A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Underdiagnosis of umbilical hernias in CT scans in a multicenter study - the radiologically neglected pathology and its surgical implications. | LitMetric

Underdiagnosis of umbilical hernias in CT scans in a multicenter study - the radiologically neglected pathology and its surgical implications.

Hernia

Clinical-Surgical Research Group (GICQx), Human Anatomy Research Group (GIA), Human Anatomy Department, School of Medicine, Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon, Francisco I. Madero y Aguirre Pequeño sin número, Colonia Mitras Centro, Monterrey, Monterrey, Nuevo León, C.P. 64460, México.

Published: October 2024

Purpose: Umbilical hernias (UH) have a higher prevalence than previously considered. With the high workload radiologists must endure, UH can be missed when interpreting a computed tomography scan (CT). The clinical implications of its misdiagnosis are yet to be determined. Unreporting could lead to content lesions in surgical approaches and other potential complications. The aim was to determine the prevalence of UH using CT scans, and the incidence of radiological reporting.

Methods: A multicenter, cross-sectional study was performed in four tertiary-level hospitals. CT scans were reviewed for abdominal wall defects at the umbilicus, and radiological reports were examined to compare findings. In the case of UH, transversal, anteroposterior, and craniocaudal lengths were obtained.

Results: A total of 1557 CTs were included, from which 971 (62.4%, 95% CI 0.59-0.64) had UH. Out of those, 629 (64.8%, 95% CI 0.61-0.67) of the defects were not included in the radiological report. Smaller UH (x̄: 7.7 × 6.0 mm) were more frequently missed. Of the reported UH, 187 (54.7%) included at least one axis measurement, 289 (84.5%) content description, and 146 (42.7%) whether or not there were complication signs.

Conclusion: There is a high prevalence of UH, and a high incidence of under-reporting. This raises the question of whether this is a population-based finding or the norm worldwide. The reason of under-reporting and the clinical implications of these must be addressed in further studies.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10029-024-03079-9DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

umbilical hernias
8
clinical implications
8
underdiagnosis umbilical
4
hernias scans
4
scans multicenter
4
multicenter study
4
study radiologically
4
radiologically neglected
4
neglected pathology
4
pathology surgical
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!