Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Abdominal pathology in pregnant patients is a frequent challenge for emergency department physicians. Ultrasound is the imaging modality of choice but is inconclusive in approximately one-third of cases. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is becoming increasingly available, even in acute settings. Multiple studies have defined the sensitivity and specificity of MRI in this population.

Objectives: To evaluate the use of MRI findings in pregnant patients presenting with acute abdominal complaints to the emergency department.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at a single institution. Data were collected on pregnant patients who underwent an MRI for acute abdominal complaints between 2010 and 2019 at a university center. Patient demographics, diagnosis at admission, ultrasound and MRI findings, and discharge diagnosis were recorded and evaluated.

Results: In total, 203 pregnant patients underwent an MRI for acute abdominal complaints during the study period. MRI was found without pathology in 138 cases (68%). In 65 cases (32%), the MRI showed findings that could explain the patient's clinical presentation. Patients presenting with long-standing abdominal pain (> 24 hours), fever, leukocytosis, or elevated C-reactive protein values were at a significantly increased risk of having an acute pathology. In 46 patients (22.6%), MRI findings changed the primary diagnosis and management while in 45 patients (22.1%) MRI findings improved characterization of the suspected pathology.

Conclusions: MRI is helpful when clinical and sonographic findings are inconclusive, leading to changes in patient management in more than one-fifth of patients.

Background: Unlike the elective treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (MCRC), sufficient data and consensual guidelines on acute care are lacking.

Objectives: To analyze a cohort of MCRC patients who required urgent surgery due to acute abdomen and to identify risk factors contributing to the patient's perioperative mortality and morbidity.

Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients diagnosed with stage IV colorectal cancer who required urgent laparotomy at the Rabin Medical Center. Comparative analysis was performed using Pearson’s chi-square and Student`s t-test.

Results: Between 2010 and 2015, 113 patients underwent urgent laparotomy due to colorectal cancer complications, of which 62 patients were found to have a metastatic, stage IV, disease. Large bowel obstruction was the most common indication for urgent laparotomy. In-hospital mortality was 30% (n=19), and overall 30 day mortality was 43%. Fifteen patients (24%) required more than one surgery. The average length of hospital stay was 21 days. Age and lactate levels at presentation were the only prognostic factor found for mortality (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: MCRC laparotomy patients incur a significant burden of care and have a relatively high incidence of early mortality. Our data suggest high, verging on unacceptable, mortality and complication rates in this subgroup of patients. This finding is further accentuated in the subgroup of older patients presenting with lactatemia. These data should be considered by surgeons when discussing treatment options with patients and families.

Background: Plain abdominal radiographs are still performed as a first imaging examination to evaluate abdominal pain in the emergency department (ED), despite uncertainty regarding their utility.

Objectives: To describe the frequency and outcomes of the use of plain abdominal radiographs in the diagnosis of patients presenting with acute non-traumatic abdominal pain in the ED of a medical center. 

Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of patients presenting to the ED with acute abdominal pain during a 6 month period. Further imaging (computed tomography, ultrasonography), when performed, was compared with the abdominal radiography. 

Results: Of 573 consecutive patients, 300 (52%) underwent abdominal radiography. Findings were normal in 88% (n=264), non-specific in 7.3% (n=22), and abnormal in 4.7% (n=14). For those with normal results, no further imaging was ordered for 43% (114/264). Of the 57% (150/264) who had follow-up imaging, 65% (98/150) showed abnormal findings. In 9 (3%) of the 300 patients, abdominal radiography identified bowel perforations and obstructions, and treatment was provided without the need for further radiologic examination.

Conclusions: The use of plain abdominal radiography is still common despite the high rate of false positive results. Efforts are needed to decrease the indiscriminate use of radiography in patients presenting with abdominal symptoms.