Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock
Home About us Editors Ahead of Print Current Issue Archives Search Instructions Subscribe Advertise Login 
Users online:623   Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size   


 
 Table of Contents    
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 3-8
Free air on plain film: Do we need a computed tomography too?


1 Department of Surgery, Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC; Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
2 Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma, Emergency Surgery and Critical Care, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA
3 Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma, Emergency Surgery and Critical Care, Massachusetts General Hospital; Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission20-Mar-2013
Date of Acceptance15-Jul-2013
Date of Web Publication23-Jan-2014
 

   Abstract 

Context: Standard teaching is that patients with pneumoperitoneum on plain X-ray and clinical signs of abdominal pathology should undergo urgent surgery. It is unknown if abdominal computed tomography (CT) provides additional useful information in this scenario. Aims: The aim of this study is to determine whether or not CT scanning after identification of pneumoperitoneum on plain X-ray changes clinical management or outcomes. Settings and Design: Retrospective study carried out over 4 years at a tertiary care academic medical center. All patients in our acute care surgery database with pneumoperitoneum on plain X-ray were included. Patients who underwent subsequent CT scanning (CT group) were compared with patients who did not (non-CT group). Statistical Analysis Used: The Wilcoxon rank-sum test, t-test and Fisher's exact test were used as appropriate to compare the groups. Results: There were 25 patients in the non-CT group and 18 patients in the CT group. There were no differences between the groups at presentation. All patients in the non-CT group underwent surgery, compared with 83% (n = 15) of patients in the CT group (P = 0.066). 16 patients in the non-CT and 11 patients in the CT group presented with peritonitis and all underwent surgery regardless of group. For patients undergoing surgery, there were no differences in outcomes between the groups. After X-ray, patients undergoing CT required 328.0 min to arrive in the operating room compared with 136.0 min in the non-CT group (P = 0.007). Conclusions: In patients with pneumoperitoneum on X-ray and peritonitis on physical exam, CT delays surgery without providing any measurable benefit.

Keywords: Acute abdomen, computed tomography scan, gastrointestinal perforation, peritonitis, plain film, pneumoperitoneum

How to cite this article:
Solis CV, Chang Y, De Moya MA, Velmahos GC, Fagenholz PJ. Free air on plain film: Do we need a computed tomography too?. J Emerg Trauma Shock 2014;7:3-8

How to cite this URL:
Solis CV, Chang Y, De Moya MA, Velmahos GC, Fagenholz PJ. Free air on plain film: Do we need a computed tomography too?. J Emerg Trauma Shock [serial online] 2014 [cited 2019 Jan 16];7:3-8. Available from: http://www.onlinejets.org/text.asp?2014/7/1/3/125631



   Introduction Top


Perforation of an intra-abdominal viscus is an emergency that requires prompt management. The standard teaching has been that in the presence of clinical signs of acute abdominal pathology, pneumoperitoneum identified on plain X-ray obviates the need for further imaging and constitutes an indication for laparotomy. [1]

In spite of this longstanding surgical teaching, there are theoretical reasons further imaging may be helpful, even when pneumoperitoneum is seen on X-ray. [2] Plain X-ray can produce a false positive diagnosis of pneumoperitoneum, which might result in unnecessary laparotomy. The reported specificity of plain X-ray for pneumoperitoneum ranges from 53% to 89.2%, so this is a real concern. [3],[4] Abdominal computed tomography (CT) is widely available and is very specific and sensitive for pneumoperitoneum. The overall sensitivity and specificity of CT for gastrointestinal perforation is generally in the 80-100% range depending on the study. [5],[6],[7] It can also frequently identify the exact site of gastrointestinal perforation when present and diagnose a wide range of other intra-abdominal pathology. [8],[9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15] The accuracy of CT for identifying the site of perforation ranges from approximately 70% to 90%. [5],[6] The additional information gained by CT may be useful in either directing or avoiding surgery in patients with pneumoperitoneum on plain X-ray. [16],[17] One retrospective study showed an increasing use of CT and laparoscopic repair of peptic ulcer in recent years; many patients underwent CT scanning after X-ray. [18] Others have described non-operative management of sealed duodenal ulcers and perforated diverticulitis with CT as an adjunct. [19],[20]

These potential benefits must be balanced against the cost, delay and medical risks such as radiation exposure and possible acute kidney injury or allergic reactions incurred by performing CT. [21],[22],[23],[24] Despite the theoretical benefits of CT in cases, in which pneumoperitoneum has already been identified on plain X-ray, the cost and radiation exposure are only justifiable if CT actually results in improved patient outcomes. Thus, we set out to perform a retrospective study to evaluate the whether CT scanning influences management and outcomes in patients with plain film confirmed pneumoperitoneum.


   Subjects and Study Methods Top


Study design and patient selection

This was a retrospective study carried out from January 2008 to January 2012 at a tertiary care teaching hospital with 24-h CT and operating room (OR) capacity and 24 h in-house surgical and radiology attending coverage. We included patients 18 years of age or older with pneumoperitoneum identified on plain X-ray. Patients who underwent a CT scan prior to plain X-ray or who had pneumoperitoneum seen on X-ray after recent abdominal surgery were excluded from the study. American Board of Surgery certified general surgeons with additional certification in surgical critical care made the decision to operate or not and performed all the surgery, assisted by senior surgical trainees. Patients were identified retrospectively from our acute care surgery database, which includes all non-trauma patients admitted to, consulted on or operated on in our division of trauma and emergency surgery. In this database, trained coders apply the diagnosis at the time of discharge. In order to identify these patients, the acute care surgery database was searched by International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 diagnoses at the time of discharge. The following ICD-9 codes were used: (533.1, 533.2, 533.5, 533.6, 569.83, 531.1, 531.2, 531.5, 531.6, 532.1, 532.2, 532.5, 532.6, 534.1, 534.2, 534.5, 534.6, 562.01, 562.03, 562.11, 562.13, 567.21, 567.22, 567.29, 567.9 and 567.41) to encompass the vast majority of diagnoses that could lead to pneumoperitoneum. Patient charts were then reviewed to determine if they met inclusion or exclusion criteria.

Patient characteristics that were assessed included the following: Age, gender, presence or absence of peritonitis, systolic blood pressure (SBP), heart rate, temperature, admission white blood cell count, Charlson comorbidity, [25] American Society of Anesthesiologists class [26] and diagnosis. All were recorded at the time of presentation. Outcomes measured included the need for surgery, surgical technique (open vs. laparoscopic), procedure type, need for ostomy, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, hospital length of stay (LOS), development of pneumonia, vasopressor requirement, peak post-operative creatinine, operative time, time from the emergency department (ED) registration to surgery, time from X-ray to surgery and time from X-ray to CT. These variables were compared between the two groups (CT vs. non-CT).

Analysis

Continuous variables were summarized using mean ± standard deviation (SD) or median with interquartiles, whichever was more appropriate. Two-sample t-tests were used to compare the mean between the two groups (CT vs. non-CT) for normally distributed continuous variables and the Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare the shift in distribution for continuous variables with skewed distributions. Categorical variables were summarized using frequency and percentage and compared using Fisher's exact tests. All analyses were conducted using SAS (The SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) version 9.3.

Institutional Review Board Approval was obtained from our institution's Review Board Committee.


   Results Top


Demographics

A total of 43 patients in the acute care surgery database met the study criteria described above. Of the 43 patients, 18 underwent CT scanning after pneumoperitoneum was identified on plain X-ray (CT group) and 25 underwent plain X-ray only (non-CT group). Demographic and clinical characteristics are listed in [Table 1]. There were no significant differences between the baseline characteristics of the groups. The mean age of these patients was 60.6 years (SD = 17, range: 28-92). Six patients (14.0%) presented with hypotension (SBP <90) and 27 patients (62.8%) presented with peritonitis. The most common diagnoses were perforated sigmoid diverticulitis (35%) and perforated peptic ulcer (33%) [Table 2].
Table 1: Patient demographics

Click here to view
Table 2: Final diagnoses

Click here to view


Clinical management and outcomes

Patient clinical management and outcomes were compared between the CT group and the non-CT group [Table 3]. When the decision to operate was compared between the two groups, all patients in the non-CT group underwent surgery, while three patients did not undergo surgery in the CT group (100% vs. 83%, P = 0.066). However, all patients with peritonitis (n = 27 [CT group 11, non-CT group 16]) underwent surgery regardless of group. The mean LOS was 11.4 ± 10.2 days. Patients who came through the ED and underwent surgery in the non-CT group had a shorter time between ED registration and OR arrival than patients in the CT group (median 278 min vs. 523 min, P = 0.007). For all patients undergoing surgery, the time between X-ray and arriving to the OR was shorter for the non-CT group (median of 136 min vs. 328 min, P = 0.007). The median time between X-ray and CT in the CT group was 174 min (interquartile range, 91-301 min). No differences were noted in a number of other outcomes including mortality, hospital LOS, ICU admission, need for vasopressors, operative time or performance of a laparoscopic procedure. Among patients who did undergo surgery, the most common surgical procedures in both groups were sigmoid colectomy with end colostomy (Hartmann's procedure) and repair of gastroduodenal ulcer [Table 4]. Perforated sigmoid diverticulitis was the most common final diagnosis in the CT group (50%, n = 9) compared with only 24% (n = 6) in the non-CT group. Gastroduodenal perforation was more common in the non-CT group (40%, n = 10) than in the CT group (22%, n = 4). The non-CT group included three of the four colonic perforations after colonoscopy [Table 2].
Table 3: Surgical management and outcomes

Click here to view
Table 4: Procedures performed

Click here to view


Of the operated cases, 14 had surgical evidence of pneumoperitoneum. One had an internal hernia. All 14 cases with surgical evidence of pneumoperitoneum had evidence of pneumoperitoneum on CT scan (sensitivity = 100%). Specificity of CT-identified free air for gastrointestinal perforation was also 100% (all 14 cases of pneumoperitoneum on CT scan proved to have evidence of perforation on operative examination). A comparison of CT diagnosis and OR diagnosis was performed to see if the CT diagnoses matched the OR diagnoses. The three patients who did not undergo surgery were excluded, which left a total of 15 patients. 11 out of the 15 diagnoses were accurate (73% accuracy). Of the remaining four cases, two were gastroduodenal perforations in which gastrointestinal perforation was correctly identified, but no specific source of perforation could be identified on CT. One was a case of duodenal perforation incorrectly diagnosed on CT as perforated right-side diverticulitis and one was a case of a leaking around a gastrostomy tube incorrectly diagnosed on CT as transenteric placement of the gastrostomy tube.


   Discussion Top


Traditional teaching eschews further imaging in patients with clinical peritonitis and pneumoperitoneum identified on plain X-ray, yet the wide and relatively rapid availability of CT has challenged this tenant. No studies have studied the use of CT in this specific scenario. We attempted to investigate the possible advantages and disadvantages of CT in patients with pneumoperitoneum on plain X-ray with this retrospective study.

Limitations

The primary limitations of our study are related to its relatively small size and retrospective, single-center design. It is entirely possible that the practice patterns with regard to CT scan use and the interpretation and utilization of the results are not representative of other institutions or practice environments and so the generalizability of our results can be questioned. Although we did not find significant advantages or disadvantages to performing CT scans in patients with pneumoperitoneum on plain X-ray, the possibility of a type 2 error, in which outcome differences exist between the CT and non-CT groups, but were not detected due to our relatively small sample size, remains. This may be difficult to overcome in future observational studies as the trend toward wider use of CT scanning for evaluation of acute abdominal pain continues, since many patients now undergo CT as their initial radiographic test. [27] An adequately powered randomized prospective design could overcome this limitation, as well as reduce the possibility of undetected systematic differences between the groups, which can bias results in a retrospective study.

Decision to obtain a CT scan

Obtaining a CT after plain-film confirmed pneumoperitoneum was common in our study. 41.9% of all patients with pneumoperitoneum underwent CT. Among patients with peritonitis, 59% underwent CT, showing that a large percentage of patients with peritonitis and pneumoperitoneum underwent CT, which would contravene traditional teaching. Due to the retrospective nature of our study it was not possibly to reliably identify the indications for CT scanning in each case. Although it is unclear what the practice patterns are at other institutions, another single-institution study suggests that over the course of the last decade the use of CT scan has increased for the diagnosis of perforated peptic ulcer (from lesser than 10% of patients undergoing CT in 2003-100% of patients undergoing CT in 2009), including in-patients who had pneumoperitoneum identified on plain X-ray. [18] Based on the clinical variables we collected, patients in the two groups appeared to be equivalent. This argues that the choice to perform CT was not based on a systematic difference in clinical status, though there was a pattern of patients with different diagnoses undergoing different types of imaging. The distribution of sigmoid diverticulitis, gastroduodenal perforation and colonoscopic perforation was not uniform, as discussed above and shown in [Table 2]. The suspected diagnosis may influence whether or not a CT scan is obtained. Perhaps, surgeons who suspect perforated diverticulitis are more likely to order a CT scan in hopes of managing the disease process non-operatively whereas surgeons suspecting a gastroduodenal perforation are less likely to obtain a CT scan because they don't think it will alter management. There may also be clinical factors not captured in this study that make surgeons more likely to proceed to surgery without CT in cases of gastroduodenal perforation - such patients may look different clinically in ways that we cannot measure, but that influence the decision to either operate immediately or obtain further imaging.

Decision to operate

All three patients that did not undergo surgery were in the CT group and all were successfully treated non-operatively. Two had diverticulitis and one had a colonoscopic perforation. While CT cannot truly be said to make non-operative treatment possible-it is not therapeutic-it may be useful in allowing accurate diagnosis and planning of non-operative therapy and therefore provide the comfort needed to avoid laparotomy in a subset of patients with pneumoperitoneum on plain X-ray. These findings suggest that in patients with pneumoperitoneum on plain X-ray and no peritonitis, there might be a role for CT scanning in helping to determine, which patients can safely avoid surgery. It should be noted, however, that CT did not result in the decision to forego surgery in any patients with peritonitis on physical exam. None of the patients managed non-operatively had peritonitis and all of patients with peritonitis underwent surgery whether they had a pre-operative CT scan or not. This suggests that in the presence of peritonitis and pneumoperitoneum on plain X-ray, obtaining a CT scan will not impact the decision to operate.

We did have one false positive diagnosis of pneumoperitoneum on plain X-ray. The false positive rate in our study (1/43, 2.3%) compares favorably with the literature in which most studies report a false positive rate between 10 and 14% with only one study showing a false positive of 0%. [28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35] Patient with a false positive radiographic diagnosis of pneumoperitoneum on plain X-ray had peritonitis on exam, underwent CT scanning that identified a small bowel volvulus without perforation and subsequently underwent an urgent laparotomy revealing small bowel volvulus around an adhesive band without infarction requiring a lysis of adhesions only. In this case, the false positive abdominal radiograph occurred in a patient who nonetheless required urgent surgery, suggesting that a strategy of basing surgical exploration without further imaging on the presence of both pneumoperitoneum and peritonitis may not result in unnecessary surgery even in the case of a false-positive X-ray.

Outcomes

While CT scanning did not impact the decision to operate in patients with peritonitis, we also hypothesized that by providing pre-operative information on the diagnosis and concurrent intra-abdominal pathology, it might result in improvements in surgical care such as shorter operative times or more laparoscopic operations, which might in turn result in better clinical outcomes such as shorter ICU and hospital LOS or lower mortality. Pre-operative CT correctly identified gastrointestinal perforation in all patients undergoing surgery and identified the source of perforation in 73%, but this resulted in no discernable benefit. [36],[37] There were no statistically significant differences in outcomes (surgery vs. no surgery, laparoscopic vs. open, LOS, etc.) between the two groups. This suggests that pre-operative imaging after pneumoperitoneum has been identified on plain X-ray, even if it further hones the pre-operative diagnosis, may not result in tangible benefits in the OR. This is in line with other literature showing that early abdominal CT scanning improves diagnostic accuracy, but does not necessarily lead to improved outcomes. [36] All sources of gastrointestinal perforation that resulted in pneumoperitoneum on plain X-ray in this study are readily identified at laparotomy or laparoscopy and while it may be comforting to the surgeon to know the diagnosis prior to surgery, we did not identify any demonstrable benefits.

Disadvantages to CT scanning?

While there were no clear advantages to CT in patients undergoing surgery or presenting with peritonitis, we did not detect any clear drawbacks either. The main potential disadvantage of CT scanning that we identified was delay. For patients in the CT group undergoing surgery, there was a significantly longer elapsed time from ED registration (for patients presenting to the ED) to arrival in the OR (523 min vs. 278 min [P = 0.007]) and a significantly longer elapsed time between obtaining the X-ray that demonstrated pneumoperitoneum and arrival in the OR for all patients undergoing surgery (328 min vs. 136 min [P = 0.007]). However, as noted above, there were no differences in clinical outcomes such as ICU LOS, hospital LOS or mortality, making it difficult to assert that significant harm came from this delay. While prompt surgical care is considered as important in cases of gastrointestinal perforation, some patients may benefit from a period of pre-operative optimization and delays of the magnitude described here may not be significant. [38] Other potential disadvantages of CT besides delay include cost, radiation exposure and adverse reactions to contrast agents. We did not identify any cases of contrast-related morbidity such as nephropathy or hypersensitivity in our cohort and the median peak creatinine was the same in the CT and non-CT groups. The incidence of contrast-related complications in larger studies ranges from 3% to 15% depending on the definitions used, the exact type of contrast and the method of administration. [39],[40] Although we did not perform a cost analysis, abdominal CT scanning typically results in increased costs of approximately $1000 when used for the urgent diagnosis of appendicitis or trauma. [21],[22] The impact of radiation exposure would not be expected to be manifest without long-term follow-up. Concern about long-term risks has focused on patients with pathology requiring multiple repeat CT scans and on children. While some authors argue that the benefits of the information gained outweigh the potential risks for patients with acute pathology, this premise is called into question when no change in management results from CT scanning (as in patients with peritonitis in this study) and has been challenged by other reports that implicate even single CT scans as a risk factor for malignancy. [41],[42],[43]


   Conclusion Top


In summary, our study suggests that CT scanning may be useful in patients with pneumoperitoneum on plain X-ray without evidence of peritonitis, by allowing accurate diagnosis and thus assisting in non-operative management of selected patients with gastrointestinal perforation. However, in patients with peritonitis on exam, it does not appear to significantly alter management either by effecting the decision to operate or by influencing the surgical approach or outcomes. In spite of the limitations noted above, we believe this study provides some evidence that in a modern era characterized by the exploding use of imaging technology, some traditional teaching remains relevant and that patients with pneumoperitoneum and peritonitis need surgery, not further imaging.


   Acknowledgment Top


The authors would like to thank Laurie Petrovick, for maintaining the acute care surgery database used in this work.

 
   References Top

1.Postier RG, Squires RA. Acute abdomen. In: Townsend CM, Beauchamp RD, Evers BM, Mattox KL, editors. Sabiston Textbook of Surgery: The Biological Basis of Modern Surgical Practice. 18 th ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 2008. p. 1180-98.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Ghahremani GG. Radiologic evaluation of suspected gastrointestinal perforations. Radiol Clin North Am 1993;31:1219-34.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.Chen SC, Yen ZS, Wang HP, Lin FY, Hsu CY, Chen WJ. Ultrasonography is superior to plain radiography in the diagnosis of pneumoperitoneum. Br J Surg 2002;89:351-4.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.Braccini G, Lamacchia M, Boraschi P, Bertellotti L, Marrucci A, Goletti O, et al. Ultrasound versus plain film in the detection of pneumoperitoneum. Abdom Imaging 1996;21:404-12.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.Cadenas Rodríguez L, Martí de Gracia M, Saturio Galán N, Pérez Dueñas V, Salvatierra Arrieta L, Garzón Moll G. Use of multidetector computed tomography for locating the site of gastrointestinal tract perforations. Cir Esp 2013;91:316-23.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.Oguro S, Funabiki T, Hosoda K, Inoue Y, Yamane T, Sato M, et al. 64-Slice multidetector computed tomography evaluation of gastrointestinal tract perforation site: Detectability of direct findings in upper and lower GI tract. Eur Radiol 2010;20:1396-403.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    
7.Chen CH, Huang HS, Yang CC, Yeh YH. The features of perforated peptic ulcers in conventional computed tomography. Hepatogastroenterology 2001;48:1393-6.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.Rubesin SE, Levine MS. Radiologic diagnosis of gastrointestinal perforation. Radiol Clin North Am 2003;41:1095-115.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]    
9.Catalano O. Computed tomography in the study of gastrointestinal perforation. Radiol Med 1996;91:247-52.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Furukawa A, Sakoda M, Yamasaki M, Kono N, Tanaka T, Nitta N, et al. Gastrointestinal tract perforation: CT diagnosis of presence, site, and cause. Abdom Imaging 2005;30:524-34.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Grassi R, Romano S, Pinto A, Romano L. Gastro-duodenal perforations: Conventional plain film, US and CT findings in 166 consecutive patients. Eur J Radiol 2004;50:30-6.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Johnson GL, Johnson PT, Fishman EK. CT evaluation of the acute abdomen: Bowel pathology spectrum of disease. Crit Rev Diagn Imaging 1996;37:163-90.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.Nguyen LK, Wong DD, Fatovich DM, Yeung JM, Persaud J, Wood CJ, et al. Low-dose computed tomography versus plain abdominal radiography in the investigation of an acute abdomen. ANZ J Surg 2012;82:36-41.  Back to cited text no. 13
[PUBMED]    
14.Singh JP, Steward MJ, Booth TC, Mukhtar H, Murray D. Evolution of imaging for abdominal perforation. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2010;92:182-8.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]    
15.Stapakis JC, Thickman D. Diagnosis of pneumoperitoneum: Abdominal CT vs. upright chest film. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1992;16:713-6.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]    
16.Baker SR. Plain films and cross-sectional imaging for acute abdominal pain: Unresolved issues. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 1999;20:142-7.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Kim SH, Shin SS, Jeong YY, Heo SH, Kim JW, Kang HK. Gastrointestinal tract perforation: MDCT findings according to the perforation sites. Korean J Radiol 2009;10:63-70.  Back to cited text no. 17
[PUBMED]    
18.Thorsen K, Glomsaker TB, von Meer A, Søreide K, Søreide JA. Trends in diagnosis and surgical management of patients with perforated peptic ulcer. J Gastrointest Surg 2011;15:1329-35.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Berne TV, Donovan AJ. Nonoperative treatment of perforated duodenal ulcer. Arch Surg 1989;124:830-2.  Back to cited text no. 19
[PUBMED]    
20.Costi R, Cauchy F, Le Bian A, Honart JF, Creuze N, Smadja C. Challenging a classic myth: Pneumoperitoneum associated with acute diverticulitis is not an indication for open or laparoscopic emergency surgery in hemodynamically stable patients. A 10-year experience with a nonoperative treatment. Surg Endosc 2012;26:2061-71.  Back to cited text no. 20
[PUBMED]    
21.Mahoney E, Agarwal S, Li B, Dechert T, Abbensetts J, Glantz A, et al. Evidence-based guidelines are equivalent to a liberal computed tomography scan protocol for initial patient evaluation but are associated with decreased computed tomography scan use, cost, and radiation exposure. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2012;73:573-8.  Back to cited text no. 21
[PUBMED]    
22.Shaligram A, Pallati P, Simorov A, Meyer A, Oleynikov D. Do you need a computed tomographic scan to evaluate suspected appendicitis in young men: An administrative database review. Am J Surg 2012;204:1025-30.  Back to cited text no. 22
[PUBMED]    
23.Mettler FA Jr, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT, Mahesh M. Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: A catalog. Radiology 2008;248:254-63.  Back to cited text no. 23
[PUBMED]    
24.Compare CAT scan cost. Available from: http://www.comparecatscancost.com. [Last cited on 2013 Mar 17].  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: Development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:373-83.  Back to cited text no. 25
[PUBMED]    
26.American Society of Anesthesiologists. ASA physical status classification system [about 1 screen]. Park Ridge: ASA; 1995-2013. Available from: http://www.asahq.org/For-Members/Clinical-Information/ASA-Physical-Status-Classification-System.aspx. [Last updated on 2013; Last cited on 2013 Jun 17].  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.Strömberg C, Johansson G, Adolfsson A. Acute abdominal pain: Diagnostic impact of immediate CT scanning. World J Surg 2007;31:2347-54.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.Hansen HS, Sørensen K. CT scanning in suspected ileus or pneumoperitoneum. Ugeskr Laeger 1996;158:4759-62.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.Winek TG, Mosely HS, Grout G, Luallin D. Pneumoperitoneum and its association with ruptured abdominal viscus. Arch Surg 1988;123:709-12.  Back to cited text no. 29
[PUBMED]    
30.Miller RE, Nelson SW. The roentgenologic demonstration of tiny amounts of free intraperitoneal gas: Experimental and clinical studies. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 1971;112:574-85.  Back to cited text no. 30
[PUBMED]    
31.Roh JJ, Thompson JS, Harned RK, Hodgson PE. Value of pneumoperitoneum in the diagnosis of visceral perforation. Am J Surg 1983;146:830-3.  Back to cited text no. 31
[PUBMED]    
32.Mularski RA, Ciccolo ML, Rappaport WD. Nonsurgical causes of pneumoperitoneum. West J Med 1999;170:41-6.  Back to cited text no. 32
[PUBMED]    
33.McGlone FB, Vivion CG Jr, Meir L. Spontaneous penumoperitoneum. Gastroenterology 1966;51:393-8.  Back to cited text no. 33
[PUBMED]    
34.Rowe NM, Kahn FB, Acinapura AJ, Cunningham JN Jr. Nonsurgical pneumoperitoneum: A case report and a review. Am Surg 1998;64:313-22.  Back to cited text no. 34
[PUBMED]    
35.Mularski RA, Sippel JM, Osborne ML. Pneumoperitoneum: A review of nonsurgical causes. Crit Care Med 2000;28:2638-44.  Back to cited text no. 35
[PUBMED]    
36.Sala E, Watson CJ, Beadsmoore C, Groot-Wassink T, Fanshawe TR, Smith JC, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of routine early abdominal computed tomography in patients presenting with non-specific acute abdominal pain. Clin Radiol 2007;62:961-9.  Back to cited text no. 36
[PUBMED]    
37.Weir-McCall J, Shaw A, Arya A, Knight A, Howlett DC. The use of pre-operative computed tomography in the assessment of the acute abdomen. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2012;94:102-7.  Back to cited text no. 37
[PUBMED]    
38.Green JM. When is faster better? Operative timing in acute care surgery. Curr Opin Crit Care 2008;14:423-7.  Back to cited text no. 38
[PUBMED]    
39.Pasternak JJ, Williamson EE. Clinical pharmacology, uses, and adverse reactions of iodinated contrast agents: A primer for the non-radiologist. Mayo Clin Proc 2012;87:390-402.  Back to cited text no. 39
[PUBMED]    
40.Ho J, Kingston RJ, Young N, Katelaris CH, Sindhusake D. Immediate hypersensitivity reactions to IV non-ionic iodinated contrast in computed tomography. Asia Pac Allergy 2012;2:242-7.  Back to cited text no. 40
[PUBMED]    
41.Zondervan RL, Hahn PF, Sadow CA, Liu B, Lee SI. Body CT scanning in young adults: Examination indications, patient outcomes, and risk of radiation-induced cancer. Radiology 2013;267:460-9.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.Brenner DJ, Hall EJ. Computed tomography - An increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2277-84.  Back to cited text no. 42
[PUBMED]    
43.Committee to Assess Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation, National Research Council. Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006. p. 267-312.  Back to cited text no. 43
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Peter J Fagenholz
Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma, Emergency Surgery and Critical Care, Massachusetts General Hospital; Department of Surgery, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA
USA
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0974-2700.125631

Rights and Permissions



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
  
 
  Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Subjects and Stu...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
   Acknowledgment
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2268    
    Printed71    
    Emailed2    
    PDF Downloaded28    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal