期刊文献+

Spectral analysis of bowel sounds in intestinal obstruction using an electronic stethoscope 被引量:15

Spectral analysis of bowel sounds in intestinal obstruction using an electronic stethoscope
暂未订购
导出
摘要 AIM: To determine the value of bowel sounds analysis using an electronic stethoscope to support a clinical diagnosis of intestinal obstruction. METHODS: Subjects were patients who presented with a diagnosis of possible intestinal obstruction based on symptoms, signs, and radiological findings. A 3MTH Littmann Model 4100 electronic stethoscope was used in this study. With the patients lying supine, six 8-second recordings of bowel sounds were taken from each patient from the lower abdomen. The recordings were analysed for sound duration, soundto-sound interval, dominant frequency, and peak frequency. Clinical and radiological data were reviewed and the patients were classified as having either acute, subacute, or no bowel obstruction. Comparison of bowel sound characteristics was made between these subgroups of patients. In the presence of an obstruction, the site of obstruction was identified and bowel calibre was also measured to correlate with bowel sounds. RESULTS: A total of 71 patients were studied during the period July 2009 to January 2011. Forty patientshad acute bowel obstruction (27 small bowel obstruction and 13 large bowel obstruction), 11 had subacute bowel obstruction (eight in the small bowel and three in large bowel) and 20 had no bowel obstruction (diagnoses of other conditions were made). Twenty-five patients received surgical intervention (35.2%) during the same admission for acute abdominal conditions. A total of 426 recordings were made and 420 recordings were used for analysis. There was no significant difference in sound-to-sound interval, dominant frequency, and peak frequency among patients with acute bowel obstruction, subacute bowel obstruction, and no bowel obstruction. In acute large bowel obstruction, the sound duration was significantly longer (median 0.81 s vs 0.55 s, P = 0.021) and the dominant frequency was significantly higher (median 440 Hz vs 288 Hz, P = 0.003) when compared to acute small bowel obstruction. No significant difference was seen between acute large bowel obstruction and large bowel pseudoobstruction. For patients with small bowel obstruction, the sound-to-sound interval was significantly longer in those who subsequently underwent surgery compared with those treated non-operatively (median 1.29 s vs 0.63 s, P < 0.001). There was no correlation between bowel calibre and bowel sound characteristics in both acute small bowel obstruction and acute large bowel obstruction. CONCLUSION: Auscultation of bowel sounds is nonspecific for diagnosing bowel obstruction. Differences in sound characteristics between large bowel and small bowel obstruction may help determine the likely site of obstruction. AIM: To determine the value of bowel sounds analysis using an electronic stethoscope to support a clinical diagnosis of intestinal obstruction. METHODS: Subjects were patients who presented with a diagnosis of possible intestinal obstruction based on symptoms, signs, and radiological findings. A 3MTH Littmann Model 4100 electronic stethoscope was used in this study. With the patients lying supine, six 8-second recordings of bowel sounds were taken from each patient from the lower abdomen. The recordings were analysed for sound duration, soundto-sound interval, dominant frequency, and peak frequency. Clinical and radiological data were reviewed and the patients were classified as having either acute, subacute, or no bowel obstruction. Comparison of bowel sound characteristics was made between these subgroups of patients. In the presence of an obstruction, the site of obstruction was identified and bowel calibre was also measured to correlate with bowel sounds. RESULTS: A total of 71 patients were studied during the period July 2009 to January 2011. Forty patientshad acute bowel obstruction (27 small bowel obstruction and 13 large bowel obstruction), 11 had subacute bowel obstruction (eight in the small bowel and three in large bowel) and 20 had no bowel obstruction (diagnoses of other conditions were made). Twenty-five patients received surgical intervention (35.2%) during the same admission for acute abdominal conditions. A total of 426 recordings were made and 420 recordings were used for analysis. There was no significant difference in sound-to-sound interval, dominant frequency, and peak frequency among patients with acute bowel obstruction, subacute bowel obstruction, and no bowel obstruction. In acute large bowel obstruction, the sound duration was significantly longer (median 0.81 s vs 0.55 s, P = 0.021) and the dominant frequency was significantly higher (median 440 Hz vs 288 Hz, P = 0.003) when compared to acute small bowel obstruction. No significant difference was seen between acute large bowel obstruction and large bowel pseudoobstruction. For patients with small bowel obstruction, the sound-to-sound interval was significantly longer in those who subsequently underwent surgery compared with those treated non-operatively (median 1.29 s vs 0.63 s, P 〈 0.001). There was no correlation between bowel calibre and bowel sound characteristics in both acute small bowel obstruction and acute large bowel obstruction. CONCLUSION: Auscultation of bowel sounds is nonspecific for diagnosing bowel obstruction. Differences in sound characteristics between large bowel and small bowel obstruction may help determine the likely site of obstruction.
机构地区 Department of Surgery
出处 《World Journal of Gastroenterology》 SCIE CAS CSCD 2012年第33期4585-4592,共8页 世界胃肠病学杂志(英文版)
关键词 Bowel sounds Intestinal obstruction Spectral analysis Electronic stethoscope 电子听诊器 肠梗阻 肠鸣音 频谱分析 声音特性 临床诊断 峰值频率 手术治疗
  • 相关文献

参考文献25

  • 1Gade J, Kruse P, Andersen OT, Pedersen SB, Boesby S. Physicians' abdominal auscultation. A multi-rater agreement study. Scand J Gas troen terol 1998; 33: 773-777.
  • 2Gu Y, Lim HJ, Moser MA. How useful are bowel sounds in assessing the abdomen? Dig Surg 2010; 27: 422-426.
  • 3Baid H. A critical review of auscultating bowel sounds. Br J Nurs 2009; 18: 1125-1129.
  • 4Hepburn MJ, Dooley DP, Fraser SL, Purcell BK, Ferguson TM, Horvath LL. An examination of the transmissibility and clinical utility of auscultation of bowel sounds in all four abdominal quadrants. J Clin Gastroenterol 2004; 38: 298-299.
  • 5Georgoulis B. Bowel sounds. Proc R Soc Med 1967; 60: 917-920.
  • 6Frager D, Medwid SW, Baer JW, Mollinelli B, Friedman M. CT of small-bowel obstruction: value in establishing the diagnosis and determining the degree and cause. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994; 162: 37-41.
  • 7Maglinte DD, Reyes BL, Harmon BH, Kelvin FM, Turner WW, Hage JE, Ng AC, Chua GT, Gage SN. Reliability and role of plain film radiography and CT in the diagnosis of smallbowel obstruction. A/RAm / RoentgenoI1996; 167: 1451-1455.
  • 8Suri S, Gupta S, Sudhakar PI, Venkataramu NK, Sood B, Wig JD. Comparative evaluation of plain films, ultrasound and CT in the diagnosis of intestinal obstruction. Acta Radial 1999; 40: 422-428.
  • 9Politzer JP, Devroede G, Vasseur C, Gerard J, Thibault R. The genesis of bowel sounds: influence of viscus and gastrointestinal content. Gastroenterology 1976; 71: 282-285.
  • 10Woolsey JH. Auscultation of the Abdomen. Cal West Med 1939; 50: 105-109.

同被引文献69

引证文献15

二级引证文献80

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部