Peiman Nazerian, Camilla Tozzetti, Simone Vanni, Maurizio Bartolucci, Simona Gualtieri, Federica Trausi, Marco Vittorini, Elisabetta Catini, Gian Alfonso Cibinel, Stefano Grifoni
{"title":"Accuracy of abdominal ultrasound for the diagnosis of pneumoperitoneum in patients with acute abdominal pain: a pilot study.","authors":"Peiman Nazerian, Camilla Tozzetti, Simone Vanni, Maurizio Bartolucci, Simona Gualtieri, Federica Trausi, Marco Vittorini, Elisabetta Catini, Gian Alfonso Cibinel, Stefano Grifoni","doi":"10.1186/s13089-015-0032-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pneumoperitoneum is a rare cause of abdominal pain characterized by a high mortality. Ultrasonography (US) can detect free intraperitoneal air; however, its accuracy remains unclear. The aims of this pilot study were to define the diagnostic performance and the reliability of abdominal US for the diagnosis of pneumoperitoneum.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a prospective observational study. Four senior and two junior physicians were shown, in an unpaired randomized order, abdominal US videos from 11 patients with and 11 patients without pneumoperitoneum. Abdominal US videos were obtained from consecutive patients presenting to ED complaining abdominal pain with the diagnosis of pneumoperitoneum established by CT. Abdominal US was performed according to a standardized protocol that included the following scans: epigastrium, right and left hypochondrium, umbilical area and right hypochondrium with the patient lying on the left flank. We evaluated accuracy, intra- and inter-observer agreement of abdominal US when reviewed by senior physicians. Furthermore, we compared the accuracy of a \"2 scan-fast exam\" (epigastrium and right hypochondrium) vs the full US examination and the accuracy of physicians expert in US vs nonexpert ones. Finally, accuracy of US was compared with abdominal radiography in patients with available images.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Considering senior revision, accuracy of abdominal US was 88.6 % (95 % CI 79.4-92.4 %) with a sensitivity of 95.5 % (95 % CI 86.3-99.2 %) and a specificity of 81.8 % (95 % CI 72.6-85.5 %). Inter- and intra-observer agreement (k) were 0.64 and 0.95, respectively. Accuracy of a \"2 scan-fast exam\" (87.5 %, 95 % CI 77.9-92.4 %) was similar to global exam. Sensitivity of abdominal radiography (72.2 %, 95 % CI 54.8-85.7 %) was lower than that of abdominal US, while specificity (92.5 %, 95 % CI 79.5-98.3 %) was higher. Accuracy (68.2 %, 95 % CI 51.4-80.9 %) of junior reviewers evaluating US was lower than senior reviewers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Senior physicians can recognize US signs of pneumoperitoneum with a good accuracy and reliability; sensitivity of US could be superior to abdominal radiography and a 2 fast-scan exam seems as accurate as full abdominal examination. US could be a useful bedside screening test for pneumoperitoneum. Trial registry ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02004925; URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.</p>","PeriodicalId":46598,"journal":{"name":"Critical Ultrasound Journal","volume":"7 1","pages":"15"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4595408/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Ultrasound Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13089-015-0032-6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2015/10/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Pneumoperitoneum is a rare cause of abdominal pain characterized by a high mortality. Ultrasonography (US) can detect free intraperitoneal air; however, its accuracy remains unclear. The aims of this pilot study were to define the diagnostic performance and the reliability of abdominal US for the diagnosis of pneumoperitoneum.
Methods: This was a prospective observational study. Four senior and two junior physicians were shown, in an unpaired randomized order, abdominal US videos from 11 patients with and 11 patients without pneumoperitoneum. Abdominal US videos were obtained from consecutive patients presenting to ED complaining abdominal pain with the diagnosis of pneumoperitoneum established by CT. Abdominal US was performed according to a standardized protocol that included the following scans: epigastrium, right and left hypochondrium, umbilical area and right hypochondrium with the patient lying on the left flank. We evaluated accuracy, intra- and inter-observer agreement of abdominal US when reviewed by senior physicians. Furthermore, we compared the accuracy of a "2 scan-fast exam" (epigastrium and right hypochondrium) vs the full US examination and the accuracy of physicians expert in US vs nonexpert ones. Finally, accuracy of US was compared with abdominal radiography in patients with available images.
Results: Considering senior revision, accuracy of abdominal US was 88.6 % (95 % CI 79.4-92.4 %) with a sensitivity of 95.5 % (95 % CI 86.3-99.2 %) and a specificity of 81.8 % (95 % CI 72.6-85.5 %). Inter- and intra-observer agreement (k) were 0.64 and 0.95, respectively. Accuracy of a "2 scan-fast exam" (87.5 %, 95 % CI 77.9-92.4 %) was similar to global exam. Sensitivity of abdominal radiography (72.2 %, 95 % CI 54.8-85.7 %) was lower than that of abdominal US, while specificity (92.5 %, 95 % CI 79.5-98.3 %) was higher. Accuracy (68.2 %, 95 % CI 51.4-80.9 %) of junior reviewers evaluating US was lower than senior reviewers.
Conclusions: Senior physicians can recognize US signs of pneumoperitoneum with a good accuracy and reliability; sensitivity of US could be superior to abdominal radiography and a 2 fast-scan exam seems as accurate as full abdominal examination. US could be a useful bedside screening test for pneumoperitoneum. Trial registry ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02004925; URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov.
背景:腹腔积气是一种罕见的腹痛病因,死亡率很高。超声波检查(US)可检测腹腔内游离气体,但其准确性仍不明确。这项试验性研究的目的是确定腹部超声诊断腹腔积气的诊断性能和可靠性:这是一项前瞻性观察研究。四名资深医生和两名初级医生以非配对随机顺序观看了 11 名腹腔积气患者和 11 名无腹腔积气患者的腹部 US 视频。腹部 US 视频取自连续就诊于急诊室、主诉腹痛并经 CT 确诊为腹腔积气的患者。腹部 US 按照标准化方案进行,包括以下扫描:上腹部、右侧和左侧下腹部、脐部和右侧下腹部,患者左侧卧。我们评估了资深医生审查腹部 US 的准确性、观察者内部和观察者之间的一致性。此外,我们还比较了 "两次快速扫描检查"(上腹和右下腹)与全腹部 US 检查的准确性,以及腹部 US 专家与非专家的准确性。最后,对有影像资料的患者进行了腹部超声波检查和腹部放射线检查的准确性比较:结果:考虑到资深医生的修正,腹部 US 的准确率为 88.6 %(95 % CI 79.4-92.4%),灵敏度为 95.5 %(95 % CI 86.3-99.2%),特异性为 81.8 %(95 % CI 72.6-85.5%)。观察者之间和观察者内部的一致性 (k) 分别为 0.64 和 0.95。2次扫描-快速检查 "的准确率(87.5%,95 % CI 77.9-92.4%)与全面检查相似。腹部放射摄影的敏感性(72.2%,95 % CI 54.8-85.7%)低于腹部 US,而特异性(92.5%,95 % CI 79.5-98.3%)则高于腹部 US。初级审查员评估 US 的准确率(68.2%,95 % CI 51.4-80.9%)低于高级审查员:结论:资深医生能准确可靠地识别腹腔积气的 US 征象;US 的灵敏度可能优于腹部 X 光检查,2 次快速扫描检查似乎与全腹检查一样准确。腹腔镜检查可作为腹腔积气的床旁筛查检查。试验登记 ClinicalTrials.gov;编号:NCT02004925;网址:http://www.clinicaltrials.gov。