate level evidence indicates that iNPWT decreases scar width and improves patient and observer-reported scar satisfaction.

Meta-analysis, Meta-regression, and GRADE Assessment of Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies of Incisional Negative Pressure Wound Therapy Versus Control Dressings for the Prevention of Postoperative Wound Complications.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of iNPWT for the prevention of postoperative wound complications such as SSI. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The 2016 WHO recommendation on the use of iNPWT for the prevention of SSI is based on low-level evidence, and many trials have been published since. Preclinical evidence suggests that iNPWT may also prevent wound dehiscence, skin necrosis, seroma, and hematoma. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL were searched for randomized and nonrandomized studies that compared iNPWT with control dressings. The evidence was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, and GRADE. Meta-analyses were performed using random-effects models. RESULTS: High level evidence indicated that iNPWT reduced SSI [28 RCTs, n = 4398, relative risk (RR) 0.61, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.49-0.76, P < 0.0001, I = 27%] with a number needed to treat of 19. Low level evidence indicated that iNPWT reduced wound dehiscence (16 RCTs, n = 3058, RR 0.78, 95% CI: 0.64-0.94). Very low-level evidence indicated that iNPWT also reduced skin necrosis (RR 0.49, 95% CI: 0.33-0.74), seroma (RR 0.43, 95% CI: 0.32-0.59), and length of stay (pooled mean difference -2.01, 95% CI: -2.99 to 1.14). CONCLUSIONS: High-level evidence indicates that incisional iNPWT reduces the risk of SSI with limited heterogeneity. Low to very low-level evidence indicates that iNPWT also reduces the risk of wound dehiscence, skin necrosis, and seroma.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Pressure-Induced Vasodilation Phenomenon and Its Role in the Pathophysiology of Ulcers.

BACKGROUND: Physiologic studies show that tissue perfusion increases during moderate amounts of tissue compression. This is attributed to sensory nerves initiating a vasodilatory cascade referred to as pressure-induced vasodilation. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies investigating perfusion during pressure exposure longer than 10 minutes. Retrieved studies were assessed using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation Risk of Bias Rating Tool for Human and Animal Studies. Results were pooled with random effects models. The body of evidence was rated using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation approach. RESULTS: Twenty-nine articles were included, of which 19 articles were included in meta-analyses. The evidence indicates that moderate amounts of tissue compression have the capacity to increase perfusion in healthy humans by 46 percent (95 percent CI, 30 to 62 percent). Using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation approach, the authors found a high level of confidence in the body of evidence. Pressure-induced vasodilation blockade was associated with increased pressure ulcer formation. Pressure-induced vasodilation was impaired by neuropathy and by the drugs diclofenac and amiloride. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis indicates that healthy humans have the capacity to increase local perfusion in response to mechanical stress resulting from tissue compression. Because pressure-induced vasodilation is mediated by sensory nerves, pressure-induced vasodilation emphasizes the importance of sensory innervation for durable tissue integrity. Pressure-induced vasodilation impairment seems to provide a complementary explanation for the susceptibility of neuropathic tissues to pressure-induced lesions.

Accuracy of Routine Endoscopy Diagnosing Colonic Ischaemia After Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair: A Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Colonic ischaemia (CI) is a devastating complication after abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery. The aim of this review was to evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy of routine endoscopy in diagnosing CI after treatment for elective and acute AAA. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Pubmed and Embase database searches resulted in 1188 articles. Prospective studies describing routine post-operative colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy after elective or emergency AAA repair were included. The study quality was assessed with the QUADAS-2 tool. Sensitivity and specificity forest plots were drawn. Diagnostic odds ratios were calculated by a random effect model. RESULTS: Twelve articles were included consisting of 718 AAA patients of whom 44% were treated electively, 56% ruptured and, 6% by endovascular repair. Of all patients, 20.8% were identified with CI (all grades), and 6.5% of patients had Grade 3 CI. The pooled diagnostic odds ratio for all grades of CI on endoscopy was 26.60 (95% CI 8.86-79.88). The sensitivity and specificity of endoscopy for detection of Grade 3 CI after AAA repair was 0.52 (95% CI, 0.31-0.73) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-0.99) respectively. The positive post-test probability is up to 60% in all kinds of AAA patients and 68% in ruptured AAA patients. CONCLUSION: Routine endoscopy is highly accurate for ruling out CI after AAA repair. Clinicians should be aware that endoscopy is less accurate in diagnosing the presence of the clinically relevant transmural CI. Endoscopy is a safe diagnostic test to use routinely as none of the studies reported adverse events.

Timing of preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis in 54,552 patients and the risk of surgical site infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The aim of the study was to assess the effect of timing of preoperative surgical antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) on surgical site infection (SSI) and compare the different timing intervals.The benefit of routine use of SAP prior to surgery has long been recognized. However, the optimal timing has not been defined. For the purpose of developing recommendations for the World Health Organization guideline for SSI prevention, a systematic review and meta-analysis of all relevant evidence was conducted.Major medical databases were searched from 1990 to 2016. The primary outcome was SSI after preoperative-SAP comparing different timing intervals. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted and pooled for each comparison with a random effects model.Fourteen papers with 54,552 patients were included in this review. In a quantitative analysis, there was no significant difference when SAP was administered 120-60 minutes prior to incision compared to administration 60-0 minutes prior to incision. Studies investigating different timing intervals within the last 60 minutes time frame reported contradictive results. The risk of SSI almost doubled when SAP was administered after first incision (OR:1.89; 95%CI:[1.05-3.40]) and was 5 times higher when administered more than 120 minutes prior to incision (OR5.26; 95%CI:[3.29-8.39]).Administration of antibiotic prophylaxis more than 120 minutes before incision or after incision is associated a higher risk of surgical site infections than administration less than 120 minutes before incision. Within this 120-minute time frame prior to incision, no differential effects could be identified. The broadly accepted recommendation to administer prophylaxis within a 60-minute time frame prior to incision could not be substantiated.

Accuracy of White Blood Cell Count and C-reactive Protein Levels Related to Duration of Symptoms in Patients Suspected of Acute Appendicitis.

OBJECTIVES: Low levels of white blood cell (WBC) count and C-reactive protein (CRP) have been suggested to sufficiently rule out acute appendicitis. The diagnostic value of these tests is likely to depend on the duration of complaints. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of these inflammatory markers in relation to duration of symptoms in patients suspected of acute appendicitis. METHODS: Patients suspected of having acute appendicitis were retrospectively selected from five prospective cohorts of patients with acute abdominal pain presenting at the emergency department (ED) in two European countries. Only adult patients with clinical suspicion of acute appendicitis based on medical history, physical examination, and laboratory studies at the time of registration in the original cohorts were included in this analysis. WBC count and CRP level were determined in all patients and a final diagnosis was assigned to every patient by an expert panel based on all available clinical data and follow-up. For categories based on symptom duration, the diagnostic accuracy of single and combined cutoff values was determined, and negative predictive values (NPV) and positive predictive values (PPV) were calculated. Subgroup analyses for age (<40 years or ≥40 years) and sex were performed. RESULTS: A total of 1,024 patients with clinically suspected acute appendicitis were included, of whom 580 (57%) were assigned a final diagnosis of appendicitis. No value of WBC count, CRP level, or their combination resulted in a NPV of more than 90%, regardless of the duration of symptoms. A WBC count of >20 × 10(9) /L in combination with symptoms for more than 48 hours was associated with a PPV of 100%. However, only eight of the 1,024 patients (1%) fulfilled these criteria, limiting the clinical applicability. No other cutoff level of WBC count, CRP level, or their combination resulted in a PPV of more than 80%, regardless of the duration of symptoms. In female patients, normal levels of CRP and WBC count more accurately excluded the diagnosis of appendicitis than normal levels did in male patients. CONCLUSIONS: No WBC count or CRP level can safely and sufficiently confirm or exclude the suspected diagnosis of acute appendicitis in patients who present with abdominal pain of 5 days or less in duration.

Diagnostic value of C-reactive protein to rule out infectious complications after major abdominal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Infectious complications occur frequently after major abdominal surgery and have a major influence on patient outcome and hospital costs. A marker that can rule out postoperative infectious complications (PICs) could aid patient selection for safe and early hospital discharge. C-reactive protein (CRP) is a widely available, fast, and cheap marker that might be of value in detecting PIC. Present meta-analysis evaluates the diagnostic value of CRP to rule out PIC following major abdominal surgery, aiding patient selection for early discharge. METHODS: A systematic literature search of Medline, PubMed, and Cochrane was performed identifying all prospective studies evaluating the diagnostic value of CRP after abdominal surgery. Meta-analysis was performed according to the PRISMA statement. RESULTS: Twenty-two studies were included for qualitative analysis of which 16 studies were eligible for meta-analysis, representing 2215 patients. Most studies analyzed the value of CRP in colorectal surgery (eight studies). The pooled negative predictive value (NPV) improved each day after surgery up to 90% at postoperative day (POD) 3 for a pooled CRP cutoff of 159 mg/L (range 92-200). Maximum predictive values for PICs were reached on POD 5 for a pooled CRP cutoff of 114 mg/L (range 48-150): a pooled sensitivity of 86% (95% confidence interval (CI) 79-91%), specificity of 86% (95% CI 75-92%), and a positive predictive value of 64% (95% CI 49-77%). The pooled sensitivity and specificity were significantly higher on POD 5 than on other PODs (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Infectious complications after major abdominal surgery are very unlikely in patients with a CRP below 159 mg/L on POD 3. This can aid patient selection for safe and early hospital discharge and prevent overuse of imaging.

C-reactive protein and white blood cell count as triage test between urgent and nonurgent conditions in 2961 patients with acute abdominal pain.

The purpose of this article is to assess the diagnostic accuracy of C-reactive protein (CRP) and white blood cell (WBC) count to discriminate between urgent and nonurgent conditions in patients with acute abdominal pain at the emergency department, thereby guiding the selection of patients for immediate diagnostic imaging.Data from 3 large published prospective cohort studies of patients with acute abdominal pain were combined in an individual patient data meta-analysis. CRP levels and WBC counts were compared between patients with urgent and nonurgent final diagnoses. Parameters of diagnostic accuracy were calculated for clinically applicable cutoff values of CRP levels and WBC count, and for combinations.A total of 2961 patients were included of which 1352 patients (45.6%) had an urgent final diagnosis. The median WBC count and CRP levels were significantly higher in the urgent group than in the nonurgent group (12.8 ×10/L; interquartile range [IQR] 9.9-16) versus (9.3 ×10/L; IQR 7.2-12.1) and (46  mg/L; IQR 12-100 versus 10  mg/L; IQR 7-26) (P < 0.001).The highest positive predictive value (PPV) (85.5%) and lowest false positives (14.5%) were reached when cutoff values of CRP level >50  mg/L and WBC count >15 ×10/L were combined; however, 85.3% of urgent cases was missed.A high CRP level (>50  mg/L) combined with a high WBC count (>15 ×10/L) leads to the highest PPV. However, this applies only to a small subgroup of patients (8.7%). Overall, CRP levels and WBC count are insufficient markers to be used as a triage test in the selection for diagnostic imaging, even with a longer duration of complaints (>48  hours).

Guideline for the diagnostic pathway in patients with acute abdominal pain.

INTRODUCTION: Diagnostic practice for acute abdominal pain at the Emergency Department varies widely and is mostly based on doctor's preferences. We aimed at developing an evidence-based guideline for the diagnostic pathway of patients with abdominal pain of non-traumatic origin. METHODS: All available international literature on patients with acute abdominal pain was identified and graded according to their methodological quality by members of the multidisciplinary steering group. A guideline was synthetized, providing evidence-based recommendations together with considerations based on expertise of group members, patient preferences, costs, availability of facilities, and organizational aspects. DEFINITION: Uniform terminology is needed in patients with acute abdominal pain to avoid difficulty in interpretation and ease comparison of findings between studies. We propose the use of the following definition for acute abdominal pain: pain of nontraumatic origin with a maximum duration of 5 days. Clinical diagnosis: Clinical evaluation is advised to differentiate between urgent and nonurgent causes. The diagnostic accuracy of clinical assessment is insufficient to identify the correct diagnosis but can discriminate between urgent and nonurgent causes. Patients suspected of nonurgent diagnoses can safely be reevaluated the next day. Based on current literature, no conclusions can be drawn on the differences in accuracy between residents and specialists. No conclusions can be drawn on the influence of a gynecological consultation. In patients suspected of an urgent condition, additional imaging is justified. CRP and WBC count alone are insufficient to discriminate urgent from nonurgent diagnoses. Diagnostic imaging: There is no place for conventional radiography in the work-up of patients with acute abdominal pain due to the lack of added value on top of clinical assessment. Computed tomography leads to the highest sensitivity and specificity in patients with acute abdominal pain. Positive predictive value of ultrasound is comparable with CT and therefore preferred as the first imaging modality due to the downsides of computed tomography; negative or inconclusive ultrasound is followed by CT. Based on current literature, no conclusions can be drawn on the added value of a diagnostic laparoscopy in the work-up of patients with acute abdominal pain. Antibiotic treatment should be started within the first hour after recognition of sepsis. Administration of opioids (analgesics) decreases the intensity of the pain and does not affect the accuracy of physical examination.

[CT strategy for patients with suspected acute appendicitis; comparison of conditional and immediate CT]. / CT-strategie bij vermoeden van acute appendicitis; vergelijking van conditionele en directe CT.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of conditional CT strategy, i.e. CT if ultrasound findings are negative or inconclusive, with immediate CT strategy for patients with suspected appendicitis. DESIGN: Subanalysis of a prospective multicenter diagnostic accuracy study. METHOD: Only data of patients with signs of appendicitis based on medical history, physical examination, and laboratory tests were analyzed. All patients underwent both ultrasound and CT. Images of each were read by different observers who were blinded to the results of the other imaging modality. The observer then selected the most likely diagnosis. These diagnoses were compared with the reference standard, i.e. final diagnoses as assigned by an expert panel based on all available data and at least 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 422 patients with suspected appendicitis were included. In 251 patients the final diagnosis was acute appendicitis (59%). In 199 patients (47%), ultrasound findings were inconclusive or negative. Use of conditional CT strategy resulted in correctly identified number of correctly identified patients with appendicitis, i.e. 96% (95% CI 93-98), versus 95% identified by immediate CT (95% CI 91-97). However, conditional CT strategy resulted in more false positive diagnoses compared with immediate CT (39 versus 22), had an accompanying lower specificity of 77% (95% CI 70-83) versus 87% (95% CI 81-91), and a lower positive predictive value of 86% (95% CI 81-90) versus 92% (95% CI 87-95). CONCLUSION: Use of a conditional CT strategy results in exactly the same number of patients with correctly identified acute appendicitis while halving the number of CTs needed. However, conditional strategy results in more false positive diagnoses.

[Plain abdominal x-rays for the sake of the doctor]. / Een buikoverzichtsfoto voor het gevoel van de dokter.

Scientific research has demonstrated that the diagnostic accuracy of plain abdominal x-rays is lower than that of other imaging modalities such as CT or ultrasonography in patients with acute abdominal pain. Nevertheless, plain x-rays are continually being used in daily practice. There are several comparable examples in which the implementation of new evidence into clinical practice seems problematic. Apparently other factors such as the experience of the doctor and psychological processes make it difficult to translate clear scientific evidence into daily practice.

[Guideline 'Diagnostics in acute abdominal pain in adults']. / Richtlijn 'Diagnostiek acute buikpijn bij volwassenen'.

The interdisciplinary, evidence-based guideline 'Diagnostics in acute abdominal pain in adults' describes the optimal in-hospital diagnostic work-up of patients with acute abdominal pain. Amongst other recommendations, the guideline advises the use of C-reactive protein and white blood cell count to differentiate urgent from non-urgent causes in an adult with acute abdominal pain presenting at the Emergency Department. If there is clinical suspicion of an urgent condition the guideline advises that additional imaging be performed. The guideline states that conventional imaging (plain abdominal - or chest x-ray) is unnecessary as this is of no benefit. Additionally the guideline recommends that patients with acute abdominal pain and severe sepsis or septic shock are started on antibiotic treatment within an hour at the Emergency Department and not to wait for the diagnostic procedures to be completed.

Plain abdominal radiography in acute abdominal pain; past, present, and future.

Several studies have demonstrated that a diagnosis based solely on a patient's medical history, physical examination, and laboratory tests is not reliable enough, despite the fact that these aspects are essential parts of the workup of a patient presenting with acute abdominal pain. Traditionally, imaging workup starts with abdominal radiography. However, numerous studies have demonstrated low sensitivity and accuracy for plain abdominal radiography in the evaluation of acute abdominal pain as well as various specific diseases such as perforated viscus, bowel obstruction, ingested foreign body, and ureteral stones. Computed tomography, and in particular computed tomography after negative ultrasonography, provides a better workup than plain abdominal radiography alone. The benefits of computed tomography lie in decision-making for management, planning of a surgical strategy, and possibly even avoidance of negative laparotomies. Based on abundant available evidence, major advances in diagnostic imaging, and changes in the management of certain diseases, we can conclude that there is no place for plain abdominal radiography in the workup of adult patients with acute abdominal pain presenting in the emergency department in current practice.