CASE PRESENTATION: We describe a series of pediatric patients who presented to the Pediatric Emergency Department with acute abdominal pain, in whom point-of-care ultrasound helped expedite the diagnosis by identifying varying types of calcification and associated sonological findings. For children who present to the Pediatric Emergency Department with significant abdominal pain, a rapid distinction between emergencies and non-emergencies is vital to decrease morbidity and mortality.
CONCLUSIONS: In a child presenting to the Pediatric Emergency Department with abdominal pain, POCUS and the findings of calcifications can narrow or expand the differential diagnosis when integrated with history and physical exam, to a specific anatomic structure. Integrating these findings with additional sonological findings of an underlying pathology might raise sufficient concerns in the emergency physicians to warrant further investigations for the patient in the form of a formal radiological ultrasound and assist in the patient's early disposition. The use of POCUS might also help to categorize the type of calcification to one of the four main categories of intra-abdominal calcifications, namely concretions, conduit wall calcification, cyst wall calcification, and solid mass-type calcification. POCUS used thoughtfully can give a diagnosis and expand differential diagnosis, reduce cognitive bias, and reduce physician mental load. By integrating the use of POCUS with the history and clinical findings, it will be possible to expedite the management in children who present to the Pediatric Emergency Department with acute abdominal pain.
CASE REPORT: We describe a case of a 33 years old gentleman who was clinically diagnosed as acute appendicitis at initial presentation in view of a one-week history of fever, right lower quadrant abdominal pain- and guarding at right iliac fossa. He had thrombocytopenia and lymphopenia on presentation. Mesenteric lymphadenitis and small bowel lesion were found intraoperatively, which was respectively biopsied and resected. Histopathological result confirms disseminated histoplasmosis. Retroviral screen was positive. He was treated with amphotericin B for one week, subsequently switched to oral itraconazole, followed by initiation of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART).
DISCUSSION: This case illustrates the various nature of histoplasmosis presentation. A high index of suspicion is needed to clinch the diagnosis and subsequently institute prompt treatment as disseminated disease can be fatal if left untreated in an immunosuppressed host.
AIM: To systematically review all available evidence to describe the incidence, clinical course with management and propose a definition.
METHODS: The databases PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched using with the keywords up to June 2020. Additional manual search was performed and cross-checked for additional references. Data collected included demographics, reason for colonoscopy, time to diagnosis, method of diagnosis (clinical vs imaging) and management outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of nine studies were included in the final systematic review with a total of 339 cases. The time to diagnosis post-colonoscopy ranged from 2 h to 30 d. Clinical presentation for these patients were non-specific including abdominal pain, nausea/vomiting, per rectal bleeding and chills/fever. Majority of the cases were diagnosed based on computed tomography scan. The management for these patients were similar to the usual patients presenting with diverticulitis where most resolve with non-operative intervention (i.e., antibiotics and bowel rest).
CONCLUSION: The entity of post-colonoscopy diverticulitis remains contentious where there is a wide duration post-procedure included. Regardless of whether this is a true complication post-colonoscopy or a de novo event, early diagnosis is vital to guide appropriate treatment. Further prospective studies especially registries should include this as a complication to try to capture the true incidence.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on post-bariatric surgery patients who underwent laparoscopy for diagnosis and treatment of chronic abdominal pain at a single academic center. Only patients with both negative preoperative CT scan and upper endoscopy were included.
RESULTS: Total of 35 post-bariatric surgery patients met the inclusion criteria, and all had history of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass. Twenty out of 35 patients (57%) had positive findings on diagnostic laparoscopy including presence of adhesions (n = 12), chronic cholecystitis (n = 4), mesenteric defect (n = 2), internal hernia (n = 1), and necrotic omentum (n = 1). Two patients developed post-operative complications including a pelvic abscess and an abdominal wall abscess. Overall, 15 patients (43%) had symptomatic improvement after laparoscopy; 14 of these patients had positive laparoscopic findings requiring intervention (70% of the patients with positive laparoscopy). Conversely, 20 (57%) patients required long-term medical treatment for management of chronic abdominal pain.
CONCLUSION: Diagnostic laparoscopy, which is a safe procedure, can detect pathological findings in more than half of post-bariatric surgery patients with chronic abdominal pain of unknown etiology. About 40% of patients who undergo diagnostic laparoscopy and 70% of patients with positive findings on laparoscopy experience significant symptom improvement. Patients should be informed that diagnostic laparoscopy is associated with no symptom improvement in about half of cases.