Dergiler / Ulusal Travma Dergisi / 1999 / Cilt: 5 - Sayı: 1
Karın ağrılı olgularda düz karın grafisinin tanısal değeri
- Sayfa
- 43–45
- DOI
- —
Özet
Akut kartn agnh olgularda diiz kartn grafisinin tamsal degerini,asistan ve radyolog ve genel cerrahi uzmam degerlendirmesi arasmdakifarkt saptamak icin prospektifbir caltsmayapilmisttr. Akut kartn agnstyla Ilk veAcil Yardim anabilim dalma basvuran 88olgugahsmayaahndt.Tiimolgulararutinolarakayaktadiizkanngrafisi cekildi.ilkasamadaolguvegrafisiasistanlarca,daha sonra radyolog ve genel cerrahca degerlendirildi. Grafiler 4 grupta incelendi. a) tamya katktsi yok, b) tamya yardima, c) tarn koydurucu, d) yanlts tarn. Klinik tamlar 7 gruptaydi. a) akut apandisit (25 hasta) b) ileus (13 hasta) c) akut kolesistit (12 hasta) d) non-spesifik kartn agrtst (18 hasta) e) urolitiazis (5 hasta) f) perforasyon (4 hasta) g) degisik tamlar (11 hasta). Asistan degerlendirmesinde grafilerin %73'u tamya katktsi yok, %21'i tamya yardima, %3,4 tarn koydurucu olarak degerlendirildi. Radyologvegenelcerrahi degerlendirmesinde aym oranlarsirastyla % 75, %19, %6.8 olarak bulundu. Sonuclanmtz akutkann agnh olgulann %75'inde direkt kann grafisinin tamya katktsi olmadigmt gostermektedir. Yanhzca asistanlann degerlendirilmesinde ise radyolog ve genel cerrahm birlikte degerlendirmesi kadardogruoranlar bulunmustur.
Abstract
Aprospective study was performed on patient with abdominal pain to evaluate of plain abdominal radiographs and to determine the differences of registrar and radiologist and general surgeon in diagnosis. Eighty eight patients with acute abdominal pain who admitted to department of emergency medicine were evaluated. The plain abdominal radiography were obtained in all of them. In first step, case and radiograph were evaluated by registrar and later, radiologist and surgeon assessment was done. Radiograph was classified by the authors into one of the following groups a) of no help in diagnosis b) diagnostic c) of help in diagnosis and d) wrong diagnosis. Seven acute abdominal conditions were considered a) acute appendicitis (25 patients) b) intestinal obstruction (13 patients) c) acute cholecystitis (18 patients) d) nonspesific abdominal pain (11 patients) e) urolithiazis (5 patients) fiperforation (4 patients) g) miscellaneous diagnosis (11 patients). In registrar evaluation radiograph were no help diagnosis in 73 percent of cases, help diagnosis in 21 percent of cases, helpful in 3.4 percent. This assessment had became respectively 75,19,68, percent in radiologist and surgeon evaluation. Ourresults suggestthatforthe 75 percent of all patients with acute abdominal pain there is little value in taking a plain abdominal radiograph. Registrar had assessment as right as radiologist and surgeon assessment.