Findings on emergent magnetic resonance imaging in pregnant patients with suspected appendicitis: A single center perspective.

This study's aim is to describe the imaging findings in pregnant patients undergoing emergent MRI for suspected acute appendicitis, and the various alternative diagnoses seen on those MRI scans. This is a single center retrospective analysis in which we assessed the imaging, clinical and pathological data for all consecutive pregnant patients who underwent emergent MRI for suspected acute appendicitis between April 2013 and June 2021. Out of 167 patients, 35 patients (20.9%) were diagnosed with acute appendicitis on MRI. Thirty patients (18%) were diagnosed with an alternative diagnosis on MRI: 17/30 (56.7%) patients had a gynecological source of abdominal pain (e.g. ectopic pregnancy, red degeneration of a leiomyoma); 8 patients (26.7%) had urological findings such as pyelonephritis; and 6 patients (20%) had gastrointestinal diagnoses (e.g. abdominal wall hernia or inflammatory bowel disease). Our conclusions are that MRI is a good diagnostic tool in the pregnant patient, not only in diagnosing acute appendicitis, but also in providing information on alternative diagnoses to acute abdominal pain. Our findings show the various differential diagnoses on emergent MRI in pregnant patients with suspected acute appendicitis, which may assist clinicians and radiologists is patient assessment and imaging utilization.

Effect of an Evaluation Algorithm on CT Utilization in Identifying Appendicitis in Children.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine if there was a significant change in computed tomography (CT) utilization or length of stay (LOS) among patients evaluated for acute appendicitis after implementation of an appendicitis evaluation algorithm. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients aged 3-18 years in an urban, tertiary pediatric emergency department with acute abdominal pain, evaluated for appendicitis. Data were collected for 6 months preimplementation and postimplementation of the evaluation algorithm with a 3-month washout period between September 2018 and November 2019. Main outcomes were rate of CT utilization and LOS preimplementation and postimplementation and were analyzed using χ 2 test and Mann-Whitney U test, respectively. Descriptive analysis of demographics was performed, in addition to logistic regression to assess differences between the 2 study periods. RESULTS: A total of 2872 charts were identified with a chief complaint inclusive of "abdominal pain." Of these, 1510 met age requirements but did not meet at least 1 inclusion criteria; 229 more were excluded upon chart review for a final study sample of 1133 patients. Of these, 648 (57.2%) were female, 747 (65.9%) were White, and 988 (87.2%) were non-Hispanic. The majority of patients (770, 68%) were discharged home from the emergency department without a diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Neither CT (25.7% to 24.8%; P = 0.794) nor ultrasound (59.5% to 59.7%; P = 1.000) utilization significantly changed postimplementation. Total ED median LOS increased significantly (333.50 to 362.00 minutes; P = 0.011). Significant factors associated with CT utilization included fever, migration of pain, and right lower quadrant tenderness. Significant factors associated with appendicitis diagnosis included right lower quadrant pain, nausea/vomiting, migration of pain, and peritoneal signs. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the appendicitis evaluation algorithm did not significantly decrease CT utilization or LOS. Equivocal grade 2 or 3 ultrasound finding rates were high, likely leading to higher rates of CT utilization and increasing LOS.

Impact of emergency physician performed ultrasound in the evaluation of adult patients with acute abdominal pain: a prospective randomized bicentric trial.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal pain is common in patients visiting the emergency department (ED). The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic contribution of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in patients presenting to the ED with acute abdominal pain. METHODS: We designed an interventional randomized, controlled, open label, parallel-group, trial in two French EDs. We included adult patients presenting to the ED with acute abdominal pain. Exclusion criteria were a documented end-of-life, an immediate need of life-support therapy and pregnant or breast-feeding women. Patients were randomized in the experimental group (i.e., workup including POCUS) or control group (usual care). The primary objective of the study was to assess the added value of POCUS on diagnostic pathway in the ED, according to the diagnostic established a posteriori by an adjudication committee. The primary endpoint was the proportion of exact preliminary diagnosis between the 2 groups. The preliminary diagnosis made after clinical examination and biological results with POCUS (intervention arm) or without POCUS (usual care) was considered exact if it was similar to the adjudication committee diagnosis. RESULTS: Between June 2021 11th and June 2022 23th, 256 patients were randomized, but five were not included in the primary analysis, leaving 125 patients in the POCUS group and 126 patients in the usual care group (130 women and 121 men, median [Q1-Q3] age: 42 [30;57]). There was no difference for exact diagnosis between the two groups (POCUS 70/125, 56% versus control 78/126 (62%), RD 1.23 [95% CI 0.74-2.04]). There was no difference in the accuracy for the diagnosis of non-specific abdominal pain nor number of biological or radiological exams. Diagnostic delays and length of stay in the ED were also similar. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, systematic POCUS did not improve the rate of diagnostic accuracy in unselected patients presenting to the ED with acute abdominal pain. However, as it was a safe procedure, further research should focus on patients with suspected etiologies where POCUS is particularly useful. TRIAL REGISTRATION:  This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov on 2022/07/20 ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04912206?id=NCT04912206&rank=1 ) (NCT04912206).

Agenesis of the right lobe of the liver: a case report.

INTRODUCTION: Agenesis of the right hepatic lobe is a rare congenital anomaly. Developmental anomalies of the right lobe of the liver were first reported in 1870 by Heller [6]. Anatomical variations of the liver are common, occur during the normal development of the organ, and correspond to variations in the distribution of liver territories. Agenesis of the right lobe of the liver is an incidental finding revealed by the popularization of ultrasonography, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging due to the condition being asymptomatic. CASE PRESENTATION: A 35-year-old Ethiopian female patient presented to the outpatient clinic with a complaint of right upper abdominal pain for 1 year, along with symptoms of fatty meal intolerance and long-standing epigastric burning pain. Her examination was unremarkable, and imaging investigations were suggestive of right hepatic lobe agenesis with multiple gallstones. Therefore, the patient was operated on and discharged with no perioperative complications. CONCLUSION: Surgical understanding of such anatomical anomalies is necessary for surgical planning, the appropriate interpretation of intraoperative surgical findings, and the design of postoperative therapy. Here we report a case of right hepatic lobe agenesis with cholelithiasis and cholidocholithiasis and a brief review of right lobe agenesis in the literature.

Diagnostic Yield of Abdominal Radiographs in the Pediatric Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Abdominal radiographs (ARs) are commonly used in the pediatric emergency department (PED). Their low diagnostic accuracy leads to overuse, excess radiation exposure, and increased resource usage. This study aims to assess the diagnostic yield of ARs in the evaluation of intraabdominal pathology in the PED. METHODS: Retrospective, cross-sectional study of patients aged 0 to 18 years with an AR who visited the PED between 2017 and 2019. Diagnostic yield was analyzed with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value (NPV), and likelihood ratio. RESULTS: A total of 4288 ARs were identified, with a rate of 6%. The overall abnormal AR rate was 31%. The incidences of an abnormal AR in abdominal pain, vomiting, and constipation were 26%, 37%, and 50%, respectively. There was a 13% rate of clinically significant diagnoses. The AR diagnostic yield showed 44% sensitivity, 70% specificity, 17% positive predictive value, and 90% NPV ( P < 0.05). Unadjusted odds ratio analysis of positive AR and abdominal pain, vomiting, and constipation revealed an odds ratio of 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.75), 1.22 (95% CI, 1.06-1.39), and 1.72 (95% CI, 1.54-1.91), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is a low rate of intraabdominal pathologic processes that an AR can identify. A normal AR does not change patient management, nor does it reduce the need for further radiologic imaging. Despite a good NPV, the AR is not a useful diagnostic tool in the PED because of its limited ability to rule in or rule out clinically significant diagnoses.

Primary Epiploic Appendagitis: A Mimicker of Abdominal Pain.

Epiploic appendagitis is a rare cause of acute lower abdominal pain. Epiploic appendices are fat-filled serosal outpouchings of the cecum and sigmoid colon. Primary epiploic appendagitis (PEA) is characterized by epiploic inflammation caused by torsion of the appendage leading to ischemia or thrombosis of the appendage draining vein. Secondary epiploic appendagitis occurs in association with other inflammatory conditions of the abdomen or pelvis, most commonly diverticulitis. PEA is an important clinical mimicker of more severe causes of acute abdominal pain, such as diverticulitis, appendicitis, or gynaecological causes. The ease of access to computed tomography (CT), the diagnostic test of choice, has resulted in increased recognition of PEA. The classic CT findings of PEA are an ovoid mass measuring between 1.5 and 3.5 cm surrounded by a hyperattenuating/hyperdense ring with a centrally located hyperdense area. It is important to diagnose PEA as it is self-limiting and the correct diagnosis can prevent unnecessary hospital admission, antibiotic use, or even surgical intervention. We present a case of a 65-year-old male with a history of diverticulitis, presenting with left lower quadrant abdominal pain who was diagnosed with PEA based on CT and successfully managed with conservative treatment.

Factors contributing to uncertainty in paediatric abdominal ultrasound reports in the paediatric emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Abdominal pain, which is a common cause of children presenting to the paediatric emergency department (PED), is often evaluated by ultrasonography (US). However, uncertainty in US reports may necessitate additional imaging. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we evaluated factors contributing to uncertainty in paediatric abdominal US reports in the PED. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included children younger than 18 years of age who underwent abdominal US in the PED of the study hospital between January 2017 and December 2019. After exclusion, the researchers manually reviewed and classified all US reports as 'certain' or 'uncertain'. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify the factors contributing to uncertain reports. RESULTS: In total, 1006 patients were included in the final analysis., 796 patients were tagged as having certain reports, and 210 as having uncertain reports. Children with uncertain reports had a significantly higher rate of undergoing an additional computed tomography (CT) scan (31.0% vs. 2.5%, p < 0.001) and a longer PED median length of stay (321.0 (Interquartile range (IQR); 211.3-441.5) minutes vs. 284.5 (IQR; 191.8-439.5) minutes, p = 0.042). After logistic regression, US performed by a radiology resident (odds ratio, 5.01; 95% confidence interval, 3.63-7.15) was the most significant factor contributing to uncertainty in paediatric abdominal US reports followed by obesity and age. CONCLUSION: Several factors contribute to uncertainty in paediatric abdominal US reports. Uncertain radiological reports increase the likelihood of additional CT scans. Measures to improve the clarity of radiological reports must be considered to improve the quality of care for children visiting the PED.