Article

Prise en charge des douleurs abdominales de l’adulte aux Urgences

Fédération de Chirurgie Générale et Digestive, CHU Caen – Caen; Département d’Accueil et de Traitement des Urgences, CHU Caen – Caen; Unité de la Douleur et des Soins Palliatifs, CHU Caen – Caen
Journal de Chirurgie 01/2006; DOI: 10.1016/S0021-7697(06)73597-9

ABSTRACT Abdominal pain is a commonplace reason for surgical consultation in the emergency department and is the the most common symptom which the digestive surgeon on-call must evaluate. He must understand the pathophysiologic basis of visceral pain and referred pain in order to appreciate its diverse manifestations. Abdominal pain can stem from many causes intestinal and non-intestinal, medical and surgical. Evaluation and management in the emergency department must be rapid and pragmatic; clinical history and physical examination should define the gravity of the case, direct the first diagnostic procedures and complementary examinations, and guide the therapeutic direction. Ultrasonography is a quick and effective diagnostic procedure in the diagnosis of biliary, urologic, and gynecologic pathologies; it can be useful for other digestive problems as well.The new generation spiral CT scanner gives excellent definition of digestive and vascular pathologies. The initial evaluation and management of the acute abdomen may determine the prognosis of the patient ; it should lead to prompt symptomatic relief and to a well-directed treatment appropriate to the diagnosis.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
171 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To compare the diagnostic yield of abdominal radiography with that of computed tomography (CT) in adult patients presenting to the emergency department with nontraumatic abdominal pain. Records of 1,000 consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department with acute abdominal pain from April to June 1998 were retrospectively reviewed. A total of 871 patients underwent abdominal radiography, and 188 underwent abdominal CT. The report interpretations of the abdominal radiographs and CT scans were divided into normal, nonspecific, and abnormal categories. Final discharge diagnoses were compared with the interpretations of the imaging examination results, and sensitivities and specificities of each modality were calculated and compared. Interpretation of abdominal radiographs was nonspecific in 588 (68%) of 871 patients, normal in 200 (23%), and abnormal in 83 (10%). The highest sensitivity of abdominal radiography was 90% for intraabdominal foreign body and 49% for bowel obstruction. Abdominal radiography had 0% sensitivity for appendicitis, pyelonephritis, pancreatitis, and diverticulitis. Sensitivities of abdominal CT were highest for bowel obstruction and urolithiasis at 75% and 68%, respectively. Abdominal radiographs are not sensitive in the evaluation of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with nontraumatic abdominal pain.
    Radiology 11/2002; 225(1):159-64. · 6.34 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although multislice, helical CT is increasingly replacing ultrasonography for the evaluation of patients with acute abdominal pain, ultrasound does have certain specific advantages over CT. This article discusses the advantages of ultrasound in imaging of the acute abdomen, exploring such areas as appendicitis, ileocecal Crohn's disease, infectious ileocolitis and infectious ileocecitis, mesenteric lymphadenitis, cecal carcinoma, sigmoid diverticulitis, right-sided colonic diverticulitis, and perforated peptic ulcer.
    Radiologic Clinics of North America 12/2003; 41(6):1227-42, vii. · 1.95 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of CT on the diagnosis and management of acute abdominal pain in patients who did not undergo surgery and to determine what population of patients would profit most from CT examination. Clinical data and CT reports of 91 patients with acute abdomen (41 men and 50 women, 22-96 years old) were analyzed retrospectively. The accuracies of clinical evaluation and CT in revealing the cause of acute abdomen were compared, and the effect of CT on patient management was assessed. Analysis included the entire population of patients and these subgroups: (1) patients who had symptoms for fewer than 24 hr versus patients who had symptoms for 24 hr or more and (2) patients who had a history of abdominal diseases versus patients who had no such history. Twenty-nine patients had signs or symptoms for fewer than 24 hr, and 62 patients had signs or symptoms for 24 hr or more. Fifty-nine patients had a history of abdominal disease, and 32 had no history of abdominal disease. In the entire population of patients, CT was superior to clinical evaluation for diagnosing the cause of acute abdomen (sensitivity was 90% for CT and 76% for clinical evaluation, p < .0005). Management was changed after CT in 25 patients (p < .0005). Similar differences were observed in the subgroups of patients with signs and symptoms for fewer than 24 hr, patients with signs and symptoms for 24 hr or more, and patients with no history of abdominal disease (p < .05). In the subgroup of patients with a history of abdominal disease, the differences between clinical evaluation and CT were not statistically significant. CT is an excellent examination technique for patients with acute abdomen, regardless of the duration of signs and symptoms. CT is particularly useful in defining the cause and therapeutic strategy in patients with acute abdomen who have no history of abdominal disease.
    American Journal of Roentgenology 01/1997; 168(1):173-8. · 2.90 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
7,765 Downloads
Available from
May 23, 2014