Acute abdomen - Sabinston textbook of surgery, 2012

1141

CHAPTER 47

The term acute abdomen refers to signs and symptoms of abdominal pain and tenderness, a clinical presentation that often requires emergency surgical therapy. This challenging clinical scenario requires a thorough and expeditious workup to deter-mine the need for operative intervention and initiate appropriate therapy. Many diseases, some of which are not surgical or even intra-abdominal,1 can produce acute abdominal pain and ten-derness. Therefore, every attempt should be made to make a correct diagnosis so that the therapy selected, often a laparoscopy or laparotomy, is appropriate.

The diagnoses associated with an acute abdomen vary according to age and gender.2 Appendicitis is more common in younger individuals, whereas biliary disease, bowel obstruction, intestinal ischemia and infarction, and diverticulitis are more common in older adults. Most surgical diseases associated with an acute abdomen result from infection, obstruction, ischemia, or perforation.

Nonsurgical causes of an acute abdomen can be divided into three categories, endocrine and metabolic, hematologic, and toxins or drugs (Box 47-1).3 Endocrine and metabolic causes include uremia, diabetic crisis, addisonian crisis, acute intermittent porphyria, acute hyperlipoproteinemia, and heredi-tary Mediterranean fever. Hematologic disorders include sickle cell crisis, acute leukemia, and other blood dyscrasias. Toxins and drugs causing an acute abdomen include lead and other heavy metal toxins, narcotic withdrawal, and black widow spider poisoning. It is important to consider these possibilities when evaluating a patient with acute abdominal pain.

Because of the potential surgical nature of the acute abdomen, an expeditious workup is necessary (Box 47-2). The workup proceeds in the usual order—history, physical examina-tion, laboratory tests, and imaging studies. Although imaging studies have increased the accuracy with which the correct diag-nosis can be made, the most important part of the evaluation

remains a thorough history and careful physical examination. Laboratory and imaging studies are usually needed, but are directed by the findings on history and physical examination.

ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGYAbdominal pain is divided into visceral and parietal compo-nents. Visceral pain tends to be vague and poorly localized to the epigastrium, periumbilical region, or hypogastrium, depend-ing on its origin from the primitive foregut, midgut, or hindgut (Fig. 47-1). It is usually the result of distention of a hollow viscus. Parietal pain corresponds to the segmental nerve roots innervating the peritoneum and tends to be sharper and better localized. Referred pain is pain perceived at a site distant from the source of stimulus. For example, irritation of the diaphragm may produce pain in the shoulder. Common referred pain sites and their accompanying sources are listed in Box 47-3. Deter-mining whether the pain is visceral, parietal, or referred is important and can usually be done with a careful history.

Introduction of bacteria or irritating chemicals into the peritoneal cavity can cause an outpouring of fluid from the peritoneal membrane. The peritoneum responds to inflamma-tion by increased blood flow, increased permeability, and forma-tion of a fibrinous exudate on its surface. The bowel also develops local or generalized paralysis. The fibrinous surface and decreased intestinal movement cause adherence between the bowel and omentum or abdominal wall and help localize inflammation. As a result, an abscess may produce sharply localized pain, with normal bowel sounds and gastrointestinal function, whereas a diffuse process, such as a perforated duodenal ulcer, produces generalized abdominal pain, with a quiet abdomen. Peritonitis may affect the entire abdominal cavity or part of the visceral or parietal peritoneum.

Peritonitis is peritoneal inflammation of any cause. It is usually recognized on physical examination by severe tenderness to palpation, with or without rebound tenderness, and guarding. Peritonitis is usually secondary to an inflammatory insult, most often a gram-negative infection with an enteric organism or anaerobe. It can result from noninfectious inflammation; a common example is pancreatitis. Primary peritonitis occurs more commonly in children and is most often caused by Pneu-mococcus or hemolytic Streptococcus spp.4 Adults with end-stage renal disease on peritoneal dialysis can develop infections of their peritoneal fluid, with the most common organisms being gram-positive cocci. Adults with ascites and cirrhosis can develop primary peritonitis and, in these cases, the organisms are usually Escherichia coli and Klebsiella spp.

anatomy and physiologyhistoryevaluation and diagnosispreparation for emergency operationatypical patientsalgorithms in the acute abdomensummary

ACUTE ABDOMENRonald A. Squires and Russell G. Postier

1142 SECTION X ABDOMEN

HISTORYA detailed and organized history is essential to formulating an accurate differential diagnosis and subsequent treatment regimen. Current technologic advances in imaging cannot and will never replace the need for a skilled clinician’s bedside exami-nation. The history must not only focus on the investigation of the pain complaints, but on past problems and associated symp-toms as well. Questions should be open-ended whenever pos-sible, and structured to disclose the onset, character, location, duration, radiation, and chronology of the pain experienced. It is tempting to ask questions about whether the pain is sharp or whether eating makes it worse. This specific yes or no style can facilitate the history taking by not allowing the patient to narrate, but it can miss vital details and potentially skew the response. A much better questioning style would be to deter-mine how the pain feels to the patient or whether anything makes the pain better or worse. Often, additional information can be gained by observing how the patient describes the pain that is experienced. Pain identified with one finger is often more localized and typical of parietal innervation or peritoneal inflam-mation as compared with indicating the area of discomfort with the palm of the hand, which is more typical of the visceral dis-comfort of bowel or solid organ disease.

The intensity and severity of the pain are related to the underlying tissue damage. Sudden onset of excruciating pain suggests conditions such as intestinal perforation or arterial embolization with ischemia, although other conditions, such as biliary colic, can present suddenly as well. Pain that develops and worsens over several hours is typical of conditions of pro-gressive inflammation or infection such as cholecystitis, colitis, and bowel obstruction. The history of progressive worsening versus intermittent episodes of pain can help differentiate infec-tious processes that worsen with time compared with the spas-modic colicky pain associated with bowel obstruction, biliary colic from cystic duct obstruction, or genitourinary obstruction (Figs. 47-2 to 47-4).

Equally as important as the character of the pain is its loca-tion and radiation. Tissue injury or inflammation can trigger visceral and somatic pain. Solid organ visceral pain in the abdomen is generalized in the quadrant of the involved organ, such as liver pain across the right upper quadrant of the abdomen.

BOX 47-3 Locations and Causes of Referred Pain

Right ShoulderLiverGallbladderRight hemidiaphragm

Left ShoulderHeartTail of pancreasSpleenLeft hemidiaphragm

Scrotum and TesticlesUreter

BOX 47-2 Surgical Acute Abdominal Conditions

HemorrhageSolid organ traumaLeaking or ruptured arterial aneurysmRuptured ectopic pregnancyBleeding gastrointestinal diverticulumArteriovenous malformation of gastrointestinal tractIntestinal ulcerationAortoduodenal fistula after aortic vascular graftHemorrhagic pancreatitisMallory-Weiss syndromeSpontaneous rupture of spleen

InfectionAppendicitisCholecystitisMeckel’s diverticulitisHepatic abscessDiverticular abscessPsoas abscess

PerforationPerforated gastrointestinal ulcerPerforated gastrointestinal cancerBoerhaave’s syndromePerforated diverticulum

BlockageAdhesion induction small/large bowel obstructionSigmoid volvulusCecal volvulusIncarcerated herniasInflammatory bowel diseaseGastrointestinal malignancyIntussusception

IschemiaBuerger’s diseaseMesenteric thrombosis/embolismOvarian torsionIschemic colitisTesticular torsionStrangulated hernias

BOX 47-1 Nonsurgical Causes of the Acute Abdomen

Endocrine and Metabolic CausesUremiaDiabetic crisisAddisonian crisisAcute intermittent porphyriaHereditary Mediterranean fever

Hematologic CausesSickle cell crisisAcute leukemiaOther blood dyscrasias

Toxins and DrugsLead poisoningOther heavy metal poisoningNarcotic withdrawalBlack widow spider poisoning

ACUTE ABDOMEN ChAPTER 47 1143SECTIO

N X

ABD

OM

EN

Activities that exacerbate or relieve the pain are also impor-tant. Eating will often worsen the pain of bowel obstruction, biliary colic, pancreatitis, diverticulitis, or bowel perforation. Food can provide relief from the pain of nonperforated peptic ulcer disease or gastritis. Clinicians will often recognize that they are evaluating peritonitis while taking the history. Patients with peritoneal inflammation will avoid any activity that stretches or jostles the abdomen. They describe worsening of the pain with any sudden body movement and realize that there is less pain if their knees are flexed. The car ride to the hospital can be agoniz-ing, with the patient feeling every bump along the way.

Associated symptoms can be important diagnostic clues. Nausea, vomiting, constipation, diarrhea, pruritis, melena, hematochezia, and/or hematuria can all be helpful symptoms if present and recognized. Vomiting may occur because of severe abdominal pain of any cause or as a result of mechanical bowel obstruction or ileus. Vomiting is more likely to precede the onset of significant abdominal pain in many medical conditions,

Small bowel pain is perceived as poorly localized periumbilical pain, whereas colon pain is centered between the umbilicus and pubis symphysis. As inflammation expands to involve the peri-toneal surface, parietal nerve fibers from the spine allow for focal and intense sensation. This combination of innervation is responsible for the classic diffuse periumbilical pain of early appendicitis that later shifts to become an intense focal pain in the right lower abdomen at McBurney’s point. If the physician focuses on the character of the current pain and does not thor-oughly investigate its onset and progression, he or she will miss these strong historical clues (Figs. 47-5 and 47-6). Pain may also extend well beyond the diseased site. The liver shares some of its innervation with the diaphragm and may create referred pain to the right shoulder from the C3-C5 nerve roots. Genitourinary pain is another source of pain that commonly has a radiating pattern. Symptoms are primarily in the flank region, originating from the splanchnic nerves of T11-L1, but pain often radiates to the scrotum or labia via the hypogastric plexus of S2-S4.

FIGURE 47-1 Sensory innervation of the viscera. (From White JC, Sweet WH: Pain and the neurosurgeon, Springfield, Ill, 1969, Charles C Thomas, p 526.)

VISCUSSEGMENTAL

INNERVATIONSNERVES PLEXUSES

Esophagus,trachea, bronchi

Heart andaortic arch

Stomach

Biliary tract

Small intestine

Kidney

Colon

Uterine fundus

Uterine cervix

Bladder

Rectum

CardiacPulmonary*

Renal

Spermatic*Ovarian*

Preaortic Inf. mesenteric Sup. hypogastric Bladder* Prostate* Uterus

Sup. cardiac*

Middle cardiac

Inf. cardiac

Thoracic cardiac

Maj. splanchnic

Min. splanchnic

Least splanchnic

SacralParasympathetic Bladder Cervix Rectum

Celiacandadrenal*

C12345678

2345678

9

2

2

3

4

5

3

4 5

S1

10

11

12

L1

T1

Vagus

T1-T3 or

T5-T7

T6-T8

T8-T10

T10-L1

T10-L1

T10-L1

S2-S4

T4

* No known sensory fibers in sympathetic rami.


that can occur. Diarrhea is associated with several medical causes of acute abdomen, including infectious enteritis, inflammatory bowel disease or parasitic contamination. Bloody diarrhea can be seen in these conditions, as well as in colonic ischemia.

The past medical history could be more helpful than any other single part of the patient’s evaluation. Previous illnesses or diagnoses can greatly increase or decrease the likelihood of certain conditions that would otherwise not be strongly consid-ered. Patients may, for example, report that the current pain is similar to the kidney stone passage that they experienced a

whereas the pain of an acute surgical abdomen presents first and stimulates vomiting via medullary efferent fibers that are trig-gered by visceral afferent pain fibers. Constipation or obstipation can be a result of mechanical obstruction or decreased peristalsis. It may represent the primary problem and require laxatives and prokinetic agents, or merely be a symptom of an underlying condition. A careful history should include whether the patient is continuing to pass any gas or stool from the rectum. A com-plete obstruction is more likely to be associated with subsequent bowel ischemia or perforation caused by the massive distention

FIGURE 47-2 Character of pain—gradual, progressive pain.

CholecystitisHepatitis Pancreatitis

Diverticulitis

Appendicitis

Tubo-ovarianabcess or

ectopicpregnancy

FIGURE 47-3 Character of pain—colicky, crampy, intermittent pain.

Biliary colic

Small bowelobstruction

Colonicobstruction

Ureteral colic(kidney stones)

FIGURE 47-4 Character of pain—sudden, severe pain.

Ureteral colic(may be constant)

Perforatedulcer

Rupturedaorticaneurysm

FIGURE 47-5 Referred pain. Solid circles are primary or most intense sites of pain.

Perforatedulcer

Pyelonephritis,renal orureteral colic


N X

ABD

OM

EN

FIGURE 47-6 Referred pain. Solid circles are primary or most intense sites of pain.

Cholecystitis

Appendicitis

Pancreatitis

decade previously. On the other hand, a prior history of appen-dectomy, pelvic inflammatory disease, or cholecystectomy can significantly influence the differential diagnosis. During the abdominal examination, all scars on the abdomen should be accounted for by the medical history obtained.

A history of medications and the gynecologic history of female patient are also important. Medications can both create acute abdominal conditions or alternatively mask their symp-toms. Although a thorough discussion of the impact of all medi-cations is beyond the scope of this chapter, several common drug classes deserve mention. High-dose narcotic use can interfere with bowel activity and lead to obstipation and obstruction. Narcotics can also contribute to spasm of the sphincter of Oddi and exacerbate biliary or pancreatic pain. They can also suppress pain sensation and alter mental status, which can impair the ability to diagnose the condition accurately. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are associated with an increased risk of upper gastrointestinal inflammation and perforation; ste-roids can block protective gastric mucous production by chief cells and reduce the inflammatory reaction to infection, includ-ing advanced peritonitis. As a class, immunosuppressive agents increase a patient’s risk of acquiring various bacterial or viral illnesses and also blunt the inflammatory response, diminishing the pain that is present and the overall physiologic response. Anticoagulants are more prevalent in our emergency patients as the population ages. These drugs may be the cause of gastroin-testinal bleeds, retroperitoneal hemorrhages, or rectus sheath hematomas. They can also complicate the preoperative prepara-tion of the patient and be the cause of substantial morbidity if their use goes unrecognized. Finally, recreational drugs can play a role in patients with an acute abdomen. Chronic alcoholism is strongly associated with coagulopathy and portal hypertension from liver impairment. Cocaine and methamphetamine can create an intense vasospastic reaction, which can create life-threatening hypertension and cardiac and intestinal ischemia.

Gynecologic health, specifically the menstrual history, is crucial in the evaluation of lower abdominal pain in a young woman. The likelihood of ectopic pregnancy, pelvic inflamma-tory disease, mittelschmerz, and/or severe endometriosis are all heavily influenced by the details of the gynecologic history.

Little has changed in the technique or goals of history taking since Dr. Zachary Cope first published his classic paper on the diagnosis of acute abdominal pain in 1921.5 An exception is the application of computers to history taking, which has been extensively studied in Europe.6-10 Data were collected by physi-cians on detailed standardized forms during history and physical examinations and entered into computers programmed with a medical database of diseases and their associated signs and symp-toms. The computer-generated diagnosis, based on mathemati-cal probabilities, was as much as 20% more accurate than physicians who didn’t use computers to help arrive at a diagnosis. Statistically significant improvement was identified in regard to a timely laparotomy, shortened hospital stay, and reduced need for surgery and hospitalization. However, it should be noted that statistically significant improvements in accuracy and efficiency can be realized without computer assistance if similar standard-ized forms are used for data collection. This has also been observed in the settings of trauma and critical care.

PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONAn organized and thoughtful physical examination is critical to the development of an accurate differential diagnosis and the subsequent treatment algorithm. Despite newer technologies, including high-resolution computed tomography (CT) scan-ning, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), the physical examination remains a key part of a patient’s evaluation and must not be minimized. Skilled clinicians will be able to develop a narrow and accurate differential diagnosis in most of their patients at the conclusion of the history and physical examination. Laboratory and imaging studies can then be used to confirm the suspicions further, reorder the proposed differen-tial diagnosis or, less commonly, suggest unusual possibilities not yet considered.

The physical examination should always begin with a general inspection of the patient, to be followed by inspection of the abdomen itself. Patients with peritoneal irritation will experience worsened pain with any activity that moves or stretches the peritoneum. These patients will typically lie very still in bed during the evaluation and often maintain flexion of their knees and hips to reduce tension on the anterior abdominal wall. Disease states that cause pain without peritoneal irritation, such as ischemic bowel or ureteral or biliary colic, typically cause patients to shift and fidget in bed continually while trying to find a position that lessens their discomfort (Fig. 47-7). Other important clues such as pallor, cyanosis, and diaphoresis may also be observed during the general inspection.

Abdominal inspection should address the contour of the abdomen, including whether it appears distended or scaphoid or whether a localized mass effect is observed. Special attention should be paid to all scars present and, if surgical in nature, should correlate with the surgical history provided. Fascial hernias may be suspected and can be confirmed during palpation of the abdominal wall. Evidence of erythema or edema of skin may suggest cellulitis of the abdominal wall, whereas ecchymosis is sometimes observed with deeper necrotizing infections of the fascia or abdominal structures, such as the pancreas.


FIGURE 47-7 Common locations for visceral pain.

Gallbladder

Renal

StomachPancreas

Small bowel

ColonUterine

of the abdominal cavity. A fluid wave or ripple can be gener-ated by a quick firm compression of the lateral abdomen. The resulting wave should then travel across the abdominal wall. Movement of adipose tissue in the obese abdomen can be mis-taken for a fluid wave. False-positive examinations can be reduced by first pressing the ulnar surface of the examiner’s open palm into the midline soft tissue of the abdominal wall to minimize any movement of the fatty tissue while generating the wave with the opposite hand.

Peritonitis is also assessed by percussion. Older, traditional writings have presented a technique of deep compression of the abdominal wall, followed by abrupt release. This practice is excruciating in the setting of peritoneal inflammation and can create significant discomfort, even in its absence. More sensitive and reliable methods can and should be used. Firmly tapping the iliac crest, flank, or heel of an extended leg will jar the abdominal viscera and elicit characteristic pain when peritonitis is present.

The final major step in the abdominal examination is pal-pation. Palpation typically provides more information than any other component of the abdominal examination. In addition to revealing the severity and exact location of the abdominal pain, palpation can further confirm the presence of peritonitis and identify organomegaly or an abnormal mass lesion. Palpation should always begin gently and away from the reported area of pain. If considerable pain is induced at the outset of palpation, the patient is likely to guard voluntarily and will continue to do so, limiting the information obtained. Involuntary guarding, or abdominal wall muscle spasm, is a sign of peritonitis and must be distinguished from voluntary guarding. To accomplish this, the examiner applies consistent pressure to the abdominal wall, away from the point of maximal pain, while asking the patient to take a slow deep breath. In the setting of voluntary guarding, the abdominal muscles will relax during the act of inspiration; if involuntary, they remain spastic and tense.

Pain, when focal, suggests an early or well-localized disease process, whereas diffuse pain on palpation is present with extensive inflammation or a late presentation. If pain is diffuse, careful investigation should be carried out to deter-mine where the pain is greatest. Even in the setting of extreme contamination from perforated peptic ulcers or colonic diver-ticula, the site of maximal tenderness often indicates the underlying source.

Numerous unique physical findings have come to be associated with specific disease conditions and are well described as examination signs (Table 47-1). Murphy’s sign of acute cholecystitis results when inspiration during palpation of the right upper quadrant results in sudden worsening of pain because of descent of the liver and gallbladder toward the examiner’s hand. Several signs help localize the site of under-lying peritonitis, including obturator, psoas, and Rovsing’s signs. Others, such as the Fothergill and Carnett signs, help distinguish intra-abdominal disease from that of the abdominal wall.

A digital rectal examination needs to be performed in all patients with acute abdominal pain, checking for the presence of a mass, pelvic pain, or intraluminal blood. A pelvic examina-tion should be included for all women when evaluating pain located below the umbilicus. Gynecologic and adnexal processes are best characterized by a thorough speculum and bimanual evaluation.

Auscultation can provide useful information about the gas-trointestinal tract and vascular system. Bowel sounds are typi-cally evaluated for their quantity and quality. A quiet abdomen suggests an ileus, whereas hyperactive bowel sounds are found in enteritis and early ischemic intestine. The pitch and pattern of the sounds are also considered. Mechanical bowel obstruction is characterized by high-pitched tinkling sounds that tend to come in rushes and are associated with pain. Far away, echoing sounds are often present when significant luminal distention exists. Bruits heard within the abdomen reflect turbulent blood flow in the vascular system. These are most frequently encoun-tered in the setting of high-grade arterial stenoses (70% to 95% but can also be heard if an arteriovenous fistula is present). The clinician can also perform a subtle test for the location and degree of pain during the auscultatory examination by varying the position and amount of pressure applied with the stetho-scope. These data can then be compared with the findings during palpation and evaluated for consistency. Even though few patients will try to deceive their physician intentionally, some may exaggerate their pain complaints so as not to be disregarded or taken lightly.

Percussion is used to assess for gaseous distention of the bowel, free intra-abdominal air, degree of ascites, and/or pres-ence of peritoneal inflammation. Hyperresonance, commonly termed tympany to percussion, is characteristic of underlying gas-filled loops of bowel. In the setting of bowel obstruction or ileus, this tympany is heard throughout all but the right upper quadrant, where the liver lies beneath the abdominal wall. If localized dullness to percussion is identified anywhere other than the right upper quadrant, an abdominal mass dis-placing the bowel should be considered. When liver dullness is lost and resonance is uniform throughout, free intra-abdominal air should be suspected. This air rises and collects beneath the anterior abdominal wall when the patient is in a supine position. Ascites is detected by looking for fluctuance


N X

ABD

OM

EN

BOX 47-4 Laboratory Studies for the Acute Abdomen

Hemoglobin levelWhite blood cell count with differentialElectrolyte, blood urea nitrogen, creatinine levelsUrinalysisUrine human chorionic gonadotropin levelAmylase, lipase levelsTotal and direct bilirubin levelsAlkaline phosphatase levelSerum aminotransferaseSerum lactate levelsStool for ova and parasitesC. dificile culture and toxin assay

Table 47-1 Abdominal Examination SignsSIGN DESCRIPTION DIAGNOSIS OR CONDITION

Aaron Pain or pressure in epigastrium or anterior chest with persistent firm pressure applied to McBurney’s point

Acute appendicitis

Bassler Sharp pain created by compressing appendix between abdominal wall and iliacus

Chronic appendicitis

Blumberg Transient abdominal wall rebound tenderness Peritoneal inflammation

Carnett Loss of abdominal tenderness when abdominal wall muscles are contracted Intra-abdominal source of abdominal pain

Chandelier Extreme lower abdominal and pelvic pain with movement of cervix Pelvic inflammatory disease

Charcot Intermittent right upper abdominal pain, jaundice, and fever Choledocholithiasis

Claybrook Accentuation of breath and cardiac sounds through abdominal wall Ruptured abdominal viscus

Courvoisier Palpable gallbladder in presence of jaundice Periampullary tumor

Cruveihier Varicose veins at umbilicus (caput medusa) Portal hypertension

Cullen Periumbilical bruising Hemoperitoneum

Danforth Shoulder pain on inspiration Hemoperitoneum

Fothergill Abdominal wall mass that does not cross midline and remains palpable when rectus contracted

Rectus muscle hematomas

Grey Turner Local areas of discoloration around umbilicus and flanks Acute hemorrhagic pancreatitis

Iliopsoas Elevation and extension of leg against resistance creates pain Apppendicitis with retrocecal abscess

Kehr Left shoulder pain when supine and pressure placed on left upper abdomen

Hemoperitoneum (especially from splenic origin)

Mannkopf Increased pulse when painful abdomen palpated Absent if malingering

Murphy Pain caused by inspiration while applying pressure to right upper abdomen Acute cholecystitis

Obturator Flexion and external rotation of right thigh while supine creates hypogastric pain

Pelvic abscess or inflammatory mass in pelvis

Ransohoff Yellow discoloration of umbilical region Ruptured common bile duct

Rovsing Pain at McBurney’s point when compressing the left lower abdomen Acute appendicitis

Ten Horn Pain caused by gentle traction of right testicle Acute appendicitis

EVALUATION AND DIAGNOSIS

Laboratory StudiesA number of laboratory studies are considered routine in the evaluation of a patient with an acute abdomen (Box 47-4). They help confirm that inflammation or infection is present and also aid in the elimination of some of the most common nonsurgical conditions. A complete blood count with differential is valuable

because most patients with an acute abdomen will have a leu-kocytosis or bandemia. Measurement of serum electrolyte, blood urea nitrogen, and creatinine levels will assist in evaluating the effect of factors such as vomiting or third space fluid losses. In addition, they may suggest an endocrine or metabolic diagnosis as the cause of the patient’s problem. Serum amylase and lipase level determinations may suggest pancreatitis as the cause of the abdominal pain but can also be elevated in other disorders, such as small bowel infarction or duodenal ulcer perforation. Normal serum amylase and lipase levels do not exclude pancreatitis as a possible diagnosis caused by the effects of chronic inflammation on enzyme production and timing factors. Liver function tests, including determination of total and direct bilirubin, serum aminotransferase, and alkaline phosphatase levels are helpful in evaluating potential biliary tract causes of acute abdominal pain. Lactate levels and arterial blood gas determinations can be helpful in diagnosing intestinal ischemia or infarction. Urine testing, such as urinalysis, is helpful in the diagnosis of bacterial cystitis, pyelonephritis, and certain endocrine abnormalities, such as diabetes or renal parenchymal disease. Urine culture can confirm a suspected urinary tract infection and direct antibiotic therapy but cannot be done in time to be helpful in the evalu-ation of an acute abdomen. Urinary measurements of human chorionic gonadotropin level can suggest pregnancy as a con-founding factor in the patient’s presentation or aid in decision


Plain radiographs continue to play a role in imaging for patients with acute abdominal pain. Upright chest radiographs can detect as little as 1 mL of air injected into the peritoneal cavity. Lateral decubitus abdominal radiographs can also detect pneumoperitoneum effectively in patients who cannot stand; as little as 5 to 10 mL of gas may be detected with this technique.15 These studies are particularly helpful for patients suspected of having a perforated duodenal ulcer, because approximately 75% of these patients will have a large enough pneumoperitoneum to be visible (Fig. 47-10).16 This obviates the need for further evaluation in most patients, allowing for laparotomy with little delay.

Plain films also show abnormal calcifications. Approxi-mately 5% of appendicoliths, 10% of gallstones, and 90% of renal stones contain sufficient amounts of calcium to be radi-opaque. Pancreatic calcifications seen in many patients with chronic pancreatitis are visible on plain films, as are the calcifica-tions in abdominal aortic aneurysms, visceral artery aneurysm, and atherosclerosis in visceral vessels.

Upright and supine abdominal radiographs are helpful in identifying gastric outlet obstruction, and obstruction of the

making regarding therapy. The fetus of a pregnant patient with an acute abdomen is best protected by providing the best care to the mother, including surgery, if indicated.11 Stool testing for occult blood can be helpful in the evaluation of these patients but is nonspecific. Testing stool for ova and parasite evaluation, as well as culture and toxin assay for Clostridium difficile, can be helpful if diarrhea is a component of the patient’s presentation.

Imaging StudiesImprovements in imaging techniques, especially multidetector CT, have revolutionized diagnosis of the acute abdomen. The most difficult diagnostic dilemmas of the past—appendicitis in young women and ischemic bowel in older adults—can now be diagnosed with greater certainty and speed (Figs. 47-8 and 47-9).12-14 This has resulted in more rapid operative correction of the problem, with less morbidity and mortality. Despite its usefulness, CT is not the only imaging technique available and is also not the first step in imaging for most patients. In addition, no imaging technique can replace a careful history and physical examination.

FIGURE 47-8 Appendicitis. A, CT scan of uncomplicated appendicitis. A thick-walled, distended, retrocecal appendix (arrow) is seen with inflammatory change in the surrounding fat. B, CT scan of complicated appendicitis—a retrocecal appendiceal abscess (A) with an associated phlegmon posteriorly found in a 3-week postpartum, obese woman. Inflammatory change extends through the flank musculature into the subcutaneous fat (arrow).

A B

FIGURE 47-9 Small bowel infarction associated with mesenteric venous thrombosis. A, Note the low-density thrombosed superior mesenteric vein (solid arrow) and incidental gallstones (open arrow). B, Thickening of proximal small bowel wall (arrow) coincided with several feet of infarcting small bowel at time of operation.

A B


N X

ABD

OM

EN

proximal, mid, or distal small bowel. They can also aid in deter-mining whether a small bowel obstruction is complete or partial by the presence or absence of gas in the colon. Colonic gas can be differentiated from small intestinal gas by the presence of haustral markings caused bythe taenia coli present in the colonic wall. An obstructed colon appears as distended bowel with haus-tral markings (Fig. 47-11). Associated distention of small bowel may also be present, especially if the ileocecal valve is incompe-tent. Plain films can also suggest volvulus of the cecum or sigmoid colon. Cecal volvulus is identified by a distended loop of colon in a comma shape, with the concavity facing inferiorly and to the right. Sigmoid volvulus characteristically has the appearance of a bent inner tube, with its apex in the right upper quadrant (Fig. 47-12).

Abdominal ultrasonography is extremely accurate for detecting gallstones and assessing gallbladder wall thickness and presence of fluid around the gallbladder.17 It is also helpful for determining the diameter of the extrahepatic and intrahepatic bile ducts. Its usefulness in detecting common bile duct stones is limited. Abdominal and transvaginal ultrasonography can aid in the detection of abnormalities of the ovaries, adnexa, and uterus. Ultrasound can also detect intraperitoneal fluid. The presence of abnormal amounts of intestinal air in most patients with an acute abdomen limits the ability of ultrasonography to evaluate the pancreas or other abdominal organs. There are important limits to the value of ultrasonography in the diagnosis of diseases that present as an acute abdomen. Ultrasound images are more difficult for most surgeons to interpret than plain radiographs and CT scans. Many hospitals have radiologic tech-nologists available at all times to perform CT but this is often not the case with ultrasonography. As CT has become more widely available and less likely to be hindered by abdominal air,

FIGURE 47-10 Upright chest radiograph depicting moderate-sized pneumoperitoneum consistent with perforation of abdominal viscus.

FIGURE 47-11 Upright abdominal x-ray in a patient with an obstruct-ing sigmoid adenocarcinoma. Note the haustral markings on the dilated transverse colon that distinguished this from small intestine.

FIGURE 47-12 Upright abdominal x-ray in a patient with a sigmoid colon volvulus. Note the characteristic appearance of a bent inner tube, with its apex in the right upper quadrant.

it is becoming the secondary imaging modality of choice in the patient with an acute abdomen, following plain abdominal radiography.

A number of studies have demonstrated the accuracy and usefulness of CT of the abdomen and pelvis in the evaluation of acute abdominal pain.12-14 Many of the most common causes


FIGURE 47-13 CT scan of a patient with a partial small bowel obstruc-tion. Note the presence of dilated small bowel and decompressed small bowel. The decompressed bowel contains air, indicating a partial obstruction.

of the acute abdomen are readily identified by CT scanning, as are their complications. A notable example is appendicitis. Plain films and even barium enemas add little to the diagnosis of appendicitis; however, a well-performed CT using oral, rectal, and IV contrast is highly accurate for evaluating this disease. It is equally important that an experienced radiologist, accustomed to reading abdominal CT scans, interprets the study to maxi-mize the sensitivity and specificity of the exam. A prospective study from the Netherlands15 has illustrated the variability of CT interpretation in the diagnosis of appendicitis. Three blinded groups of radiologists read CT scans of patients suspected of having appendicitis. All patients then underwent exploratory laparoscopy and 83% of patients were found to have appendi-citis at surgery. Radiology group A was made up of radiology residents on call and trained in CT interpretation. Group B consisted of call staff radiologists; group C was composed of expert abdominal radiologists. For groups A, B, and C radiolo-gists, the sensitivities of CT scanning for the diagnosis of acute appendicitis were 81%, 88%, and 95%, the specificities were 94%, 94%, and 100%, and the negative predictive values were 50%, 68%, and 81%, respectively. Differences between groups A and C were statistically significant. CT is also excellent for differentiating mechanical small bowel obstruction from para-lytic ileus and can usually identify the transition point in mechanical obstruction (Fig. 47-13). Some of the most difficult diagnostic dilemmas, including acute intestinal ischemia and bowel injury following blunt abdominal trauma, can often be identified by this method.

Traumatic small bowel injuries can be a clinical diagnosis challenge. Associated abdominal wall, pelvic, or spinal injuries can be significant distracters that could compromise an other-wise careful history and physical examination. In addition, many

patients suffering a blunt abdominal trauma will have altered mental states from coexisting closed head injuries or from intoxi-cating substances. When a bowel injury is suspected, optimal CT scanning uses oral and IV contrast agents. Zissin and col-leagues17 have reported an overall sensitivity of 64%, specificity of 97%, and accuracy of 82% when diagnosing small bowel injury following blunt trauma using dual-contrast CT scanning. Diagnostic clues include recognition of bowel wall thickening, identification of any gas outside the lumen of the intestine, and a moderate to large amount of intraperitoneal fluid without visible solid abdominal organ injury.

INTRA-ABDOMINAL PRESSURE MONITORINGAn elevated intra-abdominal pressure can be a symptom of an acute abdominal process or can be the cause of the process. Abnormally increased intra-abdominal pressures diminish the blood flow to abdominal organs and decrease venous return to the heart while increasing venous stasis. Increased pressure in the abdomen can also press upward on the diaphragm, thereby increasing peak inspiratory pressures and decreasing ventilatory efficiency. Risk of esophageal reflux and pulmonary aspiration has also been associated with abdominal hypertension. It is important to consider the possibility of abdominal hypertension in any patient who presents with a rigid or significantly dis-tended abdomen.

Normal intra-abdominal pressure is considered to be 5 to 7 mm Hg for a relaxed individual of average body build lying in a supine position. Obesity and elevation of the head of the bed can increase the normal resting abdominal pressure. Morbid obesity has been shown to increase normal pressures by 4 to 8 mm Hg while elevation the head of the bed to 30 degrees raises the pressure by 5 mm Hg (average).18 Pressures are most commonly measured via the bladder by a pressure transducer attached to a Foley catheter. Pressure readings are obtained at end-expiration following instillation of 50 mL of saline into an otherwise empty bladder. Abnormally elevated pressures are those higher than 11 mm Hg and are graded 1 to 4 by severity (Table 47-2). Abdominal hypertension grades 1 and 2 can usually be treated adequately with medical interventions focus-ing on maintaining euvolemia, gut decompression with a naso-gastric tube and/or laxatives and enemas, withholding enteral feedings, catheter aspiration of ascitic fluid, abdominal wall relaxation, and judicious use of hypotonic IV fluids. Grades 3 and 4 often require surgical decompression via laparotomy with open packing of the abdomen if the severe hypertension and organ dysfunction do not respond promptly to aggressive medical intervention.

Diagnostic LaparoscopyA number of studies have confirmed the usefulness of diagnostic laparoscopy in patients with acute abdominal pain.19-21 Pur-ported advantages include a high sensitivity and specificity, the ability to treat a number of the conditions causing an acute abdomen laparoscopically, and decreased morbidity and mortal-ity, length of stay, and overall hospital costs. It may be particu-larly helpful in the critically ill, intensive care patient, especially if a laparotomy can be avoided.22 Diagnostic accuracy is high; the accuracy ranges from 90% to 100%, with the primary limi-tation being recognition of retroperitoneal processes. This com-pares favorably with other diagnostic studies showing superiority


N X

ABD

OM

EN

changes in condition that could alter the diagnosis or suggest development of complications.

Although the goal of every surgeon is to make the correct diagnosis preoperatively and plan the best possible surgical pro-cedure prior to entering the operating suite, it must be empha-sized that a clear diagnosis will not be able to be determined in every patient. Surgeons must always be willing to accept uncer-tainly and commit to abdominal exploration when examination findings warrant. Laboratory and imaging studies, although helpful, should never replace the bedside clinical judgment of an experienced surgeon. Patients are more likely to be seriously or fatally harmed by delaying surgical treatment to perform confirmatory tests than by misdiagnoses discovered at operation. Laparoscopy has proved to be a valuable tool when the diagnosis is unclear. The presence of surgical disease can be confirmed in all but the most hostile abdominal environments and, as surgeon experience grows, more conditions will also be able to be treated

to peritoneal lavage, CT scanning, or ultrasound of the abdomen.23 Because of advances in equipment and increased availability, this technique is being used more often in these patients.

Differential DiagnosisThe differential diagnosis for acute abdominal pain is extensive. Conditions range from the mild and self-limited to the rapidly progressive and fatal. All patients must therefore be seen and evaluated immediately on presentation and reassessed at fre-quent intervals for changes in condition. Although many acute abdomen diagnoses will require surgical intervention for resolu-tion, it is important to remember that many causes of acute abdominal pain are medical in nature (see Figs. 47-2 and 47-4).24 Development of the differential diagnosis begins during the history and is further clarified during the physical examination. Refinements are then made with the assistance of laboratory analysis and imaging studies; typically, one or two diagnoses stand out. To be successful, this process requires a comprehen-sive knowledge of the medical and surgical conditions that create acute abdominal pain to allow individual disease features to be matched to patient demographics, symptoms, and signs.

Certain physical examination, laboratory, and radiographic findings are highly correlated with surgical disease (Box 47-5). At times, some patients will be too unstable to undergo com-prehensive evaluations that require transportat to other depart-ments, such as radiology. In this setting, peritoneal lavage can provide information that suggests pathology requiring surgical intervention. The lavage can be performed under local anesthesia at the patient’s bedside. A small incision is made in the midline adjacent to the umbilicus and dissection is carried down to the peritoneal cavity. A small catheter or IV tubing is inserted and 1000 mL of saline is infused. A sample of fluid is allowed to siphon back out into the empty saline bag and is then analyzed for cellular or biochemical anomalies. This technique can provide sensitive evidence of hemorrhage or infection, as well as some types of solid or hollow organ injury.

Patients having emergency or life-threatening surgical disease are taken for immediate laparotomy; urgent diagnoses allow time for stabilization, hydration, and preoperative prepara-tion, as needed. The remaining acute abdominal patients are grouped similarly to those with surgical conditions that some-times require surgery, those with medical diseases, and those who as yet remain unclear. Hospitalized patients who do not go urgently to the operating room must be reassessed frequently, preferably by the same examiner, to recognize potentially serious

BOX 47-5 Findings Associated With Surgical Disease in the Setting of Acute Abdominal Pain

Physical Examination and Laboratory FindingsAbdominal compartment pressures >30 mm HgWorsening distention after gastric decompressionInvoluntary guarding or rebound tendernessGastrointestinal hemorrhage requiring >4 U of blood without

stabilizationUnexplained systemic sepsisSigns of hypoperfusion (e.g., acidosis, pain out of proportion to

examination findings, increasing liver function test results)

Radiographic FindingsMassive dilation of intestineProgressive dilation of stationary loop of intestine (sentinel

loop)PneumoperitoneumExtravasation of contrast from bowel lumenVascular occlusion on angiographyFat stranding, thickened bowel wall with systemic sepsis

Diagnostic Peritoneal Lavage (1000 mL)>250 white blood cells/mL>300,000 red blood cells/mLBilirubin level higher than plasma level (bile leak)Particulate matter (stool)Creatinine level higher than plasma level (urine leak)

Table 47-2 Abdominal hypertensionDEGREE OF hYPERTENSION

MESENTERIC PRESSURE CO CVP PIP GFR PERFUSION TREATMENT

Normal pressure 5-7 mm Hg ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ None

Grade 1 hypertension 12-15 mm Hg ↔ ↔ , ↑ ↔ , ↑ ↓ ↓ Maintain euvolemia

Grade 2 hypertension 16-20 mm Hg ↓ ↑* ↑ ↓ ↓ Nonsurgical decompression

Grade 3 hypertension 21-25 mm Hg ↓↓ ↑↑* ↑↑ ↓↓ ↓↓ Surgical decompression

Grade 4 hypertension >25 mm Hg ↓↓↓ ↑↑* ↑↑ ↓↓↓ ↓↓↓ Surgical decompression; reexplore

CO, Cardiac output; CVP, central venous pressure; GFR, glomerular filtration rate; PIP, peak inspiratory pressure.

*Misleadingly elevated and not reflective of intravascular volume.


more morbid than the surgery itself.11,29 Delays occur for several reasons. Often, symptoms are attributed to the underlying pregnancy, including abdominal pains, nausea, vomiting, and anorexia. Pregnancy can also alter the presentation of some disease processes and make the physical examination more chal-lenging because of the enlarged uterus in the pelvis. The appen-dix rises out of the pelvis to within a few centimeters of the right anterolateral costal margin late in the third trimester (Fig. 47-14).30 Results of laboratory studies, such as white cell counts and other tests, are also altered in pregnancy, making recognition of disease more difficult. In addition, physicians may hesitate to perform typical imaging studies such as plain abdominal radio-graphy or CT because of concern over radiation exposure to the developing fetus. The lack of radiologic information can take physicians out of their diagnostic routine and cause them to place extra emphasis on other modalities, such as monitoring vital signs and laboratory studies, which can confuse or underes-timate the existing condition. Finally, physicians tend to be more conservative when treating pregnant patients. Surgery, especially in the pelvis, is associated with increased risks of spontaneous abortions in the first trimester and progressively increasing risk of preterm labor in the second and third trimesters. The overall risk attributed to surgery and anesthesia is estimated at 4% to 6%, but some have reported an incidence as high as 38%.28,31,32 Perioperative risk is minimized by maintaining physiologic O2 and CO2 levels during surgery, avoiding episodes of hypoten-sion, and minimally manipulating the uterus.

Appendicitis is the most common nonobstetric disease requiring surgery, occurring in 1 in 1500 pregnancies.27,33 Its symptoms typically consist of right lateral abdominal pain, nausea, and anorexia, but so-called typical presentations account for only 50% to 60% of cases.34 Fever is uncommon unless the appendix is perforated with abdominal sepsis. Symptoms can sometimes attributed to the underlying pregnancy and a high index of suspicion must be maintained. Laboratory studies can

laparoscopically. Even when conversion to open technique is required, laparoscopic evaluation facilitates more accurate posi-tioning of the laparotomy incision, thereby reducing its length.

PREPARATION FOR EMERGENCY OPERATIONPatients with an acute abdomen vary greatly in their overall state of health when the decision to operate is made. Regardless of the severity of illness, all patients require some degree of preop-erative preparation. IV access should be obtained and any fluid or electrolyte abnormalities corrected. Almost all patients will require antibiotic infusions. The bacteria common in acute abdominal emergencies are gram-negative enteric organisms and anaerobes. Antibiotic infusion should be inititated once a pre-sumptive diagnosis has been made. Patients with generalized paralytic ileus, as manifested by absent or hypoactive bowel sounds, benefit from a nasogastric tube to decrease the likeli-hood of vomiting and aspiration. Foley catheter bladder drain-age to assess urine output, a measure of adequacy of fluid resuscitation, is indicated for most patients. Preoperative urine output of 0.5 mL/kg/hr, along a with systolic blood pressure of at least 100 mm Hg and a heart rate of 100 beats/min or less, are indicative of an adequate intravascular volume. A common electrolyte abnormality requiring correction is hypokalemia. If significant potassium repletion is necessary, a central venous line is required. The ability to administer potassium through a peripheral line is limited by the potential development of phle-bitis. Preoperative acidosis may respond to fluid repletion and IV bicarbonate infusion. Acidosis caused by intestinal ischemia or infarction may be refractory to preoperative therapy. Signifi-cant anemia is uncommon and preoperative blood transfusions are usually unnecessary. However, most patients should have their blood typed, cross-matched, and available at operation. There is an inherent uncertainty in the operation that will be required for these patients, so having cross-matched blood avail-able avoids transfusion delay if unexpected intraoperative events occur. The need for preoperative stabilization of patients must be weighed against the increased morbidity and mortality associ-ated with delay in the treatment of some of the surgical diseases that present as an acute abdomen. The underlying nature of the disease process, such as infarcted bowel, may require surgical correction before stabilization of the patient’s vital signs and restoration of acid-base balance can occur. Deciding when the maximum benefit of preoperative therapy in these patients has been achieved requires good surgical judgment.

ATYPICAL PATIENTS

PregnancyAcute abdominal pain presenting in the pregnant patient creates several unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Special emphasis must be placed on the possibility of gynecologic and surgical diseases when acute abdominal pain develops during pregnancy because of their frequency and morbidity if left unrec-ognized. Laparoscopy has had a major impact on the diagnosis and treatment of the gravid female with acute abdominal pain and is now routinely used for many clinical situations. Short-term follow-up has suggested equal or superior safety with the laparoscopic approach, but large series of long-term safety data are not available.25-28 The greatest threat facing the pregnant patient with acute abdominal pain is the potential for delayed diagnosis. Delays in receiving surgical treatment have proven far

FIGURE 47-14 Location of maternal normal appendix during fetal gestation.

Umbilicus

8 mo

7 mo

6 mo

5 mo

4 mo

3 mo

McBurney’spoint


N X

ABD

OM

EN

women presenting with lower abdominal pain.28 Although this diagnostic error rate would be unacceptable in a typical young healthy woman, it is widely accepted because of the fetal mortal-ity suffered when appendicitis progresses to perforation prior to surgery. Perioperative fetal loss associated with appendectomy for early appendicitis is 3% to 5%, whereas it increases to more than 20% in the setting of perforation.39

The second and third most common surgical diseases seen in pregnancy are biliary tract disorders and bowel obstructions. Surgery for biliary disease occurs in 1 to 6 in 10,000 pregnan-cies.40 Symptoms of pain, nausea, and anorexia are the same as those in nonpregnant patients. Even though elevated estrogen levels should be more lithogenic, the incidence of disease is similar that for nongravid women.27 With few exceptions, the evaluation and treatment during pregnancy are similar to that for all patients with biliary disease. Ultrasound is the diagnostic test of choice. The alkaline phosphatase level is elevated second-ary to an elevated estrogen level and normal values must be adjusted. Nuclear scans of the biliary tract pose minimal risk to the fetus but a Foley catheter should be placed so that isotope cleared by the kidneys does not collect adjacent to the uterus.

Most surgeons try to treat simple biliary colic with conser-vative management in the first and third trimesters and plan elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy for the second trimester or the postpartum period to minimize fetal risk. Gallstone pancre-atitis and acute cholecystitis should be managed more carefully. Gallstone pancreatitis has been associated with fetal loss as high as 60%.41 If a woman does not respond quickly to conservative treatment with hydration, bowel rest, analgesia, and judicious use of antibiotics, surgical treatment should be performed.

Bowel obstructions are much less common, occurring in approximately 1 to 2 in 4000 deliveries; the underlying cause is adhesions in two thirds of cases. Volvulus is the second most common cause, occurring in 25% of cases compared with only 4% of the nonpregnant population.28 Signs and symptoms are typical but must not be attributed to morning sickness. Colicky abdominal pain with rapid abdominal distention should suggest the diagnosis to the clinician. Three periods during gestation are associated with an increased risk of obstruction and correlate with rapid changes in uterine size. The first is from 16 to 20 weeks, when the uterus grows beyond the pelvis. The second is from 32 to 36 weeks, when the fetal head descends, and the third is in the early postpartum period. The evaluation should be the same as for any patient and there should be no hesitation to obtain abdominal x-rays if the situation warrants. As with other acute inflammatory processes in the abdomen, maternal and fetal morbidity are most affected by delayed definitive treatment.

Critically Ill PatientsThe critically ill patient with a potential acute abdomen is a difficult challenge for intensivists and surgeons. Many of the underlying diseases and treatments encountered in the intensive care unit (ICU) can predispose to acute abdominal disease. At the same time, unrecognized abdominal illness can be respon-sible for patients lingering in a critical state. Critically ill patients are often unable to appreciate symptoms to the same degree as their healthy peers because of nutritional or immune compro-mise, narcotic analgesia, or antibiotic use. Many of these patients have an altered mental status or are intubated and cannot provide detailed information to their providers.

also be misleading. Leukocytosis as high as 16,000 cells/mm3 is common in pregnancy, and labor can increase the count to 21,000/mm3. Many authors have suggested that a neutrophil shift more than 80% is suspicious for an acute inflammatory process, such as appendicitis; however, others have observed that only 75% of patients with proven appendicitis have a shift and as many as 50% of patients with a shift and pain are found to have a normal appendix.11,28,35 Scoring systems have been advo-cated that assign numeric scores to certain symptoms, signs, and laboratory values to predict the likelihood of appendicitis.

Although systems such as the modified Alvarado scoring system (Table 47-3) help predict the need for surgical interven-tion, they have not been validated in a model of pregnancy.34 Ultrasound has been relied on as the first imaging tool in many centers. Graded compression ultrasound has been shown to have a sensitivity of 86% in the nonpregnant patient.27 In a case series of 42 pregnant women with suspected appendicitis, graded com-pression ultrasound was found to be 100% sensitive, 96% spe-cific, and 98% accurate.36 Three women were excluded from the analysis because of a technically inadequate examination because of advanced gestational age (>35 weeks). Helical CT scanning has been established as a valuable tool for evaluation of the nonpregnant patient and shows promise as a second-line study in pregnancy. Compared with traditional CT scans, helical CT can provide a much faster study, with radiation exposures to the fetus of approximately 300 mrad.27 MRI is also beginning to play a role; it not only can demonstrate the normal appendix but it can also recognize an enlarged appendix, periappendiceal fluid, and inflammation.37 Large prospective series documenting the success of MRI diagnosis of appendicitis are lacking; however, one study has documented successful evaluation of 10 of 12 pregnant women while avoiding radiation exposure.38

The added difficulties in evaluating the pregnant patient with right lower quadrant abdominal pain have resulted in a significantly higher negative appendectomy rate as compared with their nonpregnant peers. False-positive diagnoses leading to negative appendectomies occur in 15% to 35% of pregnant

Table 47-3 Modified Alvarado Scoring System for AppendicitisFEATURE SCORE

Symptoms

Right iliac fossa pain 1

Nausea, vomiting 1

Anorexia 1

Signs

Right iliac fossa tenderness 2

Fever 1

Rebound tenderness 1

Tests

WBC ≥10,000 2

Left shift of neutrophils 1

Score ≥7 Surgery recommended

From Brown MA, Birchard KR, Semelka RC: Magnetic resonance evaluation of pregnant patients with acute abdominal pain. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 26:206–211, 2005.


Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) has been associated with several acute abdominal illnesses. Mesenteric ischemia, paralytic ileus, Ogilvie’s syndrome, stress peptic ulceration, acute acalcu-lous cholecystitis, and acute pancreatitis have all been linked to the low-flow state of CPB; their incidence appears to be linked to the duration of the cardiac procedure.42,43 Vasoactive medica-tions and ventilator support have also been linked to hypoper-fusion and similar abdominal processes. When an acute abdominal complication occurs in an ICU patient, it has a dramatic effect on outcome. Gajic and associates44 have studied 77 patients who experienced abdominal catastrophe while recovering in the medical ICU (MICU). Acute abdominal diagnoses included peptic ulcer, ischemic bowel, cholecystitis, bowel obstruction, and bowel inflammation. The APACHE III score on admission predicted an overall mortality of 31% in this group, yet they experienced an actual mortality of 63%. The development of a secondary acute abdominal illness doubled their observed mortality. Despite many of these patients having factors that could delay diagnosis, including antibiotics, analgesics, altered mental states, and intubations, 84% were still recognized as having abdominal pain, 95% as having abdominal tenderness, 73% as having abdominal dis-tention, and 33% as having free intra-abdominal air. Inten-sivists should maintain a high index of suspicion for the development of intra-abdominal disease and consult with sur-geons early to maximize recovery potential. Surgeons must then work to exclude the possibility of abdominal disease using all the methods described in this chapter, as well as bedside ultra-sound, paracentesis, or minilaparoscopy so that early surgical intervention can be undertaken appropriately.

Immunocompromised PatientsImmunocompromised patients have variable presentations with acute abdominal diseases. The variability is highly correlated to the degree of immunosuppression. There is no reliable test for determining the degree of immunosuppression experienced by a given patient so estimates are made by associations with certain disease states or medications. Mild to moderate compromise is experienced by older patients, malnourished individuals, diabet-ics, transplant recipients on routine maintenance therapy, cancer patients, renal failure patients, and HIV patients with CD4 counts higher than 200/mm3. Although patients in this group have the same types of illnesses and infections as those who are immunocompetent, they still can present in an atypical fashion. Abdominal pain and systemic signs and symptoms are often linked to the development of inflammation. These patients may not be able to mount a full inflammatory response and therefore may experience less abdominal pain and have delayed develop-ment of fever and a blunted leukocytosis. Severely compromised patients would typically include transplant recipients having received immunosuppressant therapy for rejection in the past 2 months, cancer patients on chemotherapy, especially those with neutropenia, and HIV patients with CD4 counts lower than 200/mm3. These patients present very late in their course, often with little or no pain, no fever, and vague constitutional symp-toms, followed by an overwhelming systemic collapse.

Pseudomembranous colitis has traditionally been associ-ated with recent broad-spectrum antibiotic use, although it is increasingly seen in immunocompromised patients with diseases such as lymphoma, leukemia, and AIDS.45 Clinical manifesta-tions commonly include diarrhea, dehydration, abdominal pain,

BOX 47-6 Causes of Acute Abdominal Pain in the Immunocompromised Patient

Opportunistic InfectionsEndemic mycoses (e.g., coccidiomycosis, blastomycosis,

histoplasmosis)Tuberculin peritonitisAspirgillosisNeutropenic colitis (typhlitis)Pseudomembranous colitisCytomegalovirus colitis, gastritis, esophagitis, nephritisEpstein-Barr virusHepatic abscess (fungal, pyogenic)

Iatrogenic ConditionsGraft-versus-host disease with hepatitis or enteritisPeptic ulcer or perforation from steroid usagePancreatitis caused by steroids or azathioprineHepatic veno-occlusive disease (secondary to primary immuno-

deficiency or chemotherapy)Nephrolithiasis caused by indinavir treatment of HIV

Table 47-4 Frequency of Common CT Findings in Pseudo-Membranous ColitisCT FINDINGS FREQUENCY (%)

Bowel all thickening (>4 mm) 86

Pancolic distribution 46

Pericolic stranding 45

Ascites 38

Nodular/polypoid wall thickening 38

Mucosal enhancement 18

Bowel dilation 14

Accordion sign 14

From Tsiotos GG, Mullany CJ, Zietlow S, et al: Abdominal complications following cardiac surgery. Am J Surg 167:553–557, 1994.

fever, and leukocytosis; however, immunocompromised patients may fail to exhibit many of these findings because of their inability to mount a normal inflammatory response. Imaging studies such as abdominal CT become increasingly important in making early accurate diagnoses when presentations are atypi-cal. Characteristic findings on CT scans that suggest pseudo-membranous colitis include bowel wall thickening (mean thickness, 11 to 15 mm),46 pancolonic distribution, and perico-lonic standing. Other frequent findings include ascites, general-ized mucosal enhancement, diffuse bowel dilation, and a double-halo sign, in which IV contrast enhances the mucosa and muscularis propria while edema in the submucosa creates an area of low attenuation in between (Table 47-4). These findings, when present, can greatly assist the clinician with forming the diagnosis of colitis. It is important to remember, however, that up to 14% of patients with proven pseudomembranous colitis will have had normal CT examinations and therefore the diag-nosis should not be ruled out based solely on a negative scan.47 In addition, these patients may suffer from atypical infections, including peritoneal tuberculosis, fungal infections, including aspergillus and endemic mycoses, or viral infections, including cytomegalovirus and Epstein-Barr virus (Box 47-6). When an


N X

ABD

OM

EN

intra-abdominal mass is also difficult because of the size and thickness of the abdominal wall.

Abdominal imaging is also adversely affected by obesity. Plain abdominal radiography can require multiple images to view the entire abdomen, and clarity is reduced. CT and MRI may be impossible to perform as a patient’s girth or weight exceeds the size of the scanning aperture or weight limit of the mechanized bed. In these settings, a high index of suspi-cion and low threshold for surgical exploration must be main-tained. Laparoscopy is a valuable tool in these patients. Specially designed trochars and hand-assist ports for the morbidly obese abdominal wall are now readily available and greatly facilitate minimally invasive exploration of the abdomen.

ALGORITHMS IN THE ACUTE ABDOMENAlgorithms can aid in the diagnosis of the patient with an acute abdomen. As noted, computer-assisted diagnosis has been shown to be more accurate than clinical judgment alone in a number of acute abdominal disease states. Algorithms are the basis for computer diagnosis and can be useful when making clinical decisions. The algorithms shown are helpful in acute abdomen patients and can allow for a focused workup and expeditious therapy (Figs. 47-15 to 47-20).

FIGURE 47-15 Algorithm for the treatment of acute-onset, severe, generalized abdominal pain. NG, Nasogastric tube; NL, normal study; OR, operation.

OR NG +antibiotics

Water-soluble contrast swallow

OR Angio Anticoagulation

OR

Acidosis, ↑lactate

Arterialischemia

or

Mesentericvenous

thrombosis

Pneumoperitoneum No pneumoperitoneum

NLConsider angio

Abdominal x-ray

History and physical

Acute onset

No peritoneal signs Peritoneal signs

Leak,not contained

No leakContainedleak

CTOR

CT

abdominal infection does occur, it is less likely to be walled off as a localized infection because of the lack of inflammatory reac-tion. All severely immunocompromised patients require prompt and thorough evaluation for any persistent abdominal com-plaints. All patients requiring hospitalization should receive a surgical consult to aid in timely diagnosis and treatment. High-resolution CT can be of great benefit in these patients, but a low threshold for laparoscopy or laparotomy should be maintained for those with equivocal diagnostic test results and persistent symptoms that remain unexplained.

Morbidly Obese PatientsMorbid obesity creates numerous challenges to the accurate diagnosis of acute abdominal processes. Many authors have described alterations in the signs and symptoms of peritonitis in the morbidly obese. Findings of overt peritonitis are often late and usually ominous, leading to sepsis, organ failure, and death.48Abdominal sepsis is a more subtle diagnosis in this popu-lation and may only be associated with symptoms such as malaise, shoulder pain, hiccups, and shortness of breath.49 Examination findings can also be difficult to interpret. Severe abdominal pain is not common and less specific findings such as tachycardia, tachypnea, pleural effusion, and fever may be the primary observation.50 Appreciation of distention or


FIGURE 47-16 Algorithm for the treatment of gradual-onset, severe, generalized abdominal pain. ERCP, Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopan-creatography; LFTs, liver function tests.


Gradual onset

Amylase, lipase, LFTs

Pancreatitis Fever, abnormal LFTs, cholangitis

Antibiotics, ? ERCPEvaluate severity

Mild Moderate Severe

Supportivetreatment

Consider CT No shock

CT

Shock,respiratory failure

Consider peritoneal lavage

FIGURE 47-17 Algorithm for the treatment of right upper quadrant abdominal pain. ERCP, Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopan-creatography; LFTs, liver function tests; NL, normal study; US, ultrasound.


LFTs, amylase, lipase

NL ↑ LFTs, NL amylase, lipase

Dilated bile ducts

US

Gallstones NL

Laparoscopy CT

Directed therapy

US

NL bile ducts

CT vs. ERCP

Directed therapy

CT

Directed therapy

FIGURE 47-18 Algorithm for the treatment of left upper quadrant abdominal pain.

CT

CT-directed therapy


SUMMARYEvaluation and management of the patient with acute abdomi-nal pain remains a challenging part of a surgeon’s practice. Although advances in imaging techniques, use of algorithms, and computer assistance have improved the diagnostic accuracy for the conditions causing the acute abdomen, a careful history and physical examination remain the most important part of the evaluation. Even with these tools available, the surgeon must often make the decision to perform a laparoscopy or laparotomy with a good deal of uncertainty about the expected findings. Increased morbidity and mortality associated with a delay in the treatment of many of the surgical causes of the acute abdomen argue for an aggressive and expeditious surgical approach.


N X

ABD

OM

EN

FIGURE 47-19 Algorithm for the treatment of right lower quadrant abdominal pain. hx, History; OR, operation; UTI, urinary tract infection.

CT-directed therapy

CT-directed therapyLaparoscopy/laparotomy

Laparotomyvs. laparoscopy

Gynecologic hx, ? UTI, ? appendicitis

Appendicitis No appendicitis

Presentationconsistent with

appendicitis

Equivocal presentation


Female Male

OR CTCT

FIGURE 47-20 Algorithm for the treatment of left lower quadrant abdominal pain.

CT-directed therapyLaparotomyAntibiotics +percutaneous drainage

Elective resection

CT

Contained abscess Perforation

Diverticulitis Equivocal


Peritonitis No peritonitis

Antibiotics CT

SELECTED REFERENCESAhmad TA, Shelbaya E, Razek SA, et al: Experience of laparoscopic management in 100 patients with acute abdomen. Hepatogastro-enterology 48:733–736, 2001.

A description of the usefulness of laparoscopy in a large series of patients with acute abdomen. This is a good review of this important diagnostic and therapeutic tool.

Cademartiri F, Raaijmaker RHJM, Kuiper JW, et al: Multi-detector row CT angiography in patients with abdominal angina. Radiogra-phics 24:969–984, 2004.

A good review of the computerized tomographic characteristics of acute mesenteric ischemia. This outlines the radiographic findings that have greatly assisted in the diagnosis of this otherwise difficult condition.


14. Lee R, Tung HK, Tung PH, et al: CT in acute mesenteric isch-aemia. Clin Radiol 58:279–287, 2003.

15. in’t Hof KH, Krestin GP, Steijerberg EW, et al: Interobserver vari-ability in CT scan interpretation for suspected acute appendicitis. Emerg Med J 26:92–94, 2009.

16. Hanbidge AE, Buckler PM, O’Malley ME, et al: From the RSNA refresher courses: Imaging evaluation for acute pain in the right upper quadrant. Radiographics 24:1117–1135, 2004.

17. Zissin R, Osadchy A, Gayer G: Abdominal CT findings in small bowel perforation. Br J Radiol 82:162–171, 2009.

18. De Keulenaer BL, De Waele JJ, Powell B, et al: What is normal intra-abdominal pressure and how is it affected by positioning, body mass and positive end-expiratory pressure? Intens Care Med 35:969–976, 2009.

19. Ahmad TA, Shelbaya E, Razek SA, et al: Experience of laparo-scopic management in 100 patients with acute abdomen. Hepa-togastroenterology 48:733–736, 2001.

20. Perri SG, Altilia F, Pietrangeli F, et al: [Laparoscopy in abdominal emergencies. Indications and limitations.] Chir Ital 54:165–178, 2002.

21. Riemann JF: Diagnostic laparoscopy. Endoscopy 35:43–47, 2003.

22. Pecoraro AP, Cacchione RN, Sayad P, et al: The routine use of diagnostic laparoscopy in the intensive care unit. Surg Endosc 15:638–641, 2001.

23. Stefanidis D, Richardson WS, Chang L, et al: The role of diag-nostic laparoscopy for acute abdominal conditions: an evidence-based review. Surg Endosc 23:16–23, 2009.

24. Hickey MS, Kiernan GJ, Weaver KE: Evaluation of abdominal pain. Emerg Med Clin North Am 7:437–452, 1989.

25. Lachman E, Schienfeld A, Voss E, et al: Pregnancy and laparoscopic surgery. J Am Assoc Gynecol Laparosc 6:347–351, 1999.

26. Fatum M, Rojansky N: Laparoscopic surgery during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Surv 56:50–59, 2001.

27. Sharp HT: The acute abdomen during pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol 45:405–413, 2002.

28. Tarraza HM, Moore RD: Gynecologic causes of the acute abdomen and the acute abdomen in pregnancy. Surg Clin North Am 77:1371–1394, 1997.

29. Fallon WF Jr, Newman JS, Fallon GL, et al: The surgical manage-ment of intra-abdominal inflammatory conditions during preg-nancy. Surg Clin North Am 75:15–31, 1995.

30. Baer J, Reis R, Arens R: Appendicitis in pregnancy with changes in position and axis of the normal appendix in pregnancy. JAMA 52:1359–1364, 1932.

31. Hunt MG, Martin JN Jr, Martin RW, et al: Perinatal aspects of abdominal surgery for nonobstetric disease. Am J Perinatol 6:412–417, 1989.

32. Kammerer WS: Nonobstetric surgery in pregnancy. Med Clin North Am 71:551–560, 1987.

33. Mazze RI, Kallen B: Appendectomy during pregnancy: A Swedish registry study of 778 cases. Obstet Gynecol 77:835–840, 1991.

34. Brown JJ, Wilson C, Coleman S, et al: Appendicitis in pregnancy: An ongoing diagnostic dilemma. Colorectal Dis 11:116–122, 2009.

35. Tamir IL, Bongard FS, Klein SR: Acute appendicitis in the preg-nant patient. Am J Surg 160:571–575, 1990.

36. Lim HK, Bae SH, Seo GS: Diagnosis of acute appendicitis in pregnant women: Value of sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 159:539–542, 1992.

Graff LG, Robinson D: Abdominal pain and emergency department evaluation. Emerg Med Clin North Am 19:123–136, 2001.

Good review of the spectrum of patients presenting with acute abdomi-nal pain.

Macari M, Balthazar EJ: The acute right lower quadrant: CT evalu-ation. Radiol Clin North Am 41:1117–1136, 2003.

A modern discussion of the role of CT in the evaluation of patients with right lower quadrant abdominal pain.

Silen W: Cope’s early diagnosis of the acute abdomen, ed 21, New York, 2005, Oxford University Press.

This is a classic monograph stressing the importance of history and physical examination in the diagnosis of the acute abdomen. Almost all diseases presenting as an acute abdomen are presented. This is a must-read for the surgical resident.

Steinheber FU: Medical conditions mimicking the acute surgical abdomen. Med Clin North Am 57:1559–1567, 1973.

This classic article reviews the various medical conditions that can present as an acute abdomen. It is well written and remains pertinent to the evaluation of these patients.

REFERENCES1. Sethuraman U, Siadat M, Lepak-Hitch CA, et al: Pulmonary

embolism presenting as acute abdomen in a child and adult. Am J Emerg Med 27:514 e511–515, 2009.

2. Graff LGT, Robinson D: Abdominal pain and emergency depart-ment evaluation. Emerg Med Clin North Am 19:123–136, 2001.

3. Steinheber FU: Medical conditions mimicking the acute surgical abdomen. Med Clin North Am 57:1559–1567, 1973.

4. Gilbert JA, Kamath PS: Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis: An update. Mayo Clin Proc 70:365–370, 1995.

5. Silen W: Cope’s early diagnosis of the acute abdomen, ed 21, New York, 2005, Oxford University Press.

6. Paterson-Brown S, Vipond MN: Modern aids to clinical decision-making in the acute abdomen. Br J Surg 77:13–18, 1990.

7. de Dombal FT: Computers, diagnoses and patients with acute abdominal pain. Arch Emerg Med 9:267–270, 1992.

8. Adams ID, Chan M, Clifford PC, et al: Computer aided diagno-sis of acute abdominal pain: A multicentre study. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 293:800–804, 1986.

9. Wellwood J, Johannessen S, Spiegelhalter DJ: How does computer-aided diagnosis improve the management of acute abdominal pain? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 74:40–46, 1992.

10. McAdam WA, Brock BM, Armitage T, et al: Twelve years’ experi-ence of computer-aided diagnosis in a district general hospital. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 72:140–146, 1990.

11. Kort B, Katz VL, Watson WJ: The effect of nonobstetric operation during pregnancy. Surg Gynecol Obstet 177:371–376, 1993.

12. Macari M, Balthazar EJ: The acute right lower quadrant: CT evaluation. Radiol Clin North Am 41:1117–1136, 2003.

13. Cademartiri F, Raaijmakers RH, Kuiper JW, et al: Multi-detector row CT angiography in patients with abdominal angina. Radio-graphics 24:969–984, 2004.


N X

ABD

OM

EN

45. Ramachandran I, Sinha R, Rodgers P: Pseudomembranous colitis revisited: Spectrum of imaging findings. Clin Radiol 61:535–544, 2006.

46. Fishman EK, Kavuru M, Jones B, et al: Pseudomembranous colitis: CT evaluation of 26 cases. Radiology 180:57–60, 1991.

47. Kawamoto S, Horton KM, Fishman EK: Pseudomembranous colitis: Spectrum of imaging findings with clinical and pathologic correlation. Radiographics 19:887–897, 1999.

48. Mehran A, Liberman M, Rosenthal R, et al: Ruptured appendi-citis after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass: Pitfalls in diag-nosing a surgical abdomen in the morbidly obese. Obes Surg 13:938–940, 2003.

49. Byrne TK: Complications of surgery for obesity. Surg Clin North Am 85, 2001.

50. Hamilton EC, Sims TL, Hamilton TT, et al: Clinical predictors of leak after laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass for morbid obesity. Surg Endosc 17:679–684, 2003.

37. Brown MA, Birchard KR, Semelka RC: Magnetic resonance evaluation of pregnant patients with acute abdominal pain. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 26:206–211, 2005.

38. Cobben LP, Groot I, Haans L, et al: MRI for clinically suspected appendicitis during pregnancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:671–675, 2004.

39. Mahmoodian S: Appendicitis complicating pregnancy. South Med J 85:19–24, 1992.

40. Lanzafame RJ: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy during pregnancy. Surgery 118:627–631, 1995.

41. Printen KJ, Ott RA: Cholecystectomy during pregnancy. Am Surg 44:432–434, 1978.

42. Tsiotos GG, Mullany CJ, Zietlow S, et al: Abdominal complica-tions following cardiac surgery. Am J Surg 167:553–557, 1994.

43. Welling RE, Rath R, Albers JE, et al: Gastrointestinal complica-tions after cardiac surgery. Arch Surg 121:1178–1180, 1986.

44. Gajic O, Urrutia LE, Sewani H, et al: Acute abdomen in the medical intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 30:1187–1190, 2002.

Health & Medicine

Acute abdomen - Sabinston textbook of surgery, 2012