Del Rey-Moreno Arturo, Doblas FernÃÆÃÂ¡ndez Juan, Oehling de los Reyes Hermann, HernÃÆÃÂ¡ndez-CarmonaJuan Manuel, PÃÆÃÂ©rez-Lara Francisco Javier, MarÃÆÃÂn Moya Ricardo, Galeote Quecedo Tania, Mata MartÃÆÃÂn Jose MarÃÆÃÂa, Garrido Torres-Puchol MarÃÆÃÂa Luisa, Oliva-MuÃÆÃÂ±oz Horacio
Anisakidosis should be taken into account in the di fferential diagnosis of abdominal pain. This is a cohort study involving 134 patients with acute abdo minal problems. After a follow-up period, 52 patients were diagnosed as presenting anisakidosis, while in 82 anisakidosis were ruled out. In this study, raw fish ingestion, clinical manifestations, laboratory and radiology results were evaluated. Patients in the two groups differed with respect to the raw fish ingestion, presence of vomits, abdominal distension and peritonism. Eosinophilia, bowel dilatation, thickened intestinal wall and int ra- abdominal free fluid were more frequent in the grou p with anisakidosis. In this group, 23 were operate d, 4 of them undergo laparoscopy. Although some sympto ms and signs, eosinophilia and the radiological and echographic findings differ between the two gro ups they are non-specific, but if the patient has eaten raw or marinated fish is a very suggestive di agnosis of anisakidosis. The precedent of ingestion of raw fish has a high negative predictive value an d its absence rules out anisakidosis. Laparoscopy has a diagnostic-therapeutic role.
Share this article