I would argue this doesn't matter. They still get an NGT and observation, at least around here.
Should be evident clinically: fever, tachycardia, abd pain, leukocytosis, lactate.... Which by the way buys them a trip to the OR.
Mass and TRUE intussusception are too rare to justify CT scans in everybody. Abscess should have other clinical markers.
Never seen a microperf in the setting of SBO but I would think that clinical picture would trump that finding. Macroperf should be evident on plain films and exam should be concordant.
Agreed. I'm not against CT scans in the evaluation of SBO. There are scenarios where they have utility. I just don't think they are needed in the majority of patients: h/o abd surg and classic plain film findings.
We admit at least 2 of these every day. I would argue that CT scanning them all is a waste of resources.
If conservative management is successful then it was likely just SBO 2/2 adhesive disease. If they come back I'd offer them surgery right off the bat. I can't justify spending $2000 on everybody just to see dialated bowel +/- transition point and no other findings which is what I seem to see in the vast majority of patients that get a scan. If a patient fails to progress they get an operation. Around here that means a celiotomy but when I'm in practice I think I'll start with a scope.
I think you're putting a little too much stock into the accuracy of your clinical exam. There are plenty of patients with ischemia/perforation who don't manifest a perfect combination of fever/leukocytosis/acidosis with signs of peritonitis.
You say mass and intussusception are too rare to matter, but I put etc etc because there are a million things you can find in there you weren't expecting....when you add them all together, they're more common than you think. Perfect example: Abscess and associated ileus, no SBO.
As for microperforation, I've seen it several times, but I guess since I get CT scans and you don't, that difference in experience can be easily explained. Plain films are just not good for identifying free fluid or small to moderate amounts of air.
Come to think of it, plain films can't really differentiate ileus from SBO, or obstructing cecal mass from adhesive band. They really can't tell you much beyond the fact that the small bowel is dilated and the colon is not.
Different patients and different pathologies require individualized therapy. I'm not sure I can subscribe to the simplistic, cookbook approach of "NGT x 48 hours, then OR if they don't progress." Since I want to operate on some right away, and I want to sit on some other ones for as long as humanly possible, I use the CT to guide my therapy.
Maybe your hands are better than mine, but I've found that there's not always a great relationship between the physical exam and degree/severity of underlying pathology. Often times, the hands and the CT disagree.
Anyway, I think it's okay to have differing opinions. My opinion is that it's $2,000 well spent, since it guides my therapy...and I think it can ultimately lead to a cheaper hospital stay for a good portion of patients.