Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Many patients present to the emergency department with chest pain. While in most of them chest pain represents a benign complaint, in some patients it underlies a life-threatening illness.

Objectives: To assess the routine evaluation of patients presenting to the ED[1] with acute chest pain via the utilization of a cardiologist-based chest pain unit using different non-invasive imaging modalities.

Methods: We evaluated the records of 1055 consecutive patients who presented to the ED with complaints of chest pain and were admitted to the CPU[2]. After an observation period and according to the decision of the attending cardiologist, patients underwent myocardial perfusion scintigraphy, multidetector computed tomography, or stress echocardiography.

Results: The CPU attending cardiologist did not prescribe non-invasive evaluation for 108 of the 1055 patients, who were either admitted (58 patients) or discharged (50 patients) after an observation period. Of those remaining, 445 patients underwent MDCT[3], 444 MPS[4], and 58 stress echocardiography. Altogether, 907 patients (86%) were discharged from the CPU. During an average period of 236 ± 223 days, 25 patients (3.1%) were readmitted due to chest pain of suspected cardiac origin, and only 8 patients (0.9%) suffered a major adverse cardiovascular event.

Conclusions: Utilization of the CPU enabled a rapid and thorough evaluation of the patients’ primary complaint, thereby reducing hospitalization costs and occupancy on the one hand and avoiding misdiagnosis in discharged patients on the other.
 

[1] ED = emergency department

[2] CPU = chest pain unit

[3] MDCT = multidetector computed tomography

[4] MPS = myocardial perfusion scintigraphy

Background: Osler taught that splenic infarction presents with left upper abdominal quadrant pain, tenderness and swelling accompanied by a peritoneal friction rub. Splenic infarction is classically associated with bacterial endocarditis and sickle cell disease.

Objectives: To describe the contemporary experience of splenic infarction.

Methods: We conducted a chart review of inpatients diagnosed with splenic infarction in a Jerusalem hospital between 1990 and 2003.

Results: We identified 26 cases with a mean age of 52 years. Common causes were hematologic malignancy (six cases) and intracardiac thrombus (five cases). Only three cases were associated with bacterial endocarditis. In 21 cases the splenic infarction brought a previously undiagnosed underlying disease to attention. Only half the subjects complained of localized left-sided abdominal pain, 36% had left-sided abdominal tenderness 31% had no signs or symptoms localized to the splenic area, 36% had fever, 56% had leukocytosis and 71% had elevated lactate dehydrogenase levels. One splenectomy was performed and all patients survived to discharge. A post hoc analysis demonstrated that single infarcts were more likely to be associated with fever (20% vs. 63%, p < 0.05) and leukocytosis (75% vs. 33%, p = 0.06)

Conclusions: The clinical presentation of splenic infarction in the modern era differs greatly from the classical teaching, regarding etiology, signs and symptoms. In patients with unexplained splenic infarction, investigation frequently uncovers a new underlying diagnosis. 

Background: Professional drivers have been found to be at high risk for developing low back pain. However, the exact reasons are poorly understood.

Objectives: To assess the prevalence of LBP[1] among Israeli professional urban bus drivers, and evaluate the association between LBP in drivers and work-related psychosocial and ergonomic risk factors.

Methods: A total of 384 male full-time urban bus drivers were consecutively enrolled to this cross-sectional study. Information on regular physical activity and work-related ergonomic and psychosocial stressing factors was collected during face-to-face interviews. The prevalence of LBP was assessed using the Standardized Nordic Questionnaire.

Results: From the total cohort, 164 bus drivers (45.4%) reported experiencing LBP in the previous 12 months. Ergonomic factors associated with LBP were uncomfortable seat (odds ratio 2.6, 95% confidence interval 1.4–5.0) and an uncomfortable back support (OR[2] 2.5, 95% CI[3] 1.4–4.5). In the group of drivers with LBP, 48.5% reported participation in regular physical activities vs. 67.3% in the group without LBP (P < 0.01). The following psychosocial stressing factors showed significant association with LBP: “limited rest period during a working day” (1.6, 1.0–2.6), “traffic congestion on the bus route” (1.8, 1.2–2.7), “lack of accessibility to the bus stop for the descending and ascending of passengers” (1.5, 1.0–1.5), and “passengers' hostility” (1.8, 1.1–2.9).

Conclusions: Work-related ergonomic and psychosocial factors showed a significant association with LBP in Israeli professional urban bus drivers. Prevention of work-related stress, organizational changes targeted to reduce stressful situations, improvement in seat comfort, and encouraging regular sports activity need to be evaluated as prevention strategies for LBP in professional bus drivers.

Background: Low back pain is a common problem managed by primary care physicians and orthopedic specialists.

Objectives: To evaluate the outcome of new LBP[1] episodes in patients who chose to visit either an orthopedist or a general practitioner.

Methods: All patients visiting the orthopedist or physician during the study period were screened for a new complaint of LBP. After the initial visit the patients were interviewed by phone by means of a structured questionnaire, with a follow-up interview one month later. The study was performed at Clalit Health Services primary care and consultation clinics. A random sample of 125 GPs[2] and 17 orthopedists were chosen. Consecutively recruited were 166 patients who visited the GP and 75 the orthopedist. The main outcome measures evaluated were perceived complaint severity and degree of disturbance to everyday functioning, problem resolution, and health services utilization.

Results: Patients who decided to first visit the orthopedist indicated a higher disturbance to everyday functioning (75% vs. 70%, P < 0.01), were invited for further follow-up visits (6% vs. 51%, P < 0.05) and had more computed tomography and bone scans (20 vs. 3%, P < 0.001 and 9 vs. 2%, P < 0.05, respectively). Health status after one month showed that patients who chose the GP were more likely to have their problem solved (36 vs. 17%, P < 0.05).

Conclusions: Symptom resolution for a new LBP complaint was significantly higher in patients who decided on the GP, even when controlling for severity of illness and degree of disturbance to everyday functioning.

Synovial plicae are membranous inward folds of the synovial lining of the knee joint capsula. Such folds are regularly found in the human knee, but most are asymptomatic and of little clinical consequence. However, they can become symptomatic and cause knee pain. In this review, we will discuss medial plica syndrome. Medial plica irritation of the knee is a common source of anterior knee pain. The main complaint is an intermittent, dull, aching pain in the area medial to the patella above the joint line and in the supramedial patellar area. Pain increases with activity, especially when knee flexion and extension are required. Treatment includes physiotherapy, reducing activity and rest. In cases that do not respond initially to an exercise program, corticosteroid injections and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medication are given. Results of conservative treatment seem to be more appropriate in young patients with a short duration of symptoms. If conservative treatment fails, surgical treatment using arthroscopy is appropriate. During arthroscopy, excision of the whole plica should be achieved.

Background: Patients with non-inflamed appendix have been reported to have had more hospitalizations and emotional disorders before and after the operation than patients with acute appendicitis.

Objectives: To compare abdominal pain characteristics, as well as demographic and psychosocial data in children with histologically confirmed appendicitis compared to non-inflamed appendices.

Methods: Charts of children with suspected appendicitis who had undergone appendectomy were retrospectively reviewed for relevant clinical and laboratory data. The patients or their parents were then contacted by phone and were asked to respond to a detailed questionnaire on abdominal symptoms as well as demographic and psychosocial data.

Results: The study group comprised 156 children: 117 with histologically confirmed appendicitis and 39 with normal appendices. Eighty-two patients (53.2%) were located and interviewed: 62 (54%) with appendicitis and 20 (51%) with normal appendices. Of the 82 children, 16 reported recurrent episodes of abdominal pain before or after surgery: 11 (17.7%) in the appendicitis group and 5 (25%) in the normal appendix group. Only six patients fulfilled the formal criteria for the diagnosis of recurrent abdominal pain: 5 (8%) from the appendicitis group and 1 (5%) from the non-inflamed appendix group (not significant). In addition, no significant statistical differences were found between the groups regarding school performance, behavior and social interaction with peers.

Conclusions: We could not demonstrate an increased incidence of recurrent abdominal pain, nor could we identify significant psychosocial morbidity in those children undergoing a non-inflamed appendectomy.