-
American Family Physician Oct 2018Abdominal wall pain is often mistaken for intra-abdominal visceral pain, resulting in expensive and unnecessary laboratory tests, imaging studies, consultations, and... (Review)
Review
Abdominal wall pain is often mistaken for intra-abdominal visceral pain, resulting in expensive and unnecessary laboratory tests, imaging studies, consultations, and invasive procedures. Those evaluations generally are nondiagnostic, and lingering pain can become frustrating to the patient and clinician. Common causes of abdominal wall pain include nerve entrapment, hernia, and surgical or procedural complications. Anterior cutaneous nerve entrapment syndrome is the most common and frequently missed type of abdominal wall pain. This condition typically presents with acute or chronic localized pain at the lateral edge of the rectus abdominis that worsens with position changes or increased abdominal muscle tension. Abdominal wall pain should be suspected in patients with no symptoms or signs of visceral etiology and a localized small tender spot. A positive Carnett test, in which tenderness stays the same or worsens when the patient tenses the abdominal muscles, suggests abdominal wall pain. A local anesthetic injection can confirm the diagnosis when there is 50% postprocedural pain improvement. Point-of-care ultrasonography may help rule out other abdominal wall pathologies and guide injections. The management of abdominal wall pain depends on the etiology. Reassurance and patient education can be helpful. Local injection with an anesthetic and a corticosteroid is an effective treatment for anterior cutaneous nerve entrapment syndrome, with an overall response rate of 70% to 99%. For refractory cases that require more than two injections, surgical neurectomy generally resolves the pain.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Abdominal Wall; Diagnosis, Differential; Humans; Physical Examination; Point-of-Care Systems; Ultrasonography
PubMed: 30252418
DOI: No ID Found -
Digestive Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) 2022Abdominal pain is a common symptom of gastroenterology examination. Chronic abdominal pain is present for >3 months. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Abdominal pain is a common symptom of gastroenterology examination. Chronic abdominal pain is present for >3 months.
SUMMARY
Gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is one of the most common gastrointestinal diseases encountered by both gastroenterologists and general practitioners. GERD is usually a chronic disease presented with a set of symptoms including heartburn and/or regurgitation, and less commonly epigastric pain. Epigastric pain syndrome is characterized by the following symptoms: epigastric pain and/or burning. It does not necessarily occur after meal ingestion, may occur during fasting, and can be even improved by meal ingestion. Duodenal ulcers tend to cause abdominal pain that is localized in the epigastric region and commence several hours after eating, often at night. Hunger provokes pain in most of the cases and decreases after meal. Gastric ulcer pain occurs immediately after eating, and consuming food increases pain. Pain is localized in the epigastrium and can radiate to the back. Abdominal pain in irritable bowel syndrome is related to defecation. A typical symptom of chronic pancreatitis is pain that radiates to the back. In Crohn's disease, inflammation causes pain. Key Messages: Pain can occur at different locations with diverse intensity and propagation and is often associated with other symptoms. For any gastroenterologist, abdominal pain is a big challenge.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Dyspepsia; Gastroenterologists; Gastroesophageal Reflux; Heartburn; Humans
PubMed: 33946069
DOI: 10.1159/000516977 -
Acta Gastro-enterologica Belgica 2022We hereby describe a case of an acutely ill 41-year-old male without any medical history who presented with an acute abdomen in the emergency department. An abdominal CT...
We hereby describe a case of an acutely ill 41-year-old male without any medical history who presented with an acute abdomen in the emergency department. An abdominal CT showed a dissection of the coeliac trunk and infarction of the spleen. Because of a presumed diagnosis of vasculitis he was started on high dose IV steroids. However, after additional testing the diagnosis of segmental arteriolar Mediolysis (SAM) was made. In this case report we describe the presentation, diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of this patient and provide the readers with background about common differential diagnosis and criteria for diagnosing SAM.
Topics: Male; Humans; Adult; Abdomen, Acute; Abdominal Pain; Abdomen; Vasculitis; Celiac Artery
PubMed: 35770291
DOI: 10.51821/85.4.9860 -
Digestive Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) 2021Background and Summary: Chronic abdominal pain is a challenging complaint for both primary care providers and gastroenterologists alike, due to a broad differential... (Review)
Review
Background and Summary: Chronic abdominal pain is a challenging complaint for both primary care providers and gastroenterologists alike, due to a broad differential diagnosis and sometimes extensive and negative workup. In the absence of red flag features that herald more acute conditions, the majority of patients with chronic abdominal pain have a benign cause or a functional disorder (e.g., irritable bowel syndrome). The costs associated with a diagnostic workup are an expensive burden to health care. A systematic approach for evaluating patients and initiating a management plan are recommended in the primary care setting. Undiagnosed abdominal pain should be investigated starting with a detailed history and physical examination. Diagnostic investigations should be limited and adapted according to the clinical features, the alarm symptoms, and the symptom severity. This review will focus on the diagnostic tools which general practitioners utilize in the evaluation of chronic abdominal pain. Key Messages: The primary role of the general practitioner is to differentiate an organic disease from a functional one, to refer to a specialist, or to provide treatment for the underlying cause of pain. The functional disorders should be considered after the organic pathology has been confidently excluded. Once a diagnosis of functional pain is established, repetitive testing is not recommended and the patient should be referred to receive psychological support (e.g., cognitive therapy) associated with available pharmacological therapeutic options.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Diagnosis, Differential; General Practice; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Primary Health Care
PubMed: 33631744
DOI: 10.1159/000515433 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2021Crohn's disease is a remitting and relapsing disorder that can affect the whole gastrointestinal tract. Active disease symptoms include abdominal pain, fatigue, weight... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Crohn's disease is a remitting and relapsing disorder that can affect the whole gastrointestinal tract. Active disease symptoms include abdominal pain, fatigue, weight loss, and diarrhoea. There is no known cure; however, the disease can be managed, and therefore places a huge financial burden on healthcare systems. Abdominal pain is a common and debilitating symptom of Crohn's and other inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs), and is multifaceted. Abdominal pain in Crohn's disease could be a symptom of disease relapse or related to medication adverse effects, surgical complications and strictures or adhesions secondary to IBD. In the absence of these factors, around 20 to 50% of people with Crohn's in remission still experience pain.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the efficacy and safety of interventions for managing abdominal pain in people with Crohn's disease and IBD (where data on ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease could not be separated).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, three other databases, and clinical trials registries on 29 April 2021. We also searched the references of trials and systematic reviews for any additional trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised trials that compared interventions for the management of abdominal pain in the setting of Crohn's disease and IBD, with other active interventions or standard therapy, placebo, or no therapy were included. We excluded studies that did not report on any abdominal pain outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Five review authors independently conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment of the included studies. We analysed data using Review Manager 5. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios and mean differences with 95% confidence intervals. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE methodology.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 studies (743 randomised participants). Five studies evaluated participants with Crohn's disease; seven studies evaluated participants with IBD where the data on ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease could not be separated; and two studies provided separate results for Crohn's disease participants. Studies considered a range of disease activity states. Two studies provided intervention success definitions, whilst the remaining studies measured pain as a continuous outcome on a rating scale. All studies except one measured pain intensity, whilst three studies measured pain frequency. Withdrawals due to adverse events were directly or indirectly reported in 10 studies. No conclusions could be drawn about the efficacy of the majority of the interventions on pain intensity, pain frequency, and treatment success, except for the comparison of transcranial direct current stimulation to sham stimulation. The certainty of the evidence was very low in all but one comparison because of imprecision due to sparse data and risk of bias assessed as unclear or high risk. Two studies compared a low FODMAP diet (n=37) to a sham diet (n=45) in IBD patients. The evidence on pain intensity was of very low certainty (MD -12.00, 95% CI -114.55 to 90.55). One study reported pain intensity separately for CD participants in the low FODMAP group [n=14, mean(SD)=24 (82.3)] and the sham group [n=12, mean(SD)=32 (69.3)]. The same study also reported pain frequency for IBD participants in the low FODMAP group [n=27, mean(SD)=36 (26)] and sham group [n=25, mean(SD)=38(25)] and CD participants in the low FODMAP group [n=14, mean(SD)=36 (138.4)] and sham group [n=12, mean(SD)=48 (128.2)]. Treatment success was not reported. One study compared a low FODMAP diet (n=25) to high FODMAP/normal diet (n=25) in IBD patients. The data reported on pain intensity was unclear. Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. One study compared medicine-separated moxibustion combined with acupuncture (n=51) versus wheat bran-separated moxibustion combined with shallow acupuncture (n=51) in CD patients. The data reported on pain intensity and frequency were unclear. Treatment success was not reported. One study compared mindfulness with CBT (n=33) versus no treatment (n=33) in IBD patients. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain intensity and frequency (MD -37.00, 95% CI -87.29 to 13.29). Treatment success was not reported. One study compared soft non-manipulative osteopathic treatment (n=16) with no treatment besides doctor advice (n=14) in CD patients. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain intensity (MD 0.01, 95% CI -1.81 to 1.83). Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. One study compared stress management (n=15) to self-directed stress management(n=15) and to standard treatment (n=15) in CD patients. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of these treatments on pain intensity (MD -30.50, 95% CI -58.45 to -2.55 and MD -34.30, 95% CI -61.99 to -6.61). Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. One study compared enteric-release glyceryl trinitrate (n=34) with placebo (n=36) in CD patients. The data reported on pain intensity was unclear. Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. One study compared 100 mg olorinab three times per day (n=8) with 25 mg olorinab three times per day (n=6) in CD patients. Pain intensity was measured as a 30% reduction in weekly average abdominal pain intensity score for the 100mg group (n=5) and the 25mg group (n=6). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain intensity (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.15). Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. One study compared relaxation training (n=28) to a waitlist (n=28) in IBD patients. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain intensity (MD -0.72, 95% CI -1.85 to 0.41). Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. One study compared web-based education (n=30) with a book-based education (n=30) in IBD patients. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain intensity (MD -0.13, 95% CI -1.25 to 0.99). Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. One study compared yoga (n=50) with no treatment (n=50) in IBD patients. The data reported on treatment success were unclear. Pain frequency and intensity were not reported. One study compared transcranial direct current stimulation (n = 10) to sham stimulation (n = 10) in IBD patients. There may be an improvement in pain intensity when transcranial direct current is compared to sham stimulation (MD -1.65, 95% CI -3.29 to -0.01, low-certainty evidence). Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. One study compared a kefir diet (Lactobacillus bacteria) to no intervention in IBD patients and provided separate data for their CD participants. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of this treatment on pain intensity in IBD (MD 0.62, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.07) and CD (MD -1.10, 95% CI -1.67 to -0.53). Treatment success and pain frequency were not reported. Reporting of our secondary outcomes was inconsistent. The most adverse events were reported in the enteric-release glyceryl trinitrate and olorinab studies. In the enteric-release glyceryl trinitrate study, the adverse events were higher in the intervention arm. In the olorinab study, more adverse events were observed in the higher dose arm of the intervention. In the studies on non-drug interventions, adverse events tended to be very low or zero. However, no clear judgements regarding adverse events can be drawn for any interventions due to the low number of events. Anxiety and depression were measured and reported at the end of intervention in only one study; therefore, no meaningful conclusions can be drawn for this outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found low certainty evidence that transcranial direct current stimulation may improve pain intensity compared to sham stimulation. We could not reach any conclusions on the efficacy of any other interventions on pain intensity, pain frequency, and treatment success. The certainty of the evidence was very low due to the low numbers of studies and participants in each comparison and clinical heterogeneity amongst the studies. While no serious or total adverse events were elicited explicitly with any of the treatments studied, the reported events were very low. The certainty of the evidence for all comparisons was very low, so no conclusions can be drawn.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Colitis, Ulcerative; Crohn Disease; Humans; Inflammatory Bowel Diseases; Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
PubMed: 34844288
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013531.pub2 -
JAMA Network Open Dec 2022Acupuncture is a promising therapy for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but the use of subjective scales as an assessment is accompanied by high placebo response rates. (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
IMPORTANCE
Acupuncture is a promising therapy for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but the use of subjective scales as an assessment is accompanied by high placebo response rates.
OBJECTIVES
To preliminarily test the feasibility of using US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-recommended end points to evaluate the efficacy of acupuncture in the treatment of IBS.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This pilot, multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted in 4 tertiary hospitals in China from July 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021, and 14-week data collection was completed in March 2021. Individuals with a diagnosis of IBS with diarrhea (IBS-D) were randomized to 1 of 3 groups, including 2 acupuncture groups (specific acupoints [SA] and nonspecific acupoints [NSA]) and a sham acupuncture group (non-acupoints [NA]) with a 1:1:1 ratio.
INTERVENTIONS
Patients in all groups received twelve 30-minute sessions over 4 consecutive weeks at 3 sessions per week (ideally every other day).
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES
The primary outcome was the response rate at week 4, which was defined as the proportion of patients whose worst abdominal pain score (score range, 0-10, with 0 indicating no pain and 10 indicating unbearable severe pain) decreased by at least 30% and the number of type 6 or 7 stool days decreased by 50% or greater.
RESULTS
Ninety patients (54 male [60.0%]; mean [SD] age, 34.5 [11.3] years) were enrolled, with 30 patients in each group. There were substantial improvements in the primary outcomes for all groups (composite response rates of 46.7% [95% CI, 28.8%-65.4%] in the SA group, 46.7% [95% CI, 28.8%-65.4%] in the NSA group, and 26.7% [95% CI, 13.0%-46.2%] in the NA group), although the difference between them was not statistically significant (P = .18). The response rates of adequate relief at week 4 were 64.3% (95% CI, 44.1%-80.7%) in the SA group, 62.1% (95% CI, 42.4%-78.7%) in the NSA group, and 55.2% (95% CI, 36.0%-73.0%) in the NA group (P = .76). Adverse events were reported in 2 patients (6.7%) in the SA group and 3 patients (10%) in NSA or NA group.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE
In this pilot randomized clinical trial, acupuncture in both the SA and NSA groups showed clinically meaningful improvement in IBS-D symptoms, although there were no significant differences among the 3 groups. These findings suggest that acupuncture is feasible and safe; a larger, sufficiently powered trial is needed to accurately assess efficacy.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2000030670.
Topics: United States; Humans; Male; Adult; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Pilot Projects; Acupuncture Therapy; Diarrhea; Abdominal Pain
PubMed: 36580333
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.48817 -
Digestion 2024Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a common disorder characterized by chronic or recurrent upper abdominal pain or discomfort without any structural abnormalities in the... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a common disorder characterized by chronic or recurrent upper abdominal pain or discomfort without any structural abnormalities in the gastrointestinal tract. FD is categorized into two subgroups based on symptoms: postprandial distress syndrome (PDS) and epigastric pain syndrome.
SUMMARY
The pathophysiology of FD involves several mechanisms. Delayed gastric emptying is observed in approximately 30% of FD patients but does not correlate with symptom patterns or severity. Impaired gastric accommodation is important in the pathophysiology, particularly for PDS. Visceral hypersensitivity, characterized by heightened sensitivity to normal activities, contributes to the perception of discomfort or pain in FD. Alterations to the duodenal mucosa, including impaired mucosal barrier function and low-grade inflammation, are also implicated in the pathogenesis of FD. Microbial dysbiosis and psychological factors such as stress can further exacerbate symptoms. Treatment options include dietary modifications, establishing a physician-patient relationship, acid suppressants, prokinetics, neuromodulators, and behavioral therapies. Dietary recommendations include eating smaller, more frequent meals, and avoiding trigger foods. Acid suppressants are used as the first-line treatment. Prokinetics and neuromodulators aim to improve gastric motility and central pain processing, respectively. Behavioral therapies, including cognitive behavioral therapy and hypnotherapy, have shown benefits for refractory FD. Severe and refractory cases may require combination therapies or experimental treatments.
KEY MESSAGES
FD is a disorder of gut-brain interaction involving diverse pathophysiological mechanisms. Individualized treatment based on symptoms and responses to interventions is crucial. Further research is needed to improve the understanding of FD and advance the development of effective therapies.
Topics: Humans; Dyspepsia; Abdominal Pain; Stomach; Inflammation; Neurotransmitter Agents
PubMed: 37598673
DOI: 10.1159/000532082 -
JAMA Surgery Jul 2023Intravenous (IV) contrast medium is sometimes withheld due to risk of complication or lack of availability in patients undergoing computed tomography (CT) for abdominal...
IMPORTANCE
Intravenous (IV) contrast medium is sometimes withheld due to risk of complication or lack of availability in patients undergoing computed tomography (CT) for abdominal pain. The risk from withholding contrast medium is understudied.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of unenhanced abdominopelvic CT using contemporaneous contrast-enhanced CT as the reference standard in emergency department (ED) patients with acute abdominal pain.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS
This was an institutional review board-approved, multicenter retrospective diagnostic accuracy study of 201 consecutive adult ED patients who underwent dual-energy contrast-enhanced CT for the evaluation of acute abdominal pain from April 1, 2017, through April 22, 2017. Three blinded radiologists interpreted these scans to establish the reference standard by majority rule. IV and oral contrast media were then digitally subtracted using dual-energy techniques. Six different blinded radiologists from 3 institutions (3 specialist faculty and 3 residents) interpreted the resulting unenhanced CT examinations. Participants included a consecutive sample of ED patients with abdominal pain who underwent dual-energy CT.
EXPOSURE
Contrast-enhanced and virtual unenhanced CT derived from dual-energy CT.
MAIN OUTCOME
Diagnostic accuracy of unenhanced CT for primary (ie, principal cause[s] of pain) and actionable secondary (ie, incidental findings requiring management) diagnoses. The Gwet interrater agreement coefficient was calculated.
RESULTS
There were 201 included patients (female, 108; male, 93) with a mean age of 50.1 (SD, 20.9) years and mean BMI of 25.5 (SD, 5.4). Overall accuracy of unenhanced CT was 70% (faculty, 68% to 74%; residents, 69% to 70%). Faculty had higher accuracy than residents for primary diagnoses (82% vs 76%; adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.83; 95% CI, 1.26-2.67; P = .002) but lower accuracy for actionable secondary diagnoses (87% vs 90%; OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.35-0.93; P < .001). This was because faculty made fewer false-negative primary diagnoses (38% vs 62%; OR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.13-0.41; P < .001) but more false-positive actionable secondary diagnoses (63% vs 37%; OR, 2.11, 95% CI, 1.26-3.54; P = .01). False-negative (19%) and false-positive (14%) results were common. Interrater agreement for overall accuracy was moderate (Gwet agreement coefficient, 0.58).
CONCLUSION
Unenhanced CT was approximately 30% less accurate than contrast-enhanced CT for evaluating abdominal pain in the ED. This should be balanced with the risk of administering contrast material to patients with risk factors for kidney injury or hypersensitivity reaction.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Male; Female; Middle Aged; Retrospective Studies; Tomography, X-Ray Computed; Abdominal Pain; Abdomen, Acute; Emergency Service, Hospital
PubMed: 37133836
DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2023.1112 -
Nutrients Jan 2020This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center study investigated the clinical efficacy of two probiotic strains on abdominal pain severity and... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center study investigated the clinical efficacy of two probiotic strains on abdominal pain severity and symptomology in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Three hundred and thirty adults, aged 18 to 70 years, with IBS according to Rome IV criteria were allocated (1:1:1) to receive placebo, DDS-1 (1 × 10 CFU/day) or subsp. UABla-12 (1 × 10 CFU/day) over six weeks. The primary outcome was the change in Abdominal Pain Severity - Numeric Rating Scale (APS-NRS). Over the intervention period, APS-NRS was significantly improved in both probiotic groups vs. placebo in absolute terms (DDS-1: -2.59 ± 2.07, p = 0.001; UABla-12: -1.56 ± 1.83, p = 0.001) and in percentage of significant responders (DDS-1: 52.3%, p < 0.001); UABla-12 (28.2%, p = 0.031). Significant amelioration vs. placebo was observed in IBS Symptom Severity Scale (IBS-SSS) scores for L. acidophilus DDS-1 (-133.4 ± 95.19, p < 0.001) and B. lactis UABla-12 (-104.5 ± 96.08, p < 0.001) groups, including sub-scores related to abdominal pain, abdominal distension, bowel habits and quality of life. Additionally, a significant normalization was observed in stool consistency in both probiotic groups over time and as compared to placebo. In conclusion, L. acidophilus DDS-1 and B. lactis UABla-12 improved abdominal pain and symptom severity scores with a corresponding normalization of bowel habits in adults with IBS.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Bifidobacterium animalis; Double-Blind Method; Female; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Lactobacillus acidophilus; Male; Middle Aged; Probiotics; Severity of Illness Index; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 32019158
DOI: 10.3390/nu12020363 -
Deutsches Arzteblatt International Sep 2023
Topics: Humans; Abdominal Pain; Emergency Service, Hospital
PubMed: 37811846
DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.m2023.0163