Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Practitioners of US routinely include a survey of the abdominal aorta during abdominal US in accordance with international guidelines. Such practice is of uncertain value in younger patients. METHODOLOGY: This study was a retrospective review of 2000 abdominal US examinations which included visualisation of the aorta in patients <50 years of age. Patient demographics and referral details were recorded, and US images and reports were reviewed for the presence of aortic and periaortic pathology. RESULTS: The most common indications for US were abdominal pain (1337, 44%), deranged liver function tests (453, 15%), nausea and/or vomiting (229, 8%), elevated inflammatory markers (146, 5%), pancreatitis (134, 4%) and pyrexia (127, 4%). Fewer than half (977, 49%) of the reports contained a comment regarding the aorta. Aortic pathology was reported in 2 (0.1%) cases. Both were reported as aortic ectasia and both represented a false-positive diagnosis. One male patient had a known abdominal aortic aneurysm with endovascular aortic repair. No new aortic aneurysms were found. All cases of atherosclerotic disease were ignored, and none were reported. Periaortic pathology was encountered on 1 patient, but this was known. No case of new periaortic pathology was detected. CONCLUSION: Routine and indiscriminate imaging of the abdominal aorta during abdominal US in patients <50 years of age is not evidence based. No new case of abdominal aortic aneurysm or new para-aortic pathology was detected, all cases of atherosclerosis were ignored, and two false-positive diagnoses of aortic ectasia were made.