Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Plain Abdominal Radiography in Acute Abdominal

Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 27

JOURNAL READING

Plain abdominal radiography in acute


abdominal pain; past, present, and future

Pembimbing : dr. Bekti Safarini, Sp.Rad (K)

Oleh :
Anisa Kartika 30101407139
Diah Apriani 30101407165
Journal Identity
Judul Plain abdominal radiography in acute abdominal
pain; past, present, and future
(international journal of general medicine)

Penulis Sarah L Gans, Jaap Stoker, Marja A Boermeester (


Departmen of Surgery, Departmen Of Radiology )

Penerbit Dove Press Journal: International Journal of General


Medicine

Tahun terbit 12 June 2012


Abstrack

Medical history
Physial examination Acute abdomen Abdominal radiograph
Labolatory test

Low sensivity and accuracy

Keywords :
Abdominal x-ray, acute abdomen, acute abdominal pain, emergency department,
diagnostic imaging, abdominal radiography
Historical overview
Historical overview
Plain films are likely to remain the best method of imaging gas shadows for many years
to come and computed tomography scanning, isotope studies and nuclear magnetic
resonance are unlikely to play any major role in the initial investigation of the acute
abdomen”

Shortly after the discovery of the x-ray in 1895, the first x-rays were studied for
medical purposes by Wilhelm Rontgen. During the decades that followed, x-rays were
mainly used for detecting fractures and foreign bodies and gradually for the evaluation
of various other diseases, such as acute abdominal pain
Historical overview
Study at virginia university
1972 (4%) 1992 (5%) 2007 (6,6%)

1972  Plain abdominal radiography was the only


diagnostic imaging modality (43%)

1992, plain abdominal radiography was ordered


in 30% of all patients

2007  the use of ultrasound and CT


was widespread
and the use of plain abdominal radiography
decreased (21%)
Factor can contribute :
1. establishment of emergency
medicine faculties

Diagnostic accuracy improved 2. increased possibilities


over the years due to for laboratory testing
increased use of CT and ultrasound
3. The widespread
availability of
various diagnostic modalities

Diagnosing the underlying cause of acute abdominal pain


remains a challenge despite the increase in diagnostic accuracy over the years
Place of plain abdominal x-ray
in current diagnostic workup
Place of plain abdominal x-ray
in current diagnostic workup

Further diagnostic
diagnosis based
workup such as imaging
solely on a patient’s medical history,
is therefore mandatory
physical examination, and laboratory tests
in patients
is not reliable enough
suspected of
an urgent medical condition

Abdominal radiograph

UK and
US guidelines advise consideration of abdominal radiography
in case of hospital admission and or surgery in patients
presenting with acute abdominal pain
One study compared the initial diagnosis after clinical
evaluation and plain radiography with the final diagnosis

The improvement in accuracy of plain abdominal radiography


combined with clinical
examination was not significant (P = 0.14)

In 117 of the
1021 patients (11%), the treating physician changed the initial
clinical diagnosis after plain abdominal radiography, and these
changes were accurate in only 39 cases (22%)
high percentage of
plain abdominal radiographs without abnormal or specific
findings on several study

Two studies demonstrated that 77% and 78% of all only 83 of


requested plain abdominal radiographs 871 patients (10%), a specific
showed no abnormal diagnostic abnormality was
findings noted on plain abdominal radiography

The additional value of plain abdominal radiographs is disputed.


It is suggest ordering
plain abdominal radiographs for specific indications only

Specific indications :
1. suspicion of perforated viscus,
2. urinary tract stones,
3. bowel obstruction,
4. and ingested foreign body.
Detection of free air and perforated
viscus
The combination of abdominal pain and a pneumoperitoneum,
even in the absence of other clinical signs, will usually
lead to a laparotomy in search of a perforated viscus

Plain abdominal radiography should be the first diagnostic modality


used in suspicion of a perforated viscus

compared the diagnosis


of patients suspected
of perforated viscus before and a compared ultrasonography-
fter plain abdominal plain abdominal radiography
in detection
radiography : of pneumoperitoneum: CT has proven to be the most
accurate diagnostic
Sensitivity of
modality in the evaluation
165 patients had suspicion
of pneumoperitoneum after of pneumoperitoneum
abdominal radiography in detecting
ultrasonography,157 intraoperatively.
pneumoperitoneum was plain radiography, 126 (120 of cases)
low (15%)
Detection of urinary tract stones
The standard imaging modality for detecting urinary tract
stones should ideally provide information about size, site,
and composition of the ureteral stone and presence of ureteral
obstruction

sensitivity
ranging from 44% up to 77% and specificity in detection of
stones from 80% to 87%

Another study concluded that plain abdominal radiography


had a sensitivity of 45% and specificity of 77% for detection
of ureteral calculi

The
advantage of CT over plain abdominal radiography is that
an alternative diagnosis may be presented if the suspicion
of urolithiasis is not confirmed
Detection of bowel obstruction
Bowel obstruction is a common cause of acute abdominal
pain

The sensitivity of plain abdominal


Plain abdominal-CT
radiography
Total obstruktive: CT demonstrated a
after clinical evaluation
sensitivity of 100% compared with 46%
was significantly higher
Partial : 100% compared with
than that of clinical evaluation alone
30% for plain abdominal radiography.
(74% versus 57%,
respectively)
Detection of ingested foreign body
Diagnostic imaging is not always necessary in cases of
ingested foreign bodies.

Plain radiography has been suggested as a standard


method for localization of foreign bodies.

Plain abdominal radiography demonstrates a sensitivity of 90%, specificity of


100%, and accuracy of 100% for ingested foreign bodies, but
the foreign body has to be radio-opaque to be seen on plain
abdominal radiography

There is no evidence available as to


whether CT has a higher sensitivity and specificity
than plain abdominal radiography in the case of ingested foreign bodies
In diagnostic workup
In spite of the recent proliferation of other imaging
techniques, plain films still retain their position as one of the
most useful initial investigations

Imaging techniques such as CT and ultrasound have


been shown to increase diagnostic accuracy substantially,
and consequently have significantly decreased the added
diagnostic value of plain abdominal radiography in a
clinical setting
Conclusion
Based on the 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 in current practice


THANKYOU

You might also like