Kellow Zina S, MacInnes Meaghan, Kurzencwyg David, Rawal Sapna, Jaffer Rehana, Kovacina Bojan, Stein Lawrence A
Department of Radiology, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, 687 Pine Ave W, Montreal, QC, Canada H3A 1A1.
Radiology. 2008 Sep;248(3):887-93. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2483071772.
To characterize the utility of abdominal radiography for nontrauma emergency patients in a single-institution setting.
Following approval from the Director of Professional Services, a retrospective review of radiography and of patient records was conducted for patients who presented to a nontrauma emergency department over a period of 6 months and who were imaged by using abdominal radiography. Only the first radiograph per patient was used for analysis. The interpretations were sorted as normal, nonspecific, or abnormal. The patients' medical records were reviewed to determine whether further imaging was performed (computed tomography, ultrasonography, or upper gastrointestinal imaging) and results were compared with abdominal radiography. Chart reviews were conducted to identify patients in whom abdominal radiography alone influenced treatment.
In 874 patients, interpretation of abdominal radiography was normal in 34% (n = 300), nonspecific in 46% (n = 406), and abnormal in 19% (n = 168). Further imaging was performed for 50% (436) of all patients. Of 300 patients whose abdominal radiography results were normal, 42% (n = 125) had follow-up imaging; 72% (n = 90) of these showed abnormal, 78% (165 of 212) showed nonspecific, and 87% (86 of 99) showed abnormal findings. Of 438 patients who did not undergo follow-up imaging, 75% (n = 327) were discharged. For all indications other than catheter placement, abdominal radiography helped confirm the suspected diagnosis in 2%-8% of cases. In 37 (4%) of 874 patients, abdominal radiography was possibly helpful in changing patient treatment without a follow-up study.
Abdominal radiography is often requested; however, its results contribute to patient treatment in a small percentage of cases. With the exception of catheter placement, if a patient requires investigation beyond clinical history, physical examination, and lab results, the emergency physician should be encouraged to request more definitive imaging.
在单一机构环境中,描述腹部X线摄影对非创伤性急诊患者的效用。
经专业服务主任批准,对在6个月期间就诊于非创伤性急诊科且接受腹部X线摄影成像的患者的X线摄影和患者记录进行回顾性研究。每位患者仅使用第一张X线片进行分析。解读结果分为正常、非特异性或异常。查阅患者病历以确定是否进行了进一步成像检查(计算机断层扫描、超声检查或上消化道成像),并将结果与腹部X线摄影结果进行比较。进行图表审查以确定仅腹部X线摄影就影响治疗的患者。
在874例患者中,腹部X线摄影解读为正常的占34%(n = 300),非特异性的占46%(n = 406),异常的占19%(n = 168)。所有患者中有50%(436例)进行了进一步成像检查。在腹部X线摄影结果正常的300例患者中,42%(n = 125)进行了后续成像检查;其中72%(n = 90)显示异常,78%(212例中的165例)显示非特异性,87%(99例中的86例)显示异常结果。在未进行后续成像检查的438例患者中,75%(n = 327)出院。对于除导管置入以外的所有指征,腹部X线摄影在2% - 8%的病例中有助于证实疑似诊断。在874例患者中的37例(4%)中,腹部X线摄影在无后续检查的情况下可能有助于改变患者的治疗方案。
经常需要进行腹部X线摄影;然而,其结果仅在一小部分病例中有助于患者治疗。除导管置入外,如果患者需要超出临床病史、体格检查和实验室检查结果的进一步检查,应鼓励急诊医生要求进行更具确定性的成像检查。