CT for Acute Nontraumatic Abdominal Pain-Is Oral Contrast Really Required?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare the diagnostic performance of abdominal computed tomography (CT) performed with and without oral contrast in patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) with acute nontraumatic abdominal pain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between December 2013 and December 2014, 348 adult patients presenting to the ED of a large tertiary medical center with nontraumatic abdominal pain were evaluated. Exclusion criteria for the study were history of inflammatory bowel disease, recent abdominal operation and suspected renal colic, abdominal aortic aneurysm rupture, or intestinal obstruction. All patients underwent intravenous contrast-enhanced abdominal CT on a Philips Brilliance 64-slice scanner using a routine abdomen protocol. The study group included 174 patients who underwent abdominal CT scanning without oral contrast, recruited using convenience sampling. A control group of 174 patients was matched to the cohort groups' gender and age and underwent abdominal CT with oral contrast material during the same time period. The patients' medical records were reviewed for various clinical findings and for the final clinical diagnosis. The CT exams were initially reviewed by a senior attending radiologist to determine the exams' technical adequacy and to decide whether an additional scan with oral contrast was required. Two senior radiologists, blinded to the clinical diagnosis, later performed consensus reading to determine the contribution of oral contrast administration to the radiologists' diagnostic confidence and its influence on diagnosing various radiological findings. RESULTS: Each group consisted of 82 men and 92 women. The average age of the two groups was 48 years. The main clinical diagnoses of the pathological examinations were appendicitis (17.5%), diverticulitis (10.9%), and colitis (5.2%). A normal CT examination was found in 34.8% of the patients. There was no significant difference between the groups regarding most of the clinical parameters that were examined. None of the examinations of all of the 174 study group patients was found to be technically inadequate, and therefore no patient had to undergo additional scanning to establish a diagnosis. The consensus reading of the senior radiologists determined that the lack of oral contrast was insignificant in 96.6% of the cases and that contrast material might have been useful in only 6 of 174 study group patients (3.4%). The radiologists found oral contrast to be helpful only in 8 of 174 control group patients (4.6%). There was no significant difference between the clinical and radiological diagnoses in both groups (study group, P = 0.261; control group, P = 0.075). CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that oral contrast is noncontributory to radiological diagnosis in most patients presenting to the ED with acute nontraumatic abdominal pain. These patients can therefore undergo abdominal CT scanning without oral contrast, with no effect on radiological diagnostic performance.

Low probability of Significant Intra-Abdominal Injury in Stable Patients with Abdominal ''Seat Belt Sign''.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine the diagnostic significance of the association between the abdominal skin bruise from a seat belt and the presence of intraabdominal injury. METHODS: This was an observational analysis of prospectively collected data on 45 patients who presented with an abdominal seat belt sign to a level 1 trauma center following a motor vehicle accident between July 2004 and December 2007. The patients were evaluated by computed tomography (CT) scans or ultrasonography (FAST), depending on their hemodynamic stability. They were then hospitalized for treatment or observation. RESULTS: Forty-five patients [23 males (51.1%) and 22 females (48.9%)], with a mean age of 32.2 years (range 16-80 years), fulfilled entry criteria and were enrolled. Of these, 44 (97.8%) underwent CT, and one (2.2%) underwent FAST due to hemodynamic instability. two patients (4.4%) had intraabdominal injuries: one required surgery for bowel injury, and the other had a minor liver laceration, which was managed expectantly. Sixteen patients (35.5%) had concomitant injuries. The length of hospital stay ranged from 1-23 days (median 2.2 days). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the widely accepted view that patients with an abdominal seat belt sign are more likely to have serious intraabdominal injuries, the results of our investigation showed no such association in a group of hemodynamically stable patients.

Laparoscopic splenectomy for solitary splenic tumors.

BACKGROUND: Solitary splenic masses are a rare entity. There is a paucity of data in the literature on the evaluation and laparoscopic treatment for splenic masses. To further elucidate the evaluation and laparoscopic management of splenic masses we evaluated our own data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was collected retrospectively for all patients who underwent laparoscopic splenectomy (LS) in our institution for the diagnosis of a solid mass. Patients' charts were reviewed. Complementary data was completed when needed by telephone interviews. RESULTS: 28 patients underwent LS for solid splenic masses between 1997 and 2006. Mean age was 54.3 years and 68% were women. Patients' symptoms included abdominal pain (46.5%), anemia (32%), weight loss (21%), and palpable abdominal mass (21%). Fifty-three percent were asymptomatic at diagnosis. Preoperative patients' imaging included computed tomography (92.8%), abdominal ultrasound (71.4%), and positron emission tomography (PET, 32%). Seven patients (25%) had a history of lymphoproliferative disease. The mass size as measured by computed tomography (CT) scan ranged from 4 to 11 cm. Three patients (10.7%) had multiple splenic lesions. Mean operative time was 125 min. Mean estimated blood loss was 200 ml. Five patients (17.9%) had massive splenomegaly. Conversion rate was 14.3%. In three patients (10.7%) the spleen was removed with additional organs' tissue (stomach and pancreas). Two patients (7.1%) were reoperated. There was no postoperative mortality. Mean hospital stay was 4.7 days. Four patients (14.3%) were readmitted due to complications. Pathology revealed eight patients (28%) with benign tumors and the rest (71.4%) with malignant lymphoma. CONCLUSIONS: Splenic solid tumor is a rare entity. Most of the cases were eventually diagnosed as malignant tumors. In our series, all malignant tumors were non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The most common benign lesion was inflammatory pseudotumor. This study has demonstrated the feasibility and safety of LS for diagnosis and treatment of both benign and malignant tumors of the spleen.