Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2002
Selective use of ultrasonography for the detection of pneumoperitoneum.
Клиническое исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Chen Shyr-Chyr, Wang Hsiu-Po, Chen Wen-Jone, Lin Fang-Yue, Hsu Chieu-Yao, Chang King-Jen, Chen Wei-Jao
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: Whether ultrasonography is superior to plain radiography for the detection of pneumoperitoneum is unknown. The goal of this study was to determine the value of ultrasonography for the detection of pneumoperitoneum.
METHODS: One hundred thirty-two patients with suspected hollow-organ perforation were prospectively selected for study. All 132 patients received ultrasonography, upright chest radiography, and left lateral decubitus abdominal radiography examinations. The diagnostic accuracies of chest and abdominal radiographs for the detection of pneumoperitoneum were compared with corresponding values from ultrasonography.
RESULTS: Of the 125 patients who underwent laparotomy, 121 patients had hollow-organ perforation, three patients had perforated appendicitis, and one patient had acute cholecystitis. For the diagnosis of pneumoperitoneum, ultrasonography demonstrated a sensitivity of 93%, a specificity of 64%, a positive predictive value of 97%, a negative predictive value of 44%, and an accuracy of 90%. Plain radiography revealed a sensitivity of 79%, a specificity of 64%, a positive predictive value of 96%, a negative predictive value of 21%, and an accuracy of 77%.
CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasonography is a more sensitive diagnosing modality than plain radiography for the diagnosis of pneumoperitoneum. The authors suggest that ultrasonography was a useful diagnostic modality when plain radiographs failed to reveal pneumoperitoneum among patients with suspected hollow-organ perforation.
METHODS: One hundred thirty-two patients with suspected hollow-organ perforation were prospectively selected for study. All 132 patients received ultrasonography, upright chest radiography, and left lateral decubitus abdominal radiography examinations. The diagnostic accuracies of chest and abdominal radiographs for the detection of pneumoperitoneum were compared with corresponding values from ultrasonography.
RESULTS: Of the 125 patients who underwent laparotomy, 121 patients had hollow-organ perforation, three patients had perforated appendicitis, and one patient had acute cholecystitis. For the diagnosis of pneumoperitoneum, ultrasonography demonstrated a sensitivity of 93%, a specificity of 64%, a positive predictive value of 97%, a negative predictive value of 44%, and an accuracy of 90%. Plain radiography revealed a sensitivity of 79%, a specificity of 64%, a positive predictive value of 96%, a negative predictive value of 21%, and an accuracy of 77%.
CONCLUSIONS: Ultrasonography is a more sensitive diagnosing modality than plain radiography for the diagnosis of pneumoperitoneum. The authors suggest that ultrasonography was a useful diagnostic modality when plain radiographs failed to reveal pneumoperitoneum among patients with suspected hollow-organ perforation.