The gist: Small bowel obstruction (SBO) often presents with murky historical and physical features but quick bedside ultrasound exists as a modality that may expedite a patient's workup, with limited training and good sensitivity. Uptake of US for SBO in US EDs has not been quick, despite nearly 20 years of literature, but perhaps Free Open Access Medical education (FOAM) such as this stellar tutorial on ultrasound (US) diagnosis will reduced the knowledge translation gap [1].
The case: A 62 y/o male presented to the Janus General ED with a one day history of abdominal pain, mostly located in his right upper quadrant. He reported no fevers, or chill but did have nausea, poor appetite, and a few episodes of non-bloody, non-bilious emesis containing food/clear. He reported a "normal" bowel movement last night and had a soft abdomen with normoactive bowel sounds. As the chief complaint was "RUQ pain," a bedside ultrasound was placed on the patient's abdomen during the initial H&P. Merely touching the probe the the patient's abdomen yielded the following image
Having watched the Ultrasound Podcast's episode on SBO merely weeks prior, the diagnosis of SBO was made expediently. The workup at this point changed - the patient was admitted to the surgery service, who ordered a CT to localize the cause of the obstruction.
Recently, I've seen cases of SBO blending into the barrage of gastroenteritides fluxing into the ED, prompting me to review the literature. I found a Taylor et al review of the likelihood ratios (LR - a concept FOAM helped me understand) of various diagnostic modalities helpful.
Patients often endorse vague abdominal complaints, typically comprising intermittent pain, nausea, vomiting, constipation, and have a history of prior abdominal surgery [2,3]. Unfortunately these are non-specific and variably present. While insensitive, the following demonstrated the most useful LRs:
X-ray - the historical initial screening test of choice, yet has poor sensitivity, especially for partial SBO (PSBO) and rarely yields a diagnosis/changes management [5]. While x-ray is cheap with minimal radiation, results may falsely reassure providers and this may re
The case: A 62 y/o male presented to the Janus General ED with a one day history of abdominal pain, mostly located in his right upper quadrant. He reported no fevers, or chill but did have nausea, poor appetite, and a few episodes of non-bloody, non-bilious emesis containing food/clear. He reported a "normal" bowel movement last night and had a soft abdomen with normoactive bowel sounds. As the chief complaint was "RUQ pain," a bedside ultrasound was placed on the patient's abdomen during the initial H&P. Merely touching the probe the the patient's abdomen yielded the following image
Having watched the Ultrasound Podcast's episode on SBO merely weeks prior, the diagnosis of SBO was made expediently. The workup at this point changed - the patient was admitted to the surgery service, who ordered a CT to localize the cause of the obstruction.
Recently, I've seen cases of SBO blending into the barrage of gastroenteritides fluxing into the ED, prompting me to review the literature. I found a Taylor et al review of the likelihood ratios (LR - a concept FOAM helped me understand) of various diagnostic modalities helpful.
- LR+ >5-10: Significantly increases likelihood of the disease
- LR+ 0.2 -5 (esp if close to 1): Does not modify the likelihood of the disease
- LR+ below 0.1-0.2: Significantly decreases the likelihood of the disease
Patients often endorse vague abdominal complaints, typically comprising intermittent pain, nausea, vomiting, constipation, and have a history of prior abdominal surgery [2,3]. Unfortunately these are non-specific and variably present. While insensitive, the following demonstrated the most useful LRs:
- Constipation +LR = 8.8 and –LR = 0.59
- Sensitivity 37-44%
- History of abdominal surgery +LR = 3.86 and –LR = 0.19
- Sensitivity 69-85% [4]
- Abdominal distention +LR between 5.64-16.8 and –LR of 0.34 to 0.43 depending on the study
- Abnormal bowel sounds had a +LR of 6.33 and a –LR of 0.27 [4]
X-ray - the historical initial screening test of choice, yet has poor sensitivity, especially for partial SBO (PSBO) and rarely yields a diagnosis/changes management [5]. While x-ray is cheap with minimal radiation, results may falsely reassure providers and this may re
- Sensitivities range between 59-93% [5].
- +LR 1.55 (95% CI = 1.10-2.19) and -LR 0.59 (95% CI = 0.43-0.82) (*after the removal of a study with significant heterogeneity) [4]
- Sensitivity: 97% (95% CI= 92–99); Specificity 90% (95% CI=84–95) [4]
- +LR 9.5 and -LR 0.04 [4]
- Good interrater reliability compared with formal US- Kappa of 0.8 [4]
Great post - loving the trend to US in your recent stuff! Clearly you are moving to the dark side. :-)
ReplyDeleteCasey