Scandinavian journal of gastroenterology · 2005
Clinical value of ultrasound in the evaluation of dyspepsia in primary health care.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Heikkinen Markku, Räsänen Heikki, Färkkilä Martti
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: In general practice, upper abdominal ultrasound (US) is widely used in the evaluation of patients with dyspepsia. However, there is a dearth of published data on the role of US in the dyspepsia work-up. There are no data on the use of US as a follow-up study in functional dyspepsia. The aims of this study were to assess the role of US in evaluating dyspepsia, and to assess the long-term clinical relevance of minor findings revealed by US in patients with functional dyspepsia.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four hundred consecutive dyspeptic patients were recruited. At baseline, all patients underwent gastroscopy and US. Patients were divided into two groups: "endoscopy-negative patients" and "endoscopy-positive patients". "The endoscopy-negative" group included all cases in which the final diagnoses could not be settled after gastroscopy. US was repeated after 6-7 years in patients who had functional dyspepsia.
RESULTS: In the endoscopy-negative group, gallstones were detected in 21 patients, but this was considered to be a cause of symptoms in 9 patients. No malignant lesions were detected by US in the endoscopy-negative group. In the endoscopy-positive group, a malignant tumor in the kidney was suspected in 3 patients. Only one of these tumors turned out to be an incidental small carcinoma. Moreover, several minor findings were shown by US: usually these consisted of abnormal echogenicity of the liver. During the follow-up period, 6 patients developed gallstones. At the end of the follow-up period, two clinically significant findings were diagnosed: a small renal cancer and hydronephrosis.
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the wide, untargeted use of abdominal US in the evaluation of patients with dyspepsia following a gastroscopy is not necessary. Repeated US examination in cases of functional dyspepsia is not recommended, and rarely changes the diagnosis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four hundred consecutive dyspeptic patients were recruited. At baseline, all patients underwent gastroscopy and US. Patients were divided into two groups: "endoscopy-negative patients" and "endoscopy-positive patients". "The endoscopy-negative" group included all cases in which the final diagnoses could not be settled after gastroscopy. US was repeated after 6-7 years in patients who had functional dyspepsia.
RESULTS: In the endoscopy-negative group, gallstones were detected in 21 patients, but this was considered to be a cause of symptoms in 9 patients. No malignant lesions were detected by US in the endoscopy-negative group. In the endoscopy-positive group, a malignant tumor in the kidney was suspected in 3 patients. Only one of these tumors turned out to be an incidental small carcinoma. Moreover, several minor findings were shown by US: usually these consisted of abnormal echogenicity of the liver. During the follow-up period, 6 patients developed gallstones. At the end of the follow-up period, two clinically significant findings were diagnosed: a small renal cancer and hydronephrosis.
CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the wide, untargeted use of abdominal US in the evaluation of patients with dyspepsia following a gastroscopy is not necessary. Repeated US examination in cases of functional dyspepsia is not recommended, and rarely changes the diagnosis.