Internal and Emergency Medicine

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 349–354 | Cite as

The role of ultrasonography in the diagnosis and management of non-traumatic acute abdominal pain

  • Mehmet Selim Nural
  • Meltem Ceyhan
  • Ahmet Baydin
  • Selim Genc
  • Ilkay Koray Bayrak
  • Muzaffer Elmali
EM - Original


Our aim was to assess the effects of initial ultrasonography (US) evaluation on the diagnosis and management of non-traumatic acute abdominal pain in the emergency department. Three hundred patients with the complaint of non-traumatic acute abdominal pain who were sent for US examination with an initial clinical impression were included in the study. Pre-US and post-US surveys were designed for the clinicians who requested US. The percentage concordance of US findings with the discharge diagnosis made by clinical follow-up, imaging modalities and surgery was determined by calculating the confidence interval. The concordance of the initial clinical impression and the US diagnosis with the discharge diagnosis were compared using the McNemar test. US could not detect any pathology in 102 (34%; 95%CI, 28.6–39.3%) of the patients. The US revealed a different diagnosis than the clinical impression in 69 (23%; 95%CI, 18.2–27.7%), and confirmed the diagnosis in 121 (40%; 95%CI, 34.4–45.5%) patients. The US changed the treatment plans in 47% (95%CI, 41.3–52.6%) of the patients. The clinicians stated US helped them “very much” or “moderately” in making a diagnosis in 83% (95%CI, 78.7–87.2%). When US results were compared with the discharge diagnosis, there was concordance in 238 (79.3%; 95%CI, 74.3–83.6%) patients but not in 62 (20.6%; 95%CI, 16–25.1%). Among 121 patients the initial clinical impression agreed with the US diagnosis and there was concordance with the discharge diagnosis in 105 (86.7%; 95%CI, 80–92.7%). The concordance of US findings with the discharge diagnosis was significantly higher than that of the initial clinical impression statistically. In the initial evaluation of the patients with acute abdominal pain, US is considerably helpful in making the correct diagnosis, and that the concordance with the discharge diagnosis is high. When whole abdominal scanning is not performed, targeted US study according to the initial clinical impression decreases the clinical benefit of US.


Ultrasonography Acute abdomen Making decision Emergency department 


  1. 1.
    Powers RD, Guertler AT (1995) Abdominal pain in the ED: stability and change over 20 years. Am J Emerg Med 13:301–303PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rosen MP, Sands DZ, Longmaid HE et al (2000) Impact of abdominal CT on the management of patients presenting to the emergency department with acute abdominal pain. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:1391–1396PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davis DP, Campbell CJ, Poste JC, Ma G (2005) The association between operator confidence and accuracy of ultrasonography performed by novice emergency physicians. J Emerg Med 29:259–264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Puylaert JB, van der Zant FM, Rijke AM (1997) Sonography and the acute abdomen: practical considerations. AJR Am J Roentgenol 168:179–186PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lewis LM, Klippel AP, Bavolek RA et al (2007) Quantifying the usefulness of CT in evaluating seniors with abdominal pain. Eur J Radiol 61:290–296PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosen MP, Siewert B, Sands DZ et al (2003) Value of abdominal CT in the emergency department for patients with abdominal pain. Eur Radiol 13:418–424PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nagurney JT, Brown DF, Chang Y et al (2003) Use of diagnostic testing in the emergency department for patients presenting with non-traumatic abdominal pain. J Emerg Med 25:363–371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dhillon S, Halligan S, Goh V et al (2002) The therapeutic impact of abdominal ultrasound in patients with acute abdominal symptoms. Clin Radiol 57:268–271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Puylaert JB (2003) Ultrosonography of the acute abdomen: lost art or future stethoscope? Eur Radiol 13:1203–1206PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Puylaert JB, Rutgers PH, Lalisang RI et al (1987) A prospective study of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of appendicitis. N Engl J Med 317:666–669PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Siegel Y, Grubstein A, Postnikov V et al (2005) Ultrasonography in patients without trauma in the emergency department: impact on discharge diagnosis. J Ultrasound Med 24:1371–1376PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jeffery RB (1989) Management of periappendical inflammatory mass. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 10:341–347Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Riddell AM, Khalili K (2006) Assesment of acute abdominal pain: utility of a second cross-sectional imaging examination. Radiology 238:570–577PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Seltzer SE, Beard JO, Adams DF (1985) Radiologist as consultant: direct contact between referring clinician and radiologist before CT examination. AJR Am J Roentgenol 144:661–664PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© SIMI 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mehmet Selim Nural
    • 1
  • Meltem Ceyhan
    • 1
  • Ahmet Baydin
    • 2
  • Selim Genc
    • 2
  • Ilkay Koray Bayrak
    • 1
  • Muzaffer Elmali
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Radiology, Faculty of MedicineOndokuz Mayis UniversitySamsunTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Emergency Medicine, Faculty of MedicineOndokuz Mayis UniversitySamsunTurkey

Personalised recommendations