Cargando…

Ingested foreign body mimicking acute appendicitis

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of acute appendicitis is approximately 250,000 cases per year in the United States with a lifetime risk of 7% (Gupta & Dupuy, 1997). However, despite strongly associated clinical signs, diagnostic accuracy based on history and physical exam alone is only 70% (Jess et...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Reeves, Jeremy M., Wade, Michael D., Edwards, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6000735/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29689521
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2018.04.003
_version_ 1783331828935950336
author Reeves, Jeremy M.
Wade, Michael D.
Edwards, John
author_facet Reeves, Jeremy M.
Wade, Michael D.
Edwards, John
author_sort Reeves, Jeremy M.
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The incidence of acute appendicitis is approximately 250,000 cases per year in the United States with a lifetime risk of 7% (Gupta & Dupuy, 1997). However, despite strongly associated clinical signs, diagnostic accuracy based on history and physical exam alone is only 70% (Jess et al., 1981). This is in large part due to the multitude of mimics found in the differential diagnosis of appendicitis. As a result highly sensitive imaging such as computed tomography scan has become standard of care. PRESENTATION OF CASE: We present a case of an otherwise healthy 20 year old male presenting to the emergency department with acute onset of right lower quadrant pain and leukocytosis consistent with a diagnosis of appendicitis. Ultrasonography was grossly negative as was a computed tomography scan. Given the peritoneal nature of the patient’s abdominal exam, general surgery was consulted. The patient was taken for exploratory laparoscopy where a long, thin, metallic foreign body was found to have perforated the small intestine. DISCUSSION: Discussion includes a literature review of computed tomography negative appendicitis, as well as the frequency of foreign body mimicking appendicitis. This case demonstrates the importance of the clinical exam even in the face of negative highly sensitive imaging modalities. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, there are several mimics of acute appendicitis and we present an unusual case of a foreign body mimicking this disorder in a young person. Highly sensitive imaging coupled with history and physical examination remains the standard of care for diagnosing appendicitis; however, clinical acumen must be utilized to formulate a broad differential.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6000735
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60007352018-06-15 Ingested foreign body mimicking acute appendicitis Reeves, Jeremy M. Wade, Michael D. Edwards, John Int J Surg Case Rep Article INTRODUCTION: The incidence of acute appendicitis is approximately 250,000 cases per year in the United States with a lifetime risk of 7% (Gupta & Dupuy, 1997). However, despite strongly associated clinical signs, diagnostic accuracy based on history and physical exam alone is only 70% (Jess et al., 1981). This is in large part due to the multitude of mimics found in the differential diagnosis of appendicitis. As a result highly sensitive imaging such as computed tomography scan has become standard of care. PRESENTATION OF CASE: We present a case of an otherwise healthy 20 year old male presenting to the emergency department with acute onset of right lower quadrant pain and leukocytosis consistent with a diagnosis of appendicitis. Ultrasonography was grossly negative as was a computed tomography scan. Given the peritoneal nature of the patient’s abdominal exam, general surgery was consulted. The patient was taken for exploratory laparoscopy where a long, thin, metallic foreign body was found to have perforated the small intestine. DISCUSSION: Discussion includes a literature review of computed tomography negative appendicitis, as well as the frequency of foreign body mimicking appendicitis. This case demonstrates the importance of the clinical exam even in the face of negative highly sensitive imaging modalities. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, there are several mimics of acute appendicitis and we present an unusual case of a foreign body mimicking this disorder in a young person. Highly sensitive imaging coupled with history and physical examination remains the standard of care for diagnosing appendicitis; however, clinical acumen must be utilized to formulate a broad differential. Elsevier 2018-04-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6000735/ /pubmed/29689521 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2018.04.003 Text en © 2018 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Reeves, Jeremy M.
Wade, Michael D.
Edwards, John
Ingested foreign body mimicking acute appendicitis
title Ingested foreign body mimicking acute appendicitis
title_full Ingested foreign body mimicking acute appendicitis
title_fullStr Ingested foreign body mimicking acute appendicitis
title_full_unstemmed Ingested foreign body mimicking acute appendicitis
title_short Ingested foreign body mimicking acute appendicitis
title_sort ingested foreign body mimicking acute appendicitis
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6000735/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29689521
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijscr.2018.04.003
work_keys_str_mv AT reevesjeremym ingestedforeignbodymimickingacuteappendicitis
AT wademichaeld ingestedforeignbodymimickingacuteappendicitis
AT edwardsjohn ingestedforeignbodymimickingacuteappendicitis