Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_2867_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
X
- •Preface
- •Contents
- •Contributors
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Diagnostic Approach Toward Fixed Drug Eruptions
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Hypereosinophilic Syndrome Treatment Options
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Discussion
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Alternative Diagnosis/Potential Misdiagnosis
- •Note
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Alternative Diagnosis/Potential Misdiagnosis
- •Note
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Alternative Diagnosis Considered/Potential Misdiagnosis
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Alternative Diagnoses
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Alternative Diagnoses
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Plan of Action, the Points Clinician Should Consider, Pitfalls to Avoid, and Pearls of Knowledge to Consider
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnoses
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Plan of Action, the Points Clinician Should Consider, Pitfalls to Avoid, and Pearls of Knowledge to Consider
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Case 1
- •Case 2
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Plan of Action, the Points Clinician Should Consider, Pitfalls to Avoid, and Pearls of Knowledge to Consider
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Plan of Action, the Points Clinician Should Consider, Pitfalls to Avoid, and Pearls of Knowledge to Consider
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Plan of Action, the Points Clinician Should Consider, Pitfalls to Avoid, and Pearls of Knowledge to Consider
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •The Plan of Action, Points to Consider, Pitfalls to Avoid, and Pearls of Knowledge
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Clinical Case Presentation
- •Differential Diagnosis
- •Discussion
- •Conclusion
- •References
- •Introduction
- •The Lawyers Are Watching
- •Misdiagnosis Versus Missed Diagnosis
- •Prostate Cancer Misdiagnosis
- •Breast Cancer Misdiagnosis
- •Exemplar Cases
- •Cardiac Misdiagnosis
- •COVID Misdiagnosis
- •References
- •Introduction
- •Conclusion
- •References

296
A. Ansary
Discussion
Tuberculosis of the lungs is prevalent worldwide, especially in developing countries. Disseminated tuberculosis (TB) is an infection in two or more noncontiguous
locations caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis hematogenous dissemination due
to primary infection or reactivation of a latent infection. Miliary tuberculosis also
refers to TB that is progressing and widespread. Even if the conventional pathologic
or radiologic signs are lacking, it implies a hematogenous spread to numerous
organs [8, 9]. Tuberculosis is caused by the small aerobic non-motile bacillus
Mycobacterium tuberculosis infecting the lungs (MTB). When patients with an
active MTB infection cough, sneeze, or otherwise transmit their saliva, it spreads.
Lung cancer is an etiologically complicated disease in which several genes play a
role in the pathogenesis of the disease through various routes. Individuals may
develop lung cancer when these genes interact with environmental conditions [7].
Tuberculosis must be distinguished from lung cancer to receive proper and timely
treatment [10]. According to reports, delaying the identication and treatment of
lung cancer often results in a poor outcome and survival rate [7]. However, because
lung cancer and tuberculosis are often confused, an invasive biopsy separates the
two diseases. Even radiologists with decades of expertise may misdiagnose tuberculosis and lung cancer utilizing CT imaging data in clinical practice or even miss
the diagnosis entirely [11]. Pulmonary nodules are spherical intrapulmonary lesions
less than 3cm [12]. In both lung metastases and HDTB, several tiny pulmonary
nodules are common. Because the imaging manifestations are so similar, it’s challenging to make a denitive diagnosis [13]. Lung cancer nodules have dened edges
and may contain cavities or ground-glass opacity. In hematogenous disseminated
tuberculosis, the margins of nodules are not apparent and may show hollow or
ground-glass opacity. The CT scan of the patient’s lungs revealed several spherical
nodules of various sizes with distinct borders and partial fusion. The intrahepatic
bile duct and pancreas were dilated, the pancreatic head was enlarged, and the
spleen had several low-density foci. CA19-9 is regarded as a pancreatic cancer
marker. Pancreatic and biliary ductal cells and stomach, colon, endometrial, and
salivary epithelia produce CA19-9 [14]. CA19-9 is only seen in trace amounts in
serum. On the other hand, this signal has low specicity [15]. CA19-9 overexpression has been seen in various benign gastrointestinal illnesses and pancreatic tuberculosis [16, 17]. CA19-9 levels were dramatically elevated in our patient, who also
played a role in the misdiagnosis of the disease. Disseminated tuberculosis, once
almost exclusively diagnosed in children or people with immunosuppression, is
increasingly detected in adults with no apparent immunological deciency [18, 19].
The majority of these patients come from countries where tuberculosis is prevalent.
Patients’ access to the healthcare system is hampered by several circumstances,
including a language barrier and frequent relocation, which can lead to a delay in
diagnosis and, as a result, disease progression [19, 20].

41 Hematogenous Disseminated Tuberculosis Misdiagnosed asMetastatic Lung Cancer
297
Patients with disseminated TB and unusual radiographic ndings might undergo
various diagnostic tests. Sputum that has been expectorated or induced should be
sent for testing to conrm the diagnosis in these patients. The samples must be
subjected to smear, PCR, and mycobacterial culture tests and these must be performed on two sputum samples for a denitive diagnosis. At least 5000–10,000
bacilli/mm specimens are required for a positive AFB sputum test, while M. tuber-
culosis culture requires 10–100 microorganisms/mm [21, 22]. Endotracheal secre-
tions and gastric lavage can also be utilized to establish the diagnosis if the patient
cannot cough, as is often the case with comatose patients or children [23]. Fiberoptic bronchoscopy can provide alternative respiratory specimens for diagnosis in
patients with suspected disseminated TB who have smear-negative or PCRnegative sputum or nonproductive cough or who are unable to expectorate through
procedures such as bronchoalveolar lavage, bronchoscopic aspirate (BA), brushings, washings, and transbronchial biopsy (TBB) [24–26]. Specimens should be
collected from as many locations as feasible to increase the chances of conrming
the diagnosis. Furthermore, the utility of PET-CT in assessing the efcacy of TB
treatment, particularly extrapulmonary TB, has long been acknowledged [27].
Unfortunately, due to its exorbitant cost, it is unavailable in China. For this reason,
the patient also refused a PET-CT re-examination. Finally, a lung puncture biopsy
revealed pulmonary tuberculosis. The “four-drug regimen,” consisting of two
phases of rifampicin, isoniazid (INH), pyrazinamide, and ethambutol/streptomycin administered daily for the rst 2 months, is used to treat disseminated
TB.Rifampicin and isoniazid are subsequently given for another 4 months, possibly being prolonged to 7 months [28]. The anti-TB regimen cured our patient
completely.
Conclusion
A greater understanding of hematogenous disseminated tuberculosis and its accompanying characteristics could help a clinician’s index of suspicion and lead to a
more accurate diagnosis. Patients with immunosuppression and in endemic areas
present with persistent pyrexia of unexplained origin, weight loss, lassitude, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly, liver function abnormalities, and abnormal hematological
signs; hematogenous disseminated tuberculosis should be suspected and targeted
for quick diagnosis and treatment [27]. It can be challenging to distinguish lung TB
from neoplasm based on clinical and radiographic symptoms. On 18-FDG-PET
scans, both disorders show parenchymal inltrates with high metabolic activity and
often have comparable symptoms. Considering tuberculosis as a differential diagnosis for PET-positive lung inltrates might help prevent unnecessary diagnostic
procedures, reducing diagnostic workup problems and expenses [1].

298
A. Ansary
References
1. Hammen I.Tuberculosis mimicking lung cancer. Respir Med Case Rep. 2015 Jul 10;16:45–7.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmcr.2015.06.007.
2. Houben RM, Dodd PJ.The global burden of latent tuberculosis infection: a re-estimation using
mathematical modeling. PLoS Med. 2016;13:e1002152. CrossRef MEDLINE PubMed Central
3. WHO: Global tuberculosis report. 2018. www.who.int/tb/publications/global_report/en/. Last
accessed on 1 August 2019.
4. Tackling poverty in tuberculosis control. Lancet. 2005 Dec 17;366(9503):2063. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0140- 6736(05)67862- 2.
5. Dye C.Global epidemiology of tuberculosis. Lancet. 2006 Mar 18;367(9514):938–40. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0140- 6736(06)68384- 0.
6. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM.Estimates of worldwide burden
of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 2010 Dec 15;127(12):2893–917. https://
doi.org/10.1002/ijc.25516.
7. Bhatt M, Kant S, Bhaskar R.Pulmonary tuberculosis as differential diagnosis of lung cancer.
South Asian J Cancer. 2012 Jul;1(1):36–42. https://doi.org/10.4103/2278- 330X.96507.
8. Khan FY, Dosa K, Fuad A, Ibrahim W, Alaini A, Osman L, etal. Disseminated tuberculosis
among adult patients admitted to Hamad general hospital, Qatar: a ve year hospital based
study. Mycobact Dis. 2016;6:212.
9. Salvado G, Santos C, André M, Gomes C, Diogo N, Marques M, etal. Miliary tuberculosis.
Rev Port Pneumol. 2002;8:315–27.
10. Patil S, Jadhav A.Short course of high-dose steroids for anaphylaxis caused are up of tuberculosis: a case report. J Transl Int Med. 2019;7:39–42.
11. Cui EN, Yu T, Shang SJ, Wang XY, Jin YL, Dong Y, Zhao H, Luo YH, Jiang XR.Radiomics
model for distinguishing tuberculosis and lung cancer on computed tomography scans. World
J Clin Cases. 2020 Nov 6;8(21):5203–12. https://doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v8.i21.5203.
12. Setio AAA, Traverso A, de Bel T, Berens MSN, Bogaard CVD, Cerello P, Chen H, Dou
Q, Fantacci ME, Geurts B, Gugten RV, Heng PA, Jansen B, de Kaste MMJ, Kotov V, Lin
JY, Manders JTMC, Sóñora-Mengana A, García-Naranjo JC, Papavasileiou E, Prokop
M, Saletta M, Schaefer-Prokop CM, Scholten ET, Scholten L, Snoeren MM, Torres EL,
Vandemeulebroucke J, Walasek N, Zuidhof GCA, Ginneken BV, Jacobs C.Validation, comparison, and combination of algorithms for automatic detection of pulmonary nodules in computed tomography images: the LUNA16 challenge. Med Image Anal. 2017;42:1–13. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.media.2017.06.015. Epub 2017 Jul 13
13. Onuigbo WI. Some nineteenth century ideas on links between tuberculous and cancerous diseases of the lung. Br J Dis Chest. 1975 Jul;69:207–10. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0007- 0971(75)90081- 9.
14. Scarà S, Bottoni P, Scatena R.CA 19-9: biochemical and clinical aspects. Adv Exp Med Biol.
2015;867:247–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/978- 94- 017- 7215- 0_15.
15. Pavai S, Yap SF.The clinical signicance of elevated levels of serum CA 19-9. Med J Malaysia.
2003 Dec;58(5):667–72.
16. Bhatia V, Garg PK, Arora VK, Sharma R.Isolated pancreatic tuberculosis mimicking intraductal pancreatic mucinous tumor. Gastrointest Endosc. 2008;68(3):610–1. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.gie.2007.12.022. Epub 2008 Mar 24
17. Yang YJ, Li YX, Liu XQ, Yang M, Liu K. Pancreatic tuberculosis mimicking pancreatic
carcinoma during anti-tuberculosis therapy: a case report. World J Clin Cases. 2014 May
16;2(5):167–9. https://doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v2.i5.167.
18. Odone A, Tillmann T, Sandgren A, Williams G, Rechel B, Ingleby D, Noori T, Mladovsky P,
McKee M.Tuberculosis among migrant populations in the European Union and the European
economic area. Eur J Pub Health. 2015;25(3):506–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cku208.
Epub 2014 Dec 13

41 Hematogenous Disseminated Tuberculosis Misdiagnosed asMetastatic Lung Cancer
19. Suarez I, Maria Funger S, Jung N, etal. Severe disseminated tuberculosis in HIV-negative
refugees. Lancet Infect Dis. 2019; pii: 1473–3099;19:30162–8.
20. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Migrant health: background note to the
‘ECDC Report on migration and infectious diseases in the EU’. European Centre for disease
prevention and control. 2009.
21. Mert A, Bilir M, Tabak F, Ozaras R, Ozturk R, Senturk H, etal. Miliary tuberculosis: clinical
manifestations, diagnosis and outcome in 38 adults. Respirology. 2001;6:217–24.
22. Wang JY, Hsueh PR, Wang SK, Jan IS, Lee LN, Liaw YS, etal. Disseminated tuberculosis: a
10-year experience in a medical center. Medicine (Baltimore). 2007;86:39–46.
23. Grace M, Shameer VK, Bharathan R, Chandrikakumari K.Disseminated tuberculosis presenting as acute lung injury. J Assoc Chest Physicians. 2014;2:68–70.
24. Tamura A, Shimada M, Matsui Y, Kawashima M, Suzuki J, Ariga H, et al. The value of
beroptic bronchoscopy in culture-positive pulmonary tuberculosis patients whose prebronchoscopic sputum specimens were negative both for smear and PCR analyses. Intern Med.
2010;49:95–102.
25. Chen NH, Liu YC, Tsao TC, Wu TL, Hsieh MJ, Chuang ML, etal. Combined bronchoalveolar
lavage and polymerase chain reaction in the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in smearnegative patients. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2002;6:350–5.
26. Jacomelli M, Silva PR, Rodrigues AJ, Demarzo SE, Seicento M, Figueiredo VR, et al.
Bronchoscopy for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in patients with negative sputum
smear microscopy results. J Bras Pneumol. 2012;38:167–73.
27. Yates JA, Collis OA, Sueblinvong T, Collis TK.Red snappers and red herrings: pelvic tuberculosis causing elevated CA 125 and mimicking advanced ovarian cancer. A case report and
literature review. Hawaii J med. Public Health. 2017 Aug;76(8):220–4.
28. Khan FY. Review of literature on disseminated tuberculosis with emphasis on the focused
diagnostic workup. J Family Community Med. 2019 May-Aug;26(2):83–91. https://doi.
org/10.4103/jfcm.JFCM_106_18.
299

Chapter 42
Severe Abdominal Sepsis Misdiagnosed
asPelvic Inammatory Disease
SrushtiShahi
Learning Objectives
By the end of this presentation, the clinician will be able to:
1. Describe the pathophysiology of pelvic inammatory disease.
2. Enumerate the signs and symptoms of pelvic inammatory disease.
3. Recognize the diagnostic criteria used to diagnose pelvic inammatory disease.
4. List the CDC-recommended pelvic inammatory disease treatment regimens.
5. Consider all essential information of the medical history and the physical examination of patients who present with symptomatology suspecting pelvic inammatory disease to make an appropriate differential diagnosis.
6. Describe ways for enhancing care coordination and outcomes in patients with
pelvic inammatory disease using an interprofessional team.
7. Explain why asymptomatic women should be screened and treated.
Introduction
Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) continue to take a heavy toll on our nation’s health.
~Ronald Valdiserri
Pelvic inammatory disease is an infection most commonly caused by Neisseria
gonorrhoeae and Chlamydia trachomatis. It is an upper genital tract polymicrobial
infection [1]. PID affects the uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, and cervix, which are
all organs of the female reproductive system [2, 3]. There are 750,000 cases of PID
S. Shahi (*)
St. Martinus University Faculty of Medicine, Willemstad, Curacao
e-mail: srushti.shahi@martinus.edu
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023
H. Tohid et al. (eds.), The Misdiagnosis Casebook in Clinical Medicine,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28296-6_42
301

302
S. Shahi
each year in the United States, mainly in women 15 to 29years of age. The sort key
recommendation from the AAFP states that screening for lower genital tract chlamydial infection in younger and high-risk populations is recommended to reduce
PID incidence [4–6]. Asymptomatic disease should be treated. PID can be fatal if
not treated at the appropriate time or left untreated or undiagnosed. Fertility may be
impacted by PID.According to studies, one in eight PID patients experienced trouble getting pregnant. Recurring infections made it more difcult for people to
become pregnant. A fertilized egg must go from your ovary down your fallopian
tube and into your uterus (womb). It can then be fertilized by the sperm. However,
PID-related bacteria might leave your fallopian tubes scarred. The egg has a greater
difculty traveling where it needs to go because of the scar tissue [7–9]. In women,
sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) that go untreated can lead to pelvic inammatory disease (PID), a dangerous disorder. One in every eight women with a history
of PID has trouble conceiving [4–6, 10, 11]. Its diagnosis is made clinically with a
history of present illness and past medical history, most likely presented as lower
abdominal pain, cervical motion tenderness, abnormal bleeding, dyspareunia, menorrhagia, metrorrhagia, fever, nausea, and vomiting, and is one of the most common
causes of infertility after uterine broids and polyps [10, 12]. Salpingitis can be
diagnosed more accurately with laparoscopy, as well a more complete bacteriologic
diagnosis. However, this diagnostic tool is frequently unavailable, and its usage is
difcult to justify when symptoms are minor or ambiguous. Furthermore, laparoscopy will not detect endometritis and may miss minor fallopian tube irritation.
Whether or not the woman ts any of the following factors will determine whether
or not hospitalization is necessary: [13, 14].
• One cannot exclude surgical emergencies (like appendicitis).
• Obstructive ovarian cyst.
• Pregnancy.
• Severe illness, nausea, or a temperature of more than 38.5°C (101°F).
• Incapable of adhering to or sustaining an outpatient oral regimen.
• No clinical benet from oral antibiotic treatment.
As a result, a PID diagnosis is frequently based on ambiguous clinical ndings
[7, 14–16]. When compared to laparoscopy, data show that a clinical diagnosis of
symptomatic PID has a positive predictive value of 65–90% for salpingitis [8, 9, 14,
17–23]. The positive predictive value of a clinical diagnosis of acute PID is deter-
mined by the epidemiologic characteristics of the population, with higher positive
predictive values among sexually active young women (especially adolescents),
women who visit STD clinics, and those who live in areas where gonorrhea or chlamydia is common [24]. A single historical, physical, or laboratory nding is neither
sensitive nor specic for the diagnosis of acute PID, regardless of its positive predictive value. Endometrial biopsy with histopathologic evidence of endometritis;
transvaginal sonography or magnetic resonance imaging techniques showing thickened, uid-lled tubes with or without free pelvic uid or tubo-ovarian complex, or
Doppler studies indicating pelvic infection (e.g., tubal hyperemia); and laparoscopic
ndings consistent with PID are more specic criteria for diagnosing PID [7, 12,

42 Severe Abdominal Sepsis Misdiagnosed asPelvic Inammatory Disease
303
25]. In some circumstances, a diagnostic evaluation that involves some of these
more elaborate procedures may be necessary. The clinical response to outpatient
treatment is comparable in younger and older women, and there is no evidence to
suggest that adolescents have better outcomes from hospitalization for PID treatment [22]; because endometritis is the only symptom of PID in some women, endometrial biopsy is recommended for women having laparoscopy who do not have
visual evidence of salpingitis [2]. It may also be confused with symptoms of appendicitis and ectopic pregnancy. Empiric, broad-spectrum coverage of probable infections should be included in PID therapy regimens. In randomized clinical trials with
short-term follow-up, multiple parenteral and oral antibiotic regimens were effective in attaining clinical and microbiologic cures. Because early administration of
prescribed antimicrobials is required to prevent long-term effects, treatment should
begin as soon as the presumptive diagnosis is made [5, 8, 9]. Parenteral and oral
regimens appear to be equally effective for women with mild-to-moderate clinical
severity of PID.Doxycycline should, whenever possible, be given orally due to the
discomfort associated with IV infusion. The bioavailability of metronidazole and
doxycycline following oral and intravenous treatment is equivalent. When possible,
ladies without a serious sickness or tubo-ovarian abscess should try taking metronidazole orally rather than intravenously because it is well absorbed. It is advised to
switch to oral medication with doxycycline 100mg twice daily and metronidazole
500mg twice daily to nish the necessary 14days of antimicrobial therapy after
treatment response with parenteral therapy [2, 4–6, 10–12, 15, 26]. Women with
mild-to-moderate acute PID may be candidates for IM or oral therapy because the
clinical results of these regimens are comparable to those of IV therapy [12, 15, 24].
Within 72h, women who do not react to IM or oral medication should be reevaluated to conrm the diagnosis and given IV therapy. First-generation cephalosporins
carry the greatest risk of penicillin cross-reactivity, although the risk is minimal for
most second-generation (like cefoxitin) and all third-generation (like ceftriaxone)
cephalosporins. To prevent disease transmission, women should be told to refrain
from sexual activity until their treatment is nished, their symptoms have subsided,
and their sex partners have been treated (Chlamydial Infections; Gonococcal
Infections) [3, 17, 26, 27]. All women diagnosed with PID should have gonorrhea,
chlamydia, HIV, and syphilis tested. The utility of testing for M. genitalium in
women with PID is uncertain (Mycoplasma genitalium) [21, 24, 28]. During therapy, all forms of contraception can be used. Maternal morbidity and premature birth
are serious risks for pregnant women suspected of having PID.With the advice of
an expert in infectious diseases, these ladies should be admitted to the hospital and
given IV antibiotics [19, 22, 29]. Additional advice on taking care of yourself is as
follows:
• To avoid transferring bacteria from your vagina into your uterus and fallopian
tubes, avoid douching.
• After taking the medication for a few days, visit your doctor again to determine
how well it is working.
• As directed, take all of your medications.

304
S. Shahi
• To avoid infections, use dental dams or condoms each time you have sex.
• Wait a week after nishing your medication—and your partner’s—before start-
ing up again with your sexual relationship.
Below is a case misdiagnosed as PID due to elevated markers, imaging, and history [20, 29].
Clinical Case Presentation
A 41-year-old Caucasian woman was hospitalized in the hospital’s intensive care
unit with severe diabetic ketoacidosis. The patient had been sick and vomiting the
day before admission and was eventually found unconscious and admitted to the
hospital. Wild type 1 diabetes on insulin, diabetic retinopathy, depression, anxiety,
and latent hepatitis C were all present in the patient’s medical history. She had been
an intravenous drug user in the past, was on buprenorphine treatment with occasional benzodiazepine and opioid addiction, and smoked cigarettes. Her surgical
procedures were laparoscopic bilateral tubal ligation and a large loop excision of the
transformation zone (LLETZ) conization for a CIN 2 cervical lesion. Her temperature was 29.4°C, her respiration rate was 28, her pulse was 75, her blood pressure
was 135/87mmHg, and her Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) was 10 when she was
admitted. Severe metabolic acidosis, acute renal failure, and inammation were discovered in laboratory tests. Given her highly elevated inammatory markers and an
unknown infection focus, the patient was started on therapy according to hospital
diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) protocol and intravenous meropenem. When the
patient’s condition had stabilized, she was discharged to the medical ward. She felt
feverish a few days later and began complaining of lower abdomen pain, nausea,
and vaginal bleeding during her period. Inammatory markers were found to be
increasing. The surgical team examined her and discovered she was constipated, so
she was given laxatives. To pinpoint the infection’s source, a pelvic scan was scheduled. Figure42.1 shows the complex uid within the pouch of Douglas. According
to this research, pelvic infection is the most likely cause. The gynecology team
evaluated the patient, and oral co-amoxicillin was prescribed.
On this medication, inammatory indicators that had begun to decline on
meropenem began to climb. As a result, the antibiotics were changed to oral ciprooxacin and metronidazole. The woman complained of nausea, a metronidazole
adverse effect throughout her hospital stay. When the patient was afebrile and
feeling better, she was sent home with oral antibiotics. The patient returned to our
hospital’s emergency department 3weeks later, complaining primarily of right
iliac fossa pain, nausea, and anorexia. A hyperechogenic mass was observed in the
pouch of Douglas on a transvaginal bedside ultrasound scan (Fig.42.2) which was
interpreted as an adnexal mass given the previous diagnosis of pelvic inammatory disease (PID). Due to the patient’s pain, the scan had to be stopped. An

42 Severe Abdominal Sepsis Misdiagnosed asPelvic Inammatory Disease
Fig. 42.1 Complex free uid. Source: www.hindawi.com/journals/cris/2018/9561798/
305
Fig. 42.2 Mass in the pouch of Douglas. Source: www.hindawi.com/journals/cris/2018/9561798/
abdominal (CT) computed tomography scan was scheduled to analyze the tumor
further.
The transvaginal images were discussed with radiological colleagues but could
not be linked to the CT ndings (Fig.42.3), which described the pelvic appearances as generic. Some pockets of uid and enlarged loops of the small bowel

306
Fig. 42.3 CT scan with nonspecic inammatory changes. Source: www.hindawi.com/journals/
cris/2018/9561798/
S. Shahi
indicate that the small bowel was involved in a secondary inammatory process in
the pelvis. The surgical team re-examined the patient, who advised that a surgical
etiology for the patient’s symptoms was doubtful. The gynecological group planned
a diagnostic laparoscopy with the surgical team on standby. The patient began
vomiting heavily while awaiting the procedure, necessitating the insertion of a
nasogastric tube. Internal genitalia were found to be expected after diagnostic laparoscopy. The operation was changed to a midline laparotomy after the surgical
team identied adherent intestinal tissue. In the upper region of the pelvis, there
was a complicated, inammatory mass with an abscess cavity. The ileum was fully
gangrenous and necrotic but structurally intact in a 10 to 15cm length. Surprisingly,
there was no small bowel blockage, and the contents of the small bowel appeared
to be moving through the gangrenous ileum’s lumen. The presence of an expanded
node in the ileal mesentery, along with signicant brosis, raised the possibility of
a neuroendocrine tumor (NET) nodal metastasis causing a mesenteric vascular
blockage. A double-barrelled stoma was made after the inammatory mass was
excised, and an ileocolic resection was performed. The patient fully recovered following the surgery and was sent home a week later. The histology report revealed
the presence of a well-differentiated ileal neuroendocrine primary tumor, which
was not visible on laparotomy. One of the 20 mesenteric lymph nodes in the
resected material was metastatic. When the CT imaging was reviewed after surgery, neither the primary tumor nor the nodal mass could be distinguished from the
inammatory tissue. A multidisciplinary tumor meeting was held for the patient,
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
