Introduction

Fadem, Maureen E. Ruprecht

doi:10.1057/9781137466235_1

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The certainty of diagnosis of acute diverticulitis was considered a positive CEACT scan. The evaluation of POCUS for acute diverticulitis was assessed according to Fadem 12 . A true-positive (TP) result is a diagnosis (positive) of acute diverticulitis determined by any method; a true-negative (TN) result is the exclusion of diagnosis (negative) of acute diverticulitis demonstrated by any method; a false-positive (FP) result is a diagnosis of acute diverticulitis made by POCUS but not by CEACT scan; and a false-negative (FN) result is the exclusion of diagnosis of acute diverticulitis by POCUS but its confirmation by CEACT scan.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surgeon-performed ultrasound for the staging of acute diverticulitis: Preliminary results of a prospective study

Zago

Biloslavo

Mariani

et al. 2021

J Trauma Acute Care Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although contrast-enhanced abdominal computed tomography (CEACT) is still considered the criterion standard for the assessment of suspected acute diverticulitis, in recent years, the use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has been spreading more and more in this setting. The aim of this study was to compare CEACT to POCUS for the diagnosis and staging of suspected acute diverticulitis. METHODS:This is a prospective study conducted on 55 patients admitted to the emergency department of two Italian Hospitals with a clinical suspicion of acute diverticulitis between January 2014 and December 2017. All the patients included underwent POCUS first and CEACT immediately afterward, with the diagnosis and the staging reported according to the Hinchey (H) classification modified by Wasvary et al.[Wasvary H, Turfah F, Kadro O, Beauregard W. Same hospitalization resection for acute diverticulitis. Am Surg. 1999;65:632-635.] Three surgeons performed all the POCUS, and the same two radiologists retrospectively analyzed all the CEACT images. The radiologists were informed of the clinical suspicion but unaware of the POCUS findings. The CEACTwas used as the criterion standard for the comparison. RESULTS:The final cohort included 30 females (55%) and 25 males (45%). The median age was 62 years (range, 24-88 years), and the median body mass index was 26 kg/m 2 (range, 19-42 kg/m 2 ). Forty-six of 55 patients had a confirmed diagnosis of acute diverticulitis on both POCUS and CEACT, whereas, in 7 patients, the diagnosis was not confirmed by both methods. Point-of-care ultrasound sensitivity and specificity were 98% and 88%, respectively. Point-of-care ultrasound positive and negative predictive values were 98% and 88%, respectively. Point-of-care ultrasound accuracy was 96%. Point-of-care ultrasound classified 33 H1a, 11 H1b, 1 H2, and 1 H3 acute diverticulitis. This staging was confirmed in all patients but three (93%) by CEACT. CONCLUSION:Point-of-care ultrasound appeared a reliable technique for the diagnosis and the staging of clinically suspected H1 and H2 acute diverticulitis. It could contribute in saving time and resources and in avoiding unnecessary radiation exposure to most patients.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%