• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Fri, 03.05.24

Search results


January 2018
Michalle Soudack MD, Semion Plotkin MD, Aviva Ben-Shlush MD, Lisa Raviv-Zilka MD, Jeffrey M. Jacobson MD, Michael Benacon MD and Arie Augarten MD

Background: Opinions differ as to the need of a lateral radiograph for diagnosing community acquired pneumonia in children referred to the emergency department. A lateral radiograph increases the ionizing radiation burden but at the same time may improve specificity and sensitivity in this population.

Objectives: To determine the value of the frontal and lateral chest radiographs compared to frontal view stand-alone images for the management of children with suspected community acquired pneumonia seen in a pediatric emergency department.

Methods: Chest radiographs from 451 children with clinically suspected pneumonia were retrospectively reviewed. Interpretation of frontal views was compared to interpretation of combined frontal and lateral view, the latter being the gold standard.

Results: Findings consistent with bacterial pneumonia were diagnosed in 94 (20.8%) of the frontal stand-alone radiographs and in 109 (24.2%) of the combined frontal and lateral radiographs. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the frontal radiograph alone were 86.2%, 93.9%, 81.7%, and 95.5%, respectively. False positive and false negative rates were 15% and 21%, respectively, for the frontal view alone. The number of lateral radiographs needed to diagnose one community acquired pneumonia was 29.

Conclusions: The lateral chest radiograph improves the diagnosis of pediatric community acquired pneumonia to a certain degree and may prevent overtreatment with antibiotics.

December 2015
Eleonora Plotkin MD, Sydney Benchetrit MD, Tanya Zahavi MD, Oded Kimhi MD and Ze'ev Korzets MBBS
May 2014
Timna Agur MD MSc, Yair Levy MD, Eleonora Plotkin MD and Sydney Benchetrit MD
October 2002
Ze'ev Korzets, MBBS, Eleanora Plotkin, MD, Jacques Bernheim, MD and Rivka Zissin, MD

Background: Acute renal infarction is an oft-missed diagnosis. As a result; its true incidence, although presumed to be low, is actually unknown. Surprisingly, the medical literature on the subject, other than anecdotal case reports, is scarce.

Objectives: To increase physician awareness of the diagnosis and to identify predictive clinical and laboratory features of the entity.

Method: Between 1 November 1997 and 31 October 2000, 11 cases of acute renal infarction in 10 patients were diagnosed in our center by contrast-enhanced computerized tomography. The medical charts of these patients were reviewed regarding risk factor, clinical presentation, possible predictive laboratory examinations, and out-come.

Results: During the 36 month observation period, the incidence of acute renal infarction was 0.007%. The mean age of the patients (5 men and 5 women) was 67.4 + 21.1 (range 30-87 years). In four cases the right and in five the left kidney was involved; in the other. two cases bilateral:involvement was seen. In 7/10 patients, an increased risk for thromboembolic events was found. Six had chronic atrial fibrillation and one had a combined activated protein C resistance and protein S deficiency, Three patients had suffered a previous thromboembolic event. Two cases were receiving anticoagulant therapy with an INR of 1.6 and 1.8, respectively. On admission, flank pain was recorded in 10/11, fever in 5 and nausea/vomiting in 4 cases. Hematuria was detected in urine reagent strips in all cases; Serum lactate dehydrogenase and white blood cell count were elevated in all cases (1,570 + 703 IU/L and 12,988 + 3,841/ l, respectively). In no case was the diagnosis of acute renal infarction  initially entertained. The working diagnoses were .renal colic in 2 pyelonephritis in 3, renal carcinoma, digitails intoxication, and suspected endocarditis in one patient each, and an acute abdomen in 3. Time from admission to definitive CT diagnosis ranged from 24 hours to 6 days; Three patients were treated with intravenous heparin and another with a combination of IV heparin and renal intra-arterial urokinase infusion with, in the latter case, no recovery of function of the affected kidney. With the exception of this one patient (with a contralateral contracted kidney) who required maintenance dialysis, in all other cases serum creatinine levels. remained unchanged or reverted to the baseline mean of 1.1 mg/dl (0.9-1.2).

Conclusions: Acute renal infarction is not as rare as previously assumed. The entity is often misdiagnosed. Unilateral flank pain in a patient with an increased risk for thromboembolism should raise the suspicion of renal infarction. In such a setting, hematuria, leuaocytosis and an elevated LDH level are strongly supportive of the diagnosis.

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