• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Sat, 25.05.24

Search results


June 2023
Jonathan Abraham Demma MD, Lisandro Luques MD PhD, Lior Cohen MD, Uri P. Dior MD, Gad Marom MD, Asaf Kedar MD, Naama Lev Cohain MD, Alon Pikarsky MD, Gidon Almogy MD, Liat Appelbaum MD

Background: Abdominal pathology in pregnant patients is a frequent challenge for emergency department physicians. Ultrasound is the imaging modality of choice but is inconclusive in approximately one-third of cases. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is becoming increasingly available, even in acute settings. Multiple studies have defined the sensitivity and specificity of MRI in this population.

Objectives: To evaluate the use of MRI findings in pregnant patients presenting with acute abdominal complaints to the emergency department.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single institution. Data were collected on pregnant patients who underwent an MRI for acute abdominal complaints between 2010 and 2019 at a university center. Patient demographics, diagnosis at admission, ultrasound and MRI findings, and discharge diagnosis were recorded and evaluated.

Results: In total, 203 pregnant patients underwent an MRI for acute abdominal complaints during the study period. MRI was found without pathology in 138 cases (68%). In 65 cases (32%), the MRI showed findings that could explain the patient's clinical presentation. Patients presenting with long-standing abdominal pain (> 24 hours), fever, leukocytosis, or elevated C-reactive protein values were at a significantly increased risk of having an acute pathology. In 46 patients (22.6%), MRI findings changed the primary diagnosis and management while in 45 patients (22.1%) MRI findings improved characterization of the suspected pathology.

Conclusions: MRI is helpful when clinical and sonographic findings are inconclusive, leading to changes in patient management in more than one-fifth of patients.

May 2019
Yehuda Hershkovitz MD, Shirly Shohat MD, Boris Kessel MD, William P. Schecter, Alexander Beicker MD and Igor Jeroukhimov MD

Background: Selective management of stable patients with anterior abdomen stab wounds (AASWs) has become a gold standard management approach throughout the world. Evidenced-based options for supporting selective management include clinical follow-up, local wound exploration with or without diagnostic peritoneal lavage, diagnostic laparoscopy, and abdominal computerized tomography. The presence of multiple AASWs might signify a more aggressive attack and limit the safety of a selective management approach.

Objectives: To evaluate whether multiple AASWs are associated with an increased risk of intra-abdominal injury requiring emergency surgery.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed all AASW patients admitted to Assaf Harofeh Medical Center, Zerifin, Israel, and Hillel Yaffe Medical Center in Hadera, Israel, from 2007 to 2015. Patients were divided into two groups based on the number of stab wounds: single or multiple. Data were coded for demographics, severity of injury, presence of intra-abdominal injury, laparotomy rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), length of stay in the intensive care unit (LICU), and survival.

Results: The study included 169 patients. Of these, 143 patients had a single AASW and 26 had multiple AASWs. There were no differences between the groups regarding demographics, severity of injury, intra-abdominal penetration, specific organ injury, LOS, or LICU. There was no difference in the percentage of patients requiring laparotomy. The overall mortality was 2.36% (4/169). There was no significant difference in the mortality rate between the groups (P = 0.11).

Conclusions: The presence of multiple AASWs is not a risk factor for increased frequency and severity of intra-abdominal injury.

March 2019
Shaden Salameh MD MHA, Meir Antopolsky MD, Natalia Simanovsky MD, Eyal Arami MD and Nurith Hiller MD

Background: Acute non-traumatic abdominal pain is typically evaluated by abdomino-pelvic computed tomography (CT) with oral and venous contrast. The accuracy of unenhanced CT for diagnosis in this setting has not been widely studied.

Objectives: To assess the accuracy of unenhanced CT in establishing the etiology of acute non-traumatic abdominal pain.

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical and imaging records of patients aged ≥ 18 years who presented to the emergency department (ED) during a 6-month period with acute non-traumatic abdominal pain of unknown etiology, and who were evaluated with non-contrast CT within 24 hours of ED admission. Clinical details were recorded. A presumptive clinical diagnosis and CT diagnosis were compared to the discharge diagnosis which was considered the reference standard. The requirement for informed consent was waived.

Results: Altogether, 315 patients met the inclusion criteria – 138 males (44%) and 177 females (56%); their mean age was 45 years (range 18–90). Clinical diagnosis correlated with the CT findings in 162 of the cases (51%). CT was accurate in 296/315 cases (94%). The leading diagnosis in cases of a mismatch between CT diagnosis and discharge diagnosis was infection mostly in the urinary tract (12/18). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 91%, 99%, 91% and 85% respectively. The discharge diagnosis was unchanged in the patients who returned to the ED within 1 week of the first admission.

Conclusions: In this study, unenhanced CT proved to be a feasible, convenient and legitimate examination for the evaluation of patients with acute non-traumatic abdominal pain presenting to the ED.

October 2018
Sami Gendler MD, Hila Shmilovich MD, David Aranovich MD, Roy Nadler MD, Hanoch Kashtan MD and Michael Stein MD

Background: Unlike the elective treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC), sufficient data and consensual guidelines on acute care are lacking.

Objectives: To analyze a cohort of MCRC patients who required urgent surgery due to acute abdomen and to identify risk factors contributing to the patient's perioperative mortality and morbidity.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients diagnosed with stage IV colorectal cancer who required urgent laparotomy at the Rabin Medical Center. Comparative analysis was performed using Pearson’s chi-square and Student`s t-test.

Results: Between 2010 and 2015, 113 patients underwent urgent laparotomy due to colorectal cancer complications, of which 62 patients were found to have a metastatic, stage IV, disease. Large bowel obstruction was the most common indication for urgent laparotomy. In-hospital mortality was 30% (n=19), and overall 30 day mortality was 43%. Fifteen patients (24%) required more than one surgery. The average length of hospital stay was 21 days. Age and lactate levels at presentation were the only prognostic factor found for mortality (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: MCRC laparotomy patients incur a significant burden of care and have a relatively high incidence of early mortality. Our data suggest high, verging on unacceptable, mortality and complication rates in this subgroup of patients. This finding is further accentuated in the subgroup of older patients presenting with lactatemia. These data should be considered by surgeons when discussing treatment options with patients and families.

Julie Vaynshtein MD, Ohad Guetta MD, Ilya Replyansky MD, Alexander Vakhrushev MD, David Czeiger MD PHD, Amnon Ovnat MD and Gilbert Sebbag MD MPH
May 2018
Yehuda Hershkovitz MD, Itamar Ashkenazi MD, Zahar Shapira MD, Oded Zmora MD and Igor Jeroukhimov MD

Background: Damage control laparotomy (DCL) is the widely accepted procedure of choice in management of severely injured trauma patient. It has been implemented in non-trauma-related surgical pathology in the last decade.

Objectives: To evaluate our experience with planned re-laparotomy (PRL) in non-trauma patients and compare it to other reports.

Methods: Charts of all patients admitted to Assaf Harofeh Medical Center who underwent PRL for non-trauma-related abdominal pathology during a 6 year period were reviewed. Data regarding demographics, vital signs, laboratory tests, indications for surgery, length of hospital stay, and mortality were obtained from medical charts. Indications for surgery, risk factors, and mortality were analyzed.

Results: The study was comprised of 181 patients. Primary abdominal sepsis (50), postoperative sepsis (49), mesenteric event (32), and intestinal obstruction (28) were the most common indications for PRL. Mortality rate was 48.6%. Factors correlating with increased mortality were advanced age, hypotension, hypothermia, metabolic acidosis, and renal failure. Bowel resection was performed on 122 patients (67%) and primary intestinal anastomosis constructed in 46.7%. Mortality rate was lower in patients who underwent PRL with primary anastomosis compared to patients with postponed bowel anastomosis (33.3% vs. 55.4%, P = 0.018).

Conclusions: PRL in abdominal emergencies carries a high mortality rate. Primary anastomosis may be considered in non-trauma-related PRL.

October 2016
Michal M. Amitai MD, Eldad Katorza MD, Larisa Guranda MD, Sara Apter MD, Orith Portnoy MD, Yael Inbar MD, Eli Konen MD, Eyal Klang MD and Yael Eshet MD

Background: Pregnant women with acute abdominal pain pose a diagnostic challenge. Delay in diagnosis may result in significant risk to the fetus. The preferred diagnostic modality is magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), since ultrasonography is often inconclusive, and computed tomography (CT) would expose the fetus to ionizing radiation

Objectives: To describe the process in setting up an around-the-clock MRI service for diagnosing appendicitis in pregnant women and to evaluate the contribution of abdominal MR in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of consecutive pregnant women presenting with acute abdominal pain over a 6 year period who underwent MRI studies. A workflow that involved a multidisciplinary team was developed. A modified MRI protocol adapted to pregnancy was formulated. Data regarding patients' characteristics, imaging reports and outcome were collected retrospectively. 

Results: 49 pregnant women with suspected appendicitis were enrolled. Physical examination was followed by ultrasound: when positive, the patients were referred for MR scan or surgery treatment; when the ultrasound was inconclusive, MR scan was performed. In 88% of women appendicitis was ruled out and surgery was prevented. MRI diagnosed all cases with acute appendicitis and one case was inconclusive. The overall statistical performance of the study shows a negative predictive value of 100% (95%CI 91.9–100%) and positive predictive value of 83.3% (95%CI 35.9–99.6%).

Conclusions: Creation of an around-the-clock imaging service using abdominal MRI with the establishment of a workflow chart using a dedicated MR protocol is feasible. It provides a safe way to rule out appendicitis and to avoid futile surgery in pregnant women.

November 2015
Abdel-Rauf Zeina MD, Mika Shapira-Rootman MD PhD, Ahmad Mahamid MD, Jalal Ashkar MD, Saif Abu-Mouch MD and Alicia Nachtigal MD

Background: Plain abdominal radiographs are still performed as a first imaging examination to evaluate abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED), despite uncertainty regarding their utility.

Objectives: To describe the frequency and outcomes of the use of plain abdominal radiographs in the diagnosis of patients presenting with acute non-traumatic abdominal pain in the ED of a medical center. 

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients presenting to the ED with acute abdominal pain during a 6 month period. Further imaging (computed tomography, ultrasonography), when performed, was compared with the abdominal radiography. 

Results: Of 573 consecutive patients, 300 (52%) underwent abdominal radiography. Findings were normal in 88% (n=264), non-specific in 7.3% (n=22), and abnormal in 4.7% (n=14). For those with normal results, no further imaging was ordered for 43% (114/264). Of the 57% (150/264) who had follow-up imaging, 65% (98/150) showed abnormal findings. In 9 (3%) of the 300 patients, abdominal radiography identified bowel perforations and obstructions, and treatment was provided without the need for further radiologic examination.

Conclusions: The use of plain abdominal radiography is still common despite the high rate of false positive results. Efforts are needed to decrease the indiscriminate use of radiography in patients presenting with abdominal symptoms.

 

January 2014
Varda Gross-Tsur, Harry Hirsch and Fortu Benarroch
July 2009
G. Lahat, I. Nachmany, E. Itzkowitz, S. Abu-Abeid, E. Barazovsky, O. Merimsky and J. Klauzner

Background: Sporadic abdominal desmoid tumors are rare and data on these tumors as a distinct disease entity are lacking. Previous abdominal surgery, trauma, pregnancy and estrogen intake are considered risk factors. Although desmoidsare benign, invasion and a high recurrence rate are common.

Objectives: To evaluate outcomes of surgery for this rare disease.

Methods: Since 1995, 16 patients with pathologically confirmed desmoid tumor were operated on in our center. All familial adenomatous polyposis patients were excluded. A retrospective analysis of data was performed.

Results:
Of the 16 patients 12 (75%) were females. Mean age was 40.5 years (range 24-70). Thirteen patients were symptomatic and 3 were incidentally diagnosed. All patients presented with an isolated mass; 7 (50%) originated in the abdominal wall, 6 (37.5%) were retroperitoneal and 3 were (18.8%) mesenteric. All tumors except one were completely excised. Morbidity was low with no mortality. One patient was reoperated due to involved margins. None of the patients had recurrence within a median follow-up of 64 months (range 5-143).

Conclusions: The perception of sporadic abdominal desmoids as tumors with a high recurrence rate (20-70%) is probably incorrect. Adequate surgery with wide margins leads to a very low recurrence rate; cure is a legitimate goal.

 

Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or medical advice on any matter.
The IMA is not responsible for and expressly disclaims liability for damages of any kind arising from the use of or reliance on information contained within the site.
© All rights to information on this site are reserved and are the property of the Israeli Medical Association. Privacy policy

2 Twin Towers, 35 Jabotinsky, POB 4292, Ramat Gan 5251108 Israel