IntroductionPelvic ultrasounds are commonly performed for various clinical indications in female patients presenting to the hospital. A survey of the kidneys is routinely included as part of the examination, but there is limited justification for their inclusion in the assessment of every female presenting for a pelvic ultrasound.MethodWe examined the utility of surveying the kidney ultrasound during pelvic ultrasonography by reviewing the records of 1009 pelvic ultrasound examinations in 1000 women.ResultsIn total, 46 incidental findings were identified, but 91% of these were clinically inconsequential. Only four patients had incidental findings of high clinical priority requiring specialist treatment. Of these, two patients were symptomatic and had urinary tract obstruction due to stones. The other two patients harboured asymptomatic renal cell carcinomas. The overall incidence of renal incidental findings of high clinical priority in asymptomatic patients was two in 1009 examinations (1999 kidneys).ConclusionIndiscriminate uncritical screening of the kidneys in women presenting for pelvic ultrasound is not evidence‐based and represents a low‐yield examination with extremely low rate of incidental findings of clinical significance.

Introduction Practitioners of US routinely include a survey of the abdominal aorta during abdominal US in accordance with international guidelines. Such practice is of uncertain value in younger patients. Methodology This study was a retrospective review of 2000 abdominal US examinations which included visualisation of the aorta in patients <50 years of age. Patient demographics and referral details were recorded, and US images and reports were reviewed for the presence of aortic and periaortic pathology. Results The most common indications for US were abdominal pain (1337, 44%), deranged liver function tests (453, 15%), nausea and/or vomiting (229, 8%), elevated inflammatory markers (146, 5%), pancreatitis (134, 4%) and pyrexia (127, 4%). Fewer than half (977, 49%) of the reports contained a comment regarding the aorta. Aortic pathology was reported in 2 (0.1%) cases. Both were reported as aortic ectasia and both represented a false‐positive diagnosis. One male patient had a known abdominal aortic aneurysm with endovascular aortic repair. No new aortic aneurysms were found. All cases of atherosclerotic disease were ignored, and none were reported. Periaortic pathology was encountered on 1 patient, but this was known. No case of new periaortic pathology was detected. Conclusion Routine and indiscriminate imaging of the abdominal aorta during abdominal US in patients <50 years of age is not evidence based. No new case of abdominal aortic aneurysm or new para‐aortic pathology was detected, all cases of atherosclerosis were ignored, and two false‐positive diagnoses of aortic ectasia were made.