Patients' perspectives and the perceptions of healthcare providers in the treatment of early rectal cancer; a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making has become of increased importance in choosing the most suitable treatment strategy for early rectal cancer, however, clinical decision-making is still primarily based on physicians' perspectives. Balancing quality of life and oncological outcomes is difficult, and guidance on patients' involvement in this subject in early rectal cancer is limited. Therefore, this study aimed to explore preferences and priorities of patients as well as physicians' perspectives in treatment for early rectal cancer. METHODS: In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were performed with early rectal cancer patients (n = 10) and healthcare providers (n = 10). Participants were asked which factors influenced their preferences and how important these factors were. Thematic analyses were performed. In addition, participants were asked to rank the discussed factors according to importance to gain additional insights. RESULTS: Patients addressed the following relevant factors: the risk of an ostomy, risk of poor bowel function and treatment related complications. Healthcare providers emphasized oncological outcomes as tumour recurrence, risk of an ostomy and poor bowel function. Patients perceived absolute risks of adverse outcome to be lower than healthcare providers and were quite willing undergo organ preservation to achieve a better prospect of quality of life. CONCLUSION: Patients' preferences in treatment of early rectal cancer vary between patients and frequently differ from assumptions of preferences by healthcare providers. To optimize future shared decision-making, healthcare providers should be aware of these differences and should invite patients to explore and address their priorities more explicitly during consultation. Factors deemed important by both physicians and patients should be expressed during consultation to decide on a tailored treatment strategy.

Preoperative Risk Stratification in Esophageal Cancer Surgery: Comparing Risk Models with the Clinical Judgment of the Surgeon.

BACKGROUND: Numerous prediction models estimating the risk of complications after esophagectomy exist but are rarely used in practice. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical judgment of surgeons using these prediction models. METHODS: Patients with resectable esophageal cancer who underwent an esophagectomy were included in this prospective study. Prediction models for postoperative complications after esophagectomy were selected by a systematic literature search. Clinical judgment was given by three surgeons, indicating their estimated risk for postoperative complications in percentage categories. The best performing prediction model was compared with the judgment of the surgeons, using the net reclassification improvement (NRI), category-free NRI (cfNRI), and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI) indexes. RESULTS: Overall, 159 patients were included between March 2019 and July 2021, of whom 88 patients (55%) developed a complication. The best performing prediction model showed an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.56. The three surgeons had an AUC of 0.53, 0.55, and 0.59, respectively, and all surgeons showed negative percentages of cfNRIevents and IDIevents, and positive percentages of cfNRInonevents and IDIevents. This indicates that in the group of patients with postoperative complications, the prediction model performed better, whereas in the group of patients without postoperative complications, the surgeons performed better. NRIoverall was 18% for one surgeon, while the remainder of the NRIoverall, cfNRIoverall and IDIoverall scores showed small differences between surgeons and the prediction models. CONCLUSION: Prediction models tend to overestimate the risk of any complication, whereas surgeons tend to underestimate this risk. Overall, surgeons' estimations differ between surgeons and vary between similar to slightly better than the prediction models.

Benefit of Risk-stratified Prophylactic Treatment on Clinical Outcome in Postoperative Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Whereas immediate postoperative treatment has shown effectiveness in reducing endoscopic postoperative recurrence [POR], evidence regarding the clinical benefit is limited. We compared rates of clinical POR in Crohn's disease [CD] patients receiving immediate prophylactic treatment with rates in patients receiving endoscopy-driven treatment. METHODS: We retrospectively collected data from 376 consecutive CD patients who underwent an ileocaecal resection with anastomosis between 2007 and 2018 with at least 3 years of follow-up at three sites. Subsequently, high- and low-risk patients categorised by established guidelines, who underwent endoscopy within 12 months postoperatively, were grouped according to a prophylactic- or endoscopy-driven approach and compared for incidence and time till endoscopic and clinical POR. RESULTS: Prophylactic treatment reduced rates of and time till endoscopic POR within 1 year in high-risk (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-0.86, p = 0.04, number needed to treat [NNT] = 5) but not low-risk [HR 0.90, 95% CI 0.32-2.56, p = 0.85] patients. Conversely, no significant differences in clinical POR within 3 years between prophylactic- and endoscopy-driven low-risk [HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.41-3.29, p = 0.75] and high-risk patients were observed [HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.63-1.79, p = 0.82, NNT = 22]. However, a large numerical albeit not statistical significant difference in 3-year clinical POR [28.6% vs. 62.5%, p = 0.11] in a subset of high-risk patients with three or more ECCO-defined risk factors was observed, indicating a cumulative effect of having multiple risk factors. CONCLUSION: Our observations favour step-up treatment guided by early endoscopic evaluation with prophylactic treatment reserved for carefully selected high-risk patients, in order to avoid potential overtreatment of a significant number of patients.

Clinical implications of chyle leakage following esophagectomy.

The clinical consequences of chyle leakage following esophagectomy are underexposed. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical implications of chyle leakage following esophagectomy. This retrospective study of prospectively collected data included patients who underwent transthoracic esophagectomy in 2017-2020. Routinely, the thoracic duct was resected en bloc as part of the mediastinal lymphadenectomy. Chyle leakage was defined as milky drain fluid for which specific treatment was initiated and/or a triglyceride level in drain fluid of ≥1.13 mmol/L, according to the Esophagectomy Complications Consensus Group (ECCG) classification. Primary endpoints were the clinical characteristics of chyle leakage (type, severity and treatment). Secondary endpoints were the impact of chyle leakage on duration of thoracic drainage and hospital stay. Chyle leakage was present in 43/314 patients (14%), of whom 24 (56%) were classified as severity A and 19 (44%) as severity B. All patients were successfully treated with either medium chain triglyceride diet (98%) or total parental nutrition (2%). There were no re-interventions for chyle leakage during initial admission, although one patient needed additional pleural drainage during readmission. Patients with chyle leakage had 3 days longer duration of thoracic drainage (bias corrected accelerated (BCa) 95%CI:0.46-0.76) and 3 days longer hospital stay (BCa 95%CI:0.07-0.36), independently of the presence of other complications. Chyle leakage is a relatively frequent complication following esophagectomy. Postoperative chyle leakage was associated with a significant longer duration of thoracic drainage and hospital admission. Nonsurgical treatment was successful in all patients with chyle leakage.

The use of fluorescence angiography to assess bowel viability in the acute setting: an international, multi-centre case series.

INTRODUCTION: Assessing bowel viability can be challenging during acute surgical procedures, especially regarding mesenteric ischaemia. Intraoperative fluorescence angiography (FA) may be a valuable tool for the surgeon to determine whether bowel resection is necessary and to define the most appropriate resection margins. The aim of this study is to report on FA use in the acute setting and to judge its impact on intraoperative decision making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a multi-centre, retrospective case series of patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery between February 2016 and 2021 in three general/colorectal units where intraoperative FA was performed to assess bowel viability. Primary endpoint was change of management after the FA assessment. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients (50 males, 66.6 ± 19.2 years, ASA score ≥ III in 85%) were identified and studied. Initial surgical approach was laparotomy in 66 (71%) patients and laparoscopy in 27 (29% and seven, 26% conversions). The most common aetiologies were mesenteric ischaemia (n = 42, 45%) and adhesional/herniae-related strangulation (n = 41, 44%). In 50 patients a bowel resection was performed. Overall rates of anastomosis after resection, reoperation and 30-day mortality were 48% (n = 24/50, one leak), 12% and 18%, respectively. FA changed management in 27 (29%) patients. In four patients (4% overall), resection was avoided and in 21 (23%) extra bowel length was preserved (median 50 cm of bowel saved, IQR 28-98) although three patients developed further ischaemia. FA prompted extended resection (median of 20 cm, IQR 10-50 extra bowel) in six (6%) patients. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative use of FA impacts surgical decisions regarding bowel resection for intestinal ischaemia, potentially enabling bowel preservation in approximately one out of four patients. Prospective studies are needed to optimize the best use of this technology for this indication and to determine standards for the interpretation of FA images and the potential subsequent need for second-look surgeries.

Staging laparoscopy in gastric cancer surgery. A population-based cohort study in patients undergoing gastrectomy with curative intent.

BACKGROUND: Studies on the value of a staging laparoscopy in detecting metastases in gastric cancer patients show great variation. This study investigates the avoidable surgery rate in patients with and without a staging laparoscopy scheduled for surgery with curative intent. METHODS: This population-based cohort study included all patients with an intentional resection for a potentially curable gastric adenocarcinoma, between 2011 and 2016, registered in the Dutch Upper GI Cancer audit. Patients with and without a staging laparoscopy were compared. The primary outcome was the avoidable surgery rate (detection of metastases and/or locoregional non-resectable tumor during intentional gastrectomy). Secondary outcomes were the negative predictive value, postoperative morbidity and pathology parameters. RESULTS: 2849 patients who underwent an intentional gastrectomy were included. 414 of 2849 (14.5%) patients underwent a staging laparoscopy before initiation of treatment. The avoidable surgery rate was 16.2% in the staging laparoscopy group, compared to 8.5% in the non-staging group (P < 0.001), resulting in a negative predictive value of 83.8%. The avoidable surgery rate remained significantly different after correction for possible confounders. The main reason for not executing the gastrectomy was the presence of distant metastasis in both groups. cT and cN stage were significantly higher in patients who underwent a staging laparoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: The staging laparoscopy group had a higher cTN and pTN stage, implicating selection of patients with more advanced disease for a staging laparoscopy. Despite the staging laparoscopy, a higher rate of avoidable surgery was found, suggesting a low sensitivity for detecting metastases or locoregional non-resectability in this patient group.

Optimal mobilization of the stomach and the best place in the gastric tube for intrathoracic anastomosis.

Esophagectomy with gastric tube reconstruction is a highly complex surgical procedure. With regard to mobilization of the stomach and optimal gastric tube preparation and anastomosis, there are several important intraoperative steps that can influence the outcome of the operation. This study aims to describe the optimal mobilization of the stomach for gastric tube reconstruction and explore the best place in the gastric tube for intrathoracic anastomosis after esophagectomy. A search of the literature was performed and results are described in a descriptive review. Based on literature and our own experience we describe important operating steps for laparoscopic stomach mobilisation for gastric tube reconstruction. Steps to create additional length include preserving the left gastroepiploic artery, transecting the right gastric artery, extended duodenal mobilization, and duodenal diversion with roux-Y reconstruction. Several techniques for intrathoracic anastomosis are described in literature. Several imaging techniques, of which fluorescence imaging is the most commonly used, are available to assess the vascularization of the gastric tube and to assist in determining the best place in the gastric tube for intra thoracic anastomosis. Although there is little evidence of exact technique on stomach mobilization and location for an intrathoracic anastomosis, many techniques are used by different authors with varying results.

Short- and Long-Term Outcomes after a Reconstituting and Fenestrating Subtotal Cholecystectomy.

BACKGROUND: Multiple surgical techniques are recommended to perform cholecystectomy safely in difficult cases, such as conversion to open operation or subtotal cholecystectomy (STC). Reconstituting and fenestrating STC are 2 techniques for STC. The aim of this study was to investigate the short and long-term morbidity and quality of life associated with STC and to compare the outcomes after reconstituting and fenestrating STC. STUDY DESIGN: Patients who underwent STC were identified. Short-term morbidity assessed included bile leakage, bile duct injury, intra-abdominal infection, reinterventions, and readmittance. Long-term morbidity included bile duct stenosis and recurrent biliary events. Differences in the outcomes of fenestrating and reconstituting STC were assessed. Quality of life was assessed by EuroQol 5 Dimensions, Short-Form 36 Questionnaire, and Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index questionnaires. RESULTS: Subtotal cholecystectomy was performed in 191 patients, of which 102 (53%) underwent fenestrating STC and 73 (38%) underwent reconstituting STC. Bile leakage was significantly more common after fenestrating STC (18% vs 7%, respectively; p < 0.022). After a median of 6 years follow-up (interquartile range 5 to 10 years), recurrence rate of biliary events was lower after fenestrating than reconstituting STC (9% vs 18%, respectively; p < 0.022). Overall reintervention rate did not differ between the 2 groups: 32% in the fenestrating STC group and 26% in the reconstituting STC group (p = 0.211). Completion cholecystectomy was performed significantly more in patients after fenestrating STC (9% vs 4%; p < 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: Subtotal cholecystectomy is a safe and feasible technique for difficult cases for which conversion only will not solve the difficulty of an inflamed hepatocystic triangle. The choice for reconstituting or fenestrating STC depends on intraoperative conditions and both techniques are associated with specific complications.

[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.

External validation of two tools for the clinical diagnosis of acute diverticulitis without imaging.

AIM: External validation and comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of two predictive tools, the emergency department triad and the clinical scoring tool in diagnosing acute diverticulitis. METHODS: Two derivation datasets were used crosswise for external validation. In addition, both tools were validated in a third independent cohort. Predictive values were reassessed and the Area Under the Curve expressed discriminatory capacity. Performance was compared by calculating positive predictive values of the emergency department triad in the validation cohorts and with a cut-off analysis for the clinical scoring tool at a positive predictive value of 90%. RESULTS: Predictive value of the emergency department triad was comparable to the clinical scoring tool. The positive predictive value of the emergency department triad (97%) decreased in the clinical scoring tool cohort (81%) and was excellent in the independent cohort (100%), identifying 24%, 20% and 14% of the patients. A smaller proportion of patients with diverticulitis could be identified with the clinical scoring tool (6%, 19% and 9%). CONCLUSION: The emergency department triad as well as the clinical scoring tool have significant predictive value in external cohorts of patients suspected of diverticulitis. These tools can be used to select patients in whom additional imaging to diagnose acute diverticulitis may be omitted.

A comparison of the accuracy of ultrasound and computed tomography in common diagnoses causing acute abdominal pain.

OBJECTIVES: Head-to-head comparison of ultrasound and CT accuracy in common diagnoses causing acute abdominal pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients with abdominal pain for >2 h and <5 days referred for imaging underwent both US and CT by different radiologists/radiological residents. An expert panel assigned a final diagnosis. Ultrasound and CT sensitivity and predictive values were calculated for frequent final diagnoses. Effect of patient characteristics and observer experience on ultrasound sensitivity was studied. RESULTS: Frequent final diagnoses in the 1,021 patients (mean age 47; 55% female) were appendicitis (284; 28%), diverticulitis (118; 12%) and cholecystitis (52; 5%). The sensitivity of CT in detecting appendicitis and diverticulitis was significantly higher than that of ultrasound: 94% versus 76% (p < 0.01) and 81% versus 61% (p = 0.048), respectively. For cholecystitis, the sensitivity of both was 73% (p = 1.00). Positive predictive values did not differ significantly between ultrasound and CT for these conditions. Ultrasound sensitivity in detecting appendicitis and diverticulitis was not significantly negatively affected by patient characteristics or reader experience. CONCLUSION: CT misses fewer cases than ultrasound, but both ultrasound and CT can reliably detect common diagnoses causing acute abdominal pain. Ultrasound sensitivity was largely not influenced by patient characteristics and reader experience.

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

OBJECTIVE: 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.

Optimizing imaging in suspected appendicitis (OPTIMAP-study): a multicenter diagnostic accuracy study of MRI in patients with suspected acute appendicitis. Study Protocol.

BACKGROUND: In patients with clinically suspected appendicitis, imaging is needed to substantiate the clinical diagnosis. Imaging accuracy of ultrasonography (US) is suboptimal, while the most accurate technique (CT) is associated with cancer related deaths through exposure to ionizing radiation. MRI is a potential replacement, without associated ionizing radiation and no need for contrast medium administration. If MRI is proven to be sufficiently accurate, it could be introduced in the diagnostic pathway of patients with suspected appendicitis, increasing diagnostic accuracy and improving clinical outcomes, without the risk of radiation induced cancer or iodinated contrast medium-related drawbacks. The multicenter OPTIMAP study was designed to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of MRI in patients with suspected acute appendicitis in the general population. METHODS/DESIGN: Eligible for this study are consecutive patients presenting with clinically suspected appendicitis at the emergency department in six centers. All patients will undergo imaging according to the Dutch guideline for acute appendicitis: initial ultrasonography in all and subsequent CT whenever US does not confirm acute appendicitis. Then MRI is performed in all patients, but the results are not used for patient management. A final diagnosis assigned by an expert panel, based on all available information including 3-months follow-up, except MRI findings, is used as the reference standard in estimating accuracy. We will calculate the sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and inter-observer agreement of MRI, and aim to include 230 patients. Patient acceptance and total imaging costs will also be evaluated. DISCUSSION: If MRI is found to be sufficiently accurate, it could replace CT in some or all patients. This will limit or obviate the ionizing radiation exposure associated risk of cancer induction and contrast medium induced nephropathy with CT, preventing the burden and the direct and indirect costs associated with treatment. Based on the high intrinsic contrast resolution of MRI, one might envision higher accuracy rates for MRI than for CT. If so, MRI could further decrease the number of unnecessary appendectomies and the number of missed appendicitis cases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR2148.

A clinical decision rule to establish the diagnosis of acute diverticulitis at the emergency department.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to identify patients in whom the clinical diagnosis of diverticulitis can be made with a high certainty, distinguishing them from patients requiring imaging. METHODS: We prospectively recorded clinical features in patients with acute abdominal pain presenting at the emergency department, before they underwent imaging. We identified features significantly associated with a final diagnosis of acute diverticulitis using multivariate logistic regression analysis and developed a decision rule based on these features. We evaluated the performance of the rule in identifying patients with a high probability of having diverticulitis. RESULTS: In total, 112 of the 1021 patients (11%) had a final diagnosis of diverticulitis. Of the 126 patients with clinically suspected diverticulitis, 80 had a final diagnosis of diverticulitis. In 32 patients with diverticulitis as their final diagnosis, another clinical diagnosis was made. A decision rule was based on the 3 strongest clinical features: direct tenderness only in the left lower quadrant, the absence of vomiting, and a C-reactive protein >50 mg/L. Of the 126 clinically suspected patients, 30 patients had all 3 features (24%), of whom 29 had a final diagnosis of acute diverticulitis (97%; 95% CI: 83%-99%). Of the 96 patients without all 3 features, 45 (47%) did not have diverticulitis. CONCLUSION: In a quarter of patients with suspected diverticulitis, the diagnosis can be made clinically based on a combination of direct tenderness only in the left lower quadrant, the absence of vomiting, and an elevated C-reactive protein. In patients without these features, imaging is required to reach adequate diagnostic accuracy.

Imaging patients with acute abdominal pain.

UNLABELLED: Acute abdominal pain may be caused by a myriad of diagnoses, including acute appendicitis, diverticulitis, and cholecystitis. Imaging plays an important role in the treatment management of patients because clinical evaluation results can be inaccurate. Performing computed tomography (CT) is most important because it facilitates an accurate and reproducible diagnosis in urgent conditions. Also, CT findings have been demonstrated to have a marked effect on the management of acute abdominal pain. The cost-effectiveness of CT in the setting of acute appendicitis was studied, and CT proved to be cost-effective. CT can therefore be considered the primary technique for the diagnosis of acute abdominal pain, except in patients clinically suspected of having acute cholecystitis. In these patients, ultrasonography (US) is the primary imaging technique of choice. When costs and ionizing radiation exposure are primary concerns, a possible strategy is to perform US as the initial technique in all patients with acute abdominal pain, with CT performed in all cases of nondiagnostic US. The use of conventional radiography has been surpassed; this examination has only a possible role in the setting of bowel obstruction. However, CT is more accurate and more informative in this setting as well. In cases of bowel perforation, CT is the most sensitive technique for depicting free intraperitoneal air and is valuable for determining the cause of the perforation. Imaging is less useful in cases of bowel ischemia, although some CT signs are highly specific. Magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is a promising alternative to CT in the evaluation of acute abdominal pain and does not involve the use of ionizing radiation exposure. However, data on the use of MR imaging for this indication are still sparse. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: http://radiology.rsna.org/content/253/1/31/suppl/DC1.

Single and combined diagnostic value of clinical features and laboratory tests in acute appendicitis.

OBJECTIVES: The objective was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of clinical features and laboratory test results in detecting acute appendicitis. METHODS: Clinical features and laboratory test results were prospectively recorded in a consecutive series of 1,101 patients presenting with abdominal pain at the emergency department (ED) in six hospitals. Likelihood ratios (LRs) and the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) were calculated for the individual features. Variants of clinical presentation, based on different combinations of clinical features, were investigated and the accuracies of combinations of clinical features were evaluated. RESULTS: The discriminative power (AUC) of the individual features in patients with suspected appendicitis ranged from 0.50 to 0.65. For five of the 23 predictor sets, the accuracy for appendicitis was more than 85%. This accuracy was only found in male patients. The relative frequency of these predictor sets ranged from 2% to 13% of patients with suspected appendicitis. A combination of the clinical features migration of pain to the right lower quadrant (RLQ), and direct tenderness in the RLQ, was present in only 28% (120/422) of clinically suspected patients, of whom no more than 85 patients had appendicitis (71%). A "classical" presentation (combination of migration of pain to the RLQ, tenderness in the RLQ, and rigidity) occurred in only 6% (25/422) of patients with suspected appendicitis and yielded an accuracy of 100% in males but only 46% in females. CONCLUSIONS: The discriminative power (AUC) of individual clinical features and laboratory test results for appendicitis was weak in patients with suspected appendicitis. Combinations of clinical features and laboratory tests with high diagnostic accuracy are relatively infrequent in patients with suspected appendicitis.

Imaging strategies for detection of urgent conditions in patients with acute abdominal pain: diagnostic accuracy study.

OBJECTIVE: To identify an optimal imaging strategy for the accurate detection of urgent conditions in patients with acute abdominal pain. DESIGN: Fully paired multicentre diagnostic accuracy study with prospective data collection. SETTING: Emergency departments of two university hospitals and four large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 1021 patients with non-traumatic abdominal pain of >2 hours' and <5 days' duration. Exclusion criteria were discharge from the emergency department with no imaging considered warranted by the treating physician, pregnancy, and haemorrhagic shock. INTERVENTION: All patients had plain radiographs (upright chest and supine abdominal), ultrasonography, and computed tomography (CT) after clinical and laboratory examination. A panel of experienced physicians assigned a final diagnosis after six months and classified the condition as urgent or non-urgent. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity for urgent conditions, percentage of missed cases and false positives, and exposure to radiation for single imaging strategies, conditional imaging strategies (CT after initial ultrasonography), and strategies driven by body mass index and age or by location of pain. RESULTS: 661 (65%) patients had a final diagnosis classified as urgent. The initial clinical diagnosis resulted in many false positive urgent diagnoses, which were significantly reduced after ultrasonography or CT. CT detected more urgent diagnoses than did ultrasonography: sensitivity was 89% (95% confidence interval 87% to 92%) for CT and 70% (67% to 74%) for ultrasonography (P<0.001). A conditional strategy with CT only after negative or inconclusive ultrasonography yielded the highest sensitivity, missing only 6% of urgent cases. With this strategy, only 49% (46% to 52%) of patients would have CT. Alternative strategies guided by body mass index, age, or location of the pain would all result in a loss of sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Although CT is the most sensitive imaging investigation for detecting urgent conditions in patients with abdominal pain, using ultrasonography first and CT only in those with negative or inconclusive ultrasonography results in the best sensitivity and lowers exposure to radiation.

Inter-observer agreement for abdominal CT in unselected patients with acute abdominal pain.

The level of inter-observer agreement of abdominal computed tomography (CT) in unselected patients presenting with acute abdominal pain at the Emergency Department (ED) was evaluated. Two hundred consecutive patients with acute abdominal pain were prospectively included. Multi-slice CT was performed in all patients with intravenous contrast medium only. Three radiologists independently read all CT examinations. They recorded specific radiological features and a final diagnosis on a case record form. We calculated the proportion of agreement and kappa values, for overall, urgent and frequently occurring diagnoses. The mean age of the evaluated patients was 46 years (range 19-94), of which 54% were women. Overall agreement on diagnoses was good, with a median kappa of 0.66. Kappa values for specific urgent diagnoses were excellent, with median kappa values of 0.84, 0.90 and 0.81, for appendicitis, diverticulitis and bowel obstruction, respectively. Abdominal CT has good inter-observer agreement in unselected patients with acute abdominal pain at the ED, with excellent agreement for specific urgent diagnoses as diverticulitis and appendicitis.

Graded compression ultrasonography and computed tomography in acute colonic diverticulitis: meta-analysis of test accuracy.

The purpose was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of graded compression ultrasonography (US) and computed tomography (CT) in diagnosing acute colonic diverticulitis (ACD) in suspected patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the accuracy of CT and US in diagnosing ACD. Study quality was assessed with the QUADAS tool. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were calculated using a bivariate random effects model. Six US studies evaluated 630 patients, and eight CT studies evaluated 684 patients. Overall, their quality was moderate. We did not identify meaningful sources of heterogeneity in the study results. Summary sensitivity estimates were 92% (95% CI: 80%-97%) for US versus 94% (95%CI: 87%-97%) for CT (p = 0.65). Summary specificity estimates were 90% (95%CI: 82%-95%) for US versus 99% (95%CI: 90%-100%) for CT (p = 0.07). For the identification of alternative diseases sensitivity ranged between 33% and 78% for US and between 50% and 100% for CT. The currently best available evidence shows no statistically significant difference in accuracy of US and CT in diagnosing ACD. Therefore, both US and CT can be used as initial diagnostic tool until new evidence is brought forward. However, CT is more likely to identify alternative diseases.