13.07.2015 Views

Official Proceedings - AIUM

Official Proceedings - AIUM

Official Proceedings - AIUM

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine <strong>Proceedings</strong> J Ultrasound Med 32(suppl):S1–S134, 2013asis, abdominal pain, and hematuria was performed. Descriptive statisticswere used for all subjects. Normalcy for data was calculated, and all continuousdata were evaluated utilizing the Student t test or analysis of variance,when appropriate. All categorical data were calculated using theFisher exact test or χ 2 analysis.Results—We found 153 cases of kidney stones among the pediatricpopulation from January 2007 to 2011. The mean age was 19 years.Patients were evaluated by 24% ED physicians, 66% pediatric emergencyphysicians, and 10% midlevel providers (MLPs). Though there was anoverall increase in the incidence of renal colic in 2011 compared to 2007,it was not found to be statistically significant by the Fisher exact test(P = .11). The use of ultrasound increased with each progressive year(from 10% in 2007 to 27% in 2011). The type of provider (ED attendingvs pediatric attending vs MLP) had no significant effect on the use of computedtomography (CT) or US (P = .15; P = .15, respectively). The typeof provider or diagnostic modality did not affect the ED length of stay ofpatients (P = .08).Conclusions—There has been an overall increase in renal colicamong the pediatric emergency patient population over the past 5 years.CT was more frequently used in the diagnostic workup compared to US.We plan to use these data to educate health care providers on the use of USin patients suspected of having nephrolithiasis to further minimize the useof CT scans.1540672 Prenatal Stomach Size: Association With Cleft Lip and/orCleft PalateKristin Burhans, 1 * Lauren Mack, 1 Peter Koltz, 2 StephanieHenderson, 1 John Girotto, 2 Loralei Thornburg 1 1 Obstetricsand Gynecology, 2 Plastic Surgery, University of Rochester,Rochester, New York USAObjectives—Cleft lip/palate is listed as associated with an absentstomach due to poor fetal swallowing; however, it is unclear if a“small” stomach is also associated, especially without concurrent brainabnormalities.Methods—Records were reviewed for all nonanomalous infantsat Strong Memorial Hospital from 2003 to 2011 with cleft lip/cleftpalate with available second- or third-trimester images. In each abdominalcircumference, stomach width (W) and anterior-posterior (AP) measurementswere measured by a single author (L.M.), and polyhydramniosor “absent” stomach was recorded. Nondiabetic controls matched 2:1 forall but 9 patients (1:1) for the gestational age (GA) of measurement within1 week. As per prior nomograms, mean W and AP were compared in 3-to 5-week GA groups between infants with clefts and those without.Results—Of 32 infants with clefts, 108 measurements matched207 control measurements. The majority of infants received 2 or 3 prenatalultrasound examinations. There were only 3 infants with cleft with anabsent stomach at any point in gestation, 1 with polyhydramnios. Themean W and AP were both significant at 19 to 21 and 22 to 24 weeks’ gestation,W only at 25 to 27 and 37 to 40 weeks, and AP only at 28 to 30 and31 to 36 weeks.Conclusions—Few nonanomalous infants with clefts had anabsent stomach on ultrasound, suggesting this is an insensitive marker;however, mean W and AP stomach measurements were significantlysmaller in the mid trimester between 19 and 24 weeks when manyanatomic ultrasound examinations are performed. Abnormalities in prenatalstomach measurements, especially during this period, should promptevaluation for cleft lip/palate. Stomach size at 16 to 18 weeks did not differin either dimension, suggesting this is a poor marker prior to 19 weeks.Table 1. Stomach (mm), Mean ± SDInfants With Cleft Infants Without CleftGA, wk W AP W AP P, W P, AP16–18 5.0 ± 3.1 6.5 ± 5.3 6.8 ± 2.4 9.1 ± 4.5 .09 .1519–21 5.9 ± 2.8 6.4 ± 3.3 8.3 ± 2.4 9.3 ± 2.7 .01 .0122–24 4.9 ± 3.0 8.0 ± 4.9 9.4 ± 2.3 12.4 ± 4.3

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!