SAEM Clinical Images Series: A Curious Case of Abdominal Pain

The patient is a 22-year-old G0P0 female who presents to the Emergency Department with two days of left lower quadrant abdominal pain. The patient rates her pain as 10/10 in intensity, sharp in character, and states the pain radiates to her lower back. She notes similar intermittent pain over the past few months, but the pain became persistent over the past two days and has worsened. She also reports decreased appetite with nausea and vomiting. Her pain is exacerbated by movement. She began her menstrual period three days before presentation and denies being sexually active. She was previously prescribed oral contraception for treatment of menorrhagia, but discontinued it five months ago. She denies any fever, chills, chest pain, shortness of breath, urinary frequency, dysuria, vaginal discharge, bleeding, or vaginal pain.

Vitals: BP 132/84; HR 89; R 17; T 98.6°F; O2 sat 100% on room air

General: Appears uncomfortable due to pain.

Cardiovascular: Normal rate, regular rhythm.

Abdominal: Soft, non-distended, LLQ tenderness to palpation without rebound or guarding, bowel sounds present.

Genitourinary: No active bleeding or discharge, no signs of infection. No masses palpated.

WBC: 4.8

Hgb: 13.2

BMP: Normal

LFT’s: Normal

Urinalysis: Normal

Urine pregnancy test: Negative

This patient has a mature cystic teratoma (Dermoid Cyst).

Mature cystic teratomas (MCTs), also known as dermoid cysts, are benign ovarian germ cell tumors. While MCTs can occur in women of any age, they are found primarily in patients of reproductive age, with a median age of mid-30s. Patients may present asymptomatically, or with symptoms including nausea/vomiting, abdominal pain, and vaginal bleeding. Pelvic ultrasound or abdominal CT are first-line imaging studies, as well as laboratory testing to include ruling out pregnancy. In this patient with a negative UA and urine pregnancy test, abdominal CT was obtained and showed a large pelvic mass containing bony structures. Intraoperatively, the patient was found to have a large left ovarian dermoid cyst with evidence of torsion. The cyst contained multiple teeth and brown hair, and the diagnosis was confirmed with surgical pathology. Ovarian torsion is a serious complication of MCT and occurs in 3% to 21% of cases. If concomitant ovarian torsion is suspected, emergent gynecologic consultation is warranted.

Take-Home Points

  • Dermoid cysts are benign ovarian germ cell tumors that may grow large, cause significant pain, and often contain teeth and hair.

  • Ovarian torsion is an emergent potential complication of dermoid cysts and may require emergent consultation and surgical intervention.

  • Cong L, Wang S, Yeung SY, et al. Mature Cystic Teratoma: An Integrated Review. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24(7):6141. doi: 10.3390/ijms24076141. PMID: 37047114.
  • Ahmed A, Lotfollahzadeh S. Cystic Teratoma. 2023. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024. PMID: 33231995.



By |2026-01-31T19:24:41-08:00Feb 2, 2026|Ob/Gyn, SAEM Clinical Images|

SAEM Clinical Images Series: Quirky Quincke’s

The patient is a 38-year-old male with no past medical history who presents to the Emergency Department with chief complaint of “swollen uvula” that started 4 hours ago. The patient reports that he woke up this morning with pain in his throat and associated shortness of breath secondary to swelling. States he looked in his mouth in the mirror and saw that his uvula was swollen, prompting his visit to the ED. He states that he took Benadryl and Tylenol at onset of symptoms with no relief. The patient denies fever, cough, runny nose, nausea, vomiting, or drooling and has had no known sick contacts, changes in diet, or new medications. He denies smoking or any illicit drug use. He reports that this happened to him once before years ago when he was in his 20s, when he had similar presentation with edema of his uvula that was treated with Benadryl and a “shot” that he received 1 time in the emergency department with significant improvement and resolution of symptoms. He has no other complaints at this time.

Vitals: BP 115/69 HR 86 R 17 T 98.2 O2sat 100% room air.

General: Well appearing, no acute distress, normal voice.
HEENT: Relevant findings as shown. There is no drooling, pooling of secretions, muffled voice, lip swelling, or trismus. No signs of
peritonsillar abscess.
Neck: Non-tender to palpation. No swelling or adenopathy present.
Respiratory: Clear to auscultation bilaterally, breathing comfortably.

Influenza, COVID, Rapid Strep: negative

Quincke’s Disease (isolated angioedema of the uvula)

Quincke’s disease is an uncommon clinical diagnosis with unknown incidence; there are multiple causes reported in the literature. The most commonly reported cause is Type 1 hypersensitivity reaction. Other reported causes include hereditary angioedema, inhalation exposure, thermal injuries, and infections. In our particular case, we suspect hereditary angioedema given the patient’s prior history of the same issue. The ED management of uvular angioedema should include treatment with antihistamines, corticosteroids, NSAIDs and/or epinephrine in severe cases. Antibiotics are indicated if infection suspected. In cases of hereditary angioedema, patients may benefit from recombinant C1 esterase inhibitors. Patients with uvular angioedema should be closely monitored for signs of worsening respiratory compromise. If the patient worsens, admission for close observation should be considered or in severe cases, intubation for airway protection may be necessary. If the edema is not progressing, mild or uncomplicated, and/or resolved after treatment, patients can be safely discharged home. Our patient was monitored in the ED for over 2 hours without worsening and was discharged home with close follow up.

Take-Home Points

  • Quincke’s disease is an uncommon phenomenon of isolated uvular edema with multiple possible etiologies.
  • Airway patency is the primary concern when managing uvular angioedema.

  • Gabriel Atan Sanchez, Madison Boot, Abdul Lathif, Quincke’s disease: an unusual pathology, Journal of Surgical Case Reports, Volume 2023, Issue 3, March 2023, rjad085, https://doi.org/10.1093/jscr/rjad085
  • Mohammadi, Ladan1,; Miller, Anthony2; Ashurst, John V.3. Quincke’s disease. Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care 5(3):p 677-679, Jul–Sep 2016. | DOI: 10.4103/2249-4863.197308
  • Gonçalves FMF, Costa M, Campos AL, Cotter J. Quincke’s Disease Presenting After Cocaine Exposure. Cureus. 2022 Oct 21;14(10):e30536. doi: 10.7759/cureus.30536. PMID: 36415441; PMCID: PMC9675901.



By |2026-01-25T20:55:37-08:00Jan 30, 2026|ENT, SAEM Clinical Images|

SAEM Clinical Images Series: Pain, Paralysis, and Rash

The patient is an 81-year-old female with a history of asthma and hypertension who presents to the Emergency Department with right-sided abdominal swelling for five days. Five days ago, the right side of her abdomen appeared to protrude more than the left. This protrusion then increased over the next 2-3 days. The patient was diagnosed with shingles to the right lower abdomen earlier that month, but her rash has now nearly resolved. She continues to have “electric” pain in the region of the prior shingles infection. She denies any fevers, abdominal trauma, vomiting, or changes in bowel or bladder habits. She has never had anything like this before.

Vitals: All vital signs are normal.

Abdomen: See image provided. There is a firm unilateral distention of the right lower abdomen without shifting dullness or fluid wave. No palpable masses are present. There is moderate tenderness over the protruding region but no rebound or guarding. Bowel sounds are present.

Skin: See image provided. Moderate tenderness to palpation over region.

CBC and CMP are unremarkable.

CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis: No evidence of acute abnormality. Normal appendix. Moderate stool burden.

Zoster pseudohernia (ZP) occurs when the zoster infection infiltrates a posterior thoracic dermatome, affecting the spinal nerve roots responsible for the motor function of the abdominal wall. ZP typically presents with a rapidly progressive unilateral outpouching of the abdomen, giving a hernia-like appearance, but with intact abdominal wall musculature. In most cases, the classic Herpes Zoster rash precedes ZP, however in up to 10% of patients ZP may be the first presenting sign of zoster. Although uncommon, the symptoms are often distressing to patients, with many presenting to emergency departments or surgical offices for initial evaluation. The diagnosis is clinical and is based on a history of zoster infection or classic zoster symptoms and lack of findings suggesting alternate pathology. Abdominal CT or other imaging is recommended to exclude tumors, true hernias, free fluid, or other possible causes of abdominal distention. Electromyography (EMG) can be used to support diagnosis and will typically be abnormal due to the dysfunction of the abdominal wall musculature. Complete recovery occurs in 70-80% of patients within about 4-5 months.

Take-Home Points

  • Zoster Pseudohernia is a rare presentation of herpes zoster infection resulting in dysfunction of the abdominal wall musculature.

  •  There is no specific treatment with most cases fully resolving within several months to one year.

  • Chernev I, Dado D. Segmental zoster abdominal paresis (zoster pseudohernia): a review of the literature. PM R. 2013 Sep;5(9):786-90. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2013.05.013. PMID: 24054853.
  • Yoo J, Koo T, Park E, Jo M, Kim MS, Jue MS. Abdominal pseudohernia caused by herpes zoster: 3 case reports and a review of the literature. JAAD Case Rep. 2019 Aug 5;5(8):729-732. doi: 10.1016/j.jdcr.2019.06.019. PMID: 31440570; PMCID: PMC6698640.



Procedural Use of a Mini C-arm in the Emergency Department

C-arms are mobile, C-shaped X-ray units that allow dynamic imaging for a wide range of procedures in outpatient clinics, procedure suites, operating rooms, and even emergency departments. Their uses include: fracture reduction and fixation, hardware placement, joint injections, and other image-guided interventional procedures. They are available in a variety of sizes including a mini C-arm that is specifically designed for imaging smaller body parts such as the hands and wrists.

Mini C-arms in emergency departments (ED) are not commonplace but when available they are often in trauma centers and most commonly utilized by orthopedic surgeons. Literature on the use of mini C-arms in the ED has mostly been for distal forearm fractures, where they have been shown to facilitate safe and effective fracture reductions and reduce the need for repeat formal radiographs during reductions [1-4]. Although mini C-arms are not typically used by emergency medicine (EM) physicians, familiarity with this imaging modality may be a valuable skill, especially for trainees rotating on the orthopedics service.

This article reviews mini C-arm anatomy, fluoroscopic principles, radiation safety and equipment, and illustrates its application in a case of a distal radius fracture.

Mini C-arm structure

The C-arm’s name comes from the C-shape that connects the X-ray source on one side to the image detector on the other, allowing rotation around the patient (Figure 1).

Anatomy of a mini c-arm machine illustration

Figure 1. Anatomy of a mini c-arm machine

How it works

  1. The operator controls acquisition of images through a foot pedal (allowing single images or live imaging).
  2. X-rays are generated through a tube which diverge out in a cone-like projection and pass through structures such as bone, which absorb X-rays differently based on characteristics like density and tissue thickness.
  3. After passing through structures, X-rays are absorbed on the opposite side by an image detector.
  4. The image detector converts this radiation to light, which is then processed by a computer to create a digital image visible on the monitor.

The C-arm has a rotation mechanism and an adjustable arm with various joints that allow movements in multiple planes. It allows orbital rotation, vertical and lateral movements, tilt, or swivel (Figure 2).

Maneuverability of a mini c-arm illustration

Figure 2: Maneuverability of a mini c-arm

How to set up a mini C-arm

  1. Plug in the device to a power source
  2. Turn on the switch to power on the device
  3. Use the monitor and/or keyboard to set up a study (some monitors are touch screen)
  4. Enter patient information
    • Find and select the option to begin study
    • Adjust the C-arm to the desired position
  5. Position the body part of interest flat and center on the detector
  6. Place the foot pedal in an easy to reach position
  7. Ensure that everyone in the room has radioprotective equipment (see radiation safety and equipment below)
  8. Step on the foot pedal to obtain an image or activate live imaging (review individual devices manuals to determine function of pedals)
  9. Save desired images

How to interpret images on a mini C-arm

Interpreting an image with a mini C-arm requires familiarity with fundamental radiographic principles related to image projection.

Laterality:

Unlike formal radiographs which include left or right markers, orientation of fluoroscopic images on a mini C-arm will be displayed based on the orientation of the image detector.

To illustrate this, in Figure 3, the right hand is rested with the palm resting directly on the image detector. On the monitor, the image appears as if the operator were directly looking at the hand, with the thumb on the left-most side. Most C-arms allow inversion of images on the monitor if another orientation is preferred.

Note: The X-ray beam travels from dorsal (posterior) to palmar (anterior), corresponding to a posteroanterior (PA) view.

Illustrated mini C-arm image of hand in posteroanterior view.

Figure 3: Illustrated mini C-arm image of hand in posteroanterior view

Magnification and depth

The relative distance between the X-ray source, the object, and the image detector affects image magnification and apparent depth of structures. To put it simply: the closer an object is to an X-ray source, the more magnified it appears; the closer an object is to the image detector, the less magnified it appears. This is analogous to the size of a shadow formed when a finger is moved closer to a light source. This principle affects image interpretation and highlights the importance of standardized positioning when obtaining images [5].

To illustrate this effect, we can consider the lateral view of the hand. Starting from the position in Figure 3, the hand can be supinated so that the ulnar aspect rests on the detector producing a lateral view (Figure 4). In this orientation, the thumb and second metacarpal may appear slightly magnified because they are now closer to the X-ray source. This also applies to the relative appearance of the radius and ulna.

Illustrated mini C-arm image of hand in lateral view

Figure 4: Illustrated mini C-arm image of hand in lateral view

As an analogy, imagine using a mini C-arm to image a rubber duck. If the duck is placed flat on the detector, the part closest to the X-ray source—the head—will appear slightly magnified. If the duck has an abnormally long neck that brings the head closer to the X-ray source, this magnification increases further (Figure 5). This same concept explains the apparent difference in heart size between posteroanterior (PA) and anteroposterior (AP) chest radiographs.

llustrated mini C-arm image of rubber duck

Figure 5: Illustrated mini C-arm image of rubber duck

This concept is important when using the mini C-arm for fracture reduction. You often want to capture as much of the entire body part as possible in the X-ray image while decreasing magnification, which means you will position the extremity directly against the image detector as far away as possible from the X-ray source while performing a reduction.

Radiation safety and protection

C-arms, like standard X-rays, emit ionizing radiation. Although most of the radiation is directed at patients, interactions between X-rays and surrounding matter produce scatter radiation, which is the primary source of radiation exposure to personnel. Repeated exposure is associated with increased lifetime risk of cancer, cataracts, thyroid issues including cancer, and fertility issues [6].

Radiation dose is measured in various units, including millirem (mrem) [5]. For context:

  • Average background radiation exposure (due to cosmic rays, radioactive elements in earth’s crust, etc) to U.S. residents is on average 310 mrem/year or <1 mrem/day
  • A cross country flight from NY to LA is ~5 mrem
  • A chest x-ray is ~10 mrem
  • A CT abdomen/pelvis is ~1,000 mrem

A benefit of the mini C-arm is that it emits less radiation than a standard-sized C-arm [8, 9]. In pediatric studies of distal forearm reductions performed with mini C-arm fluoroscopy, the estimated radiation exposure per case ranged from approximately 30 to 80 mrem, with lower exposures observed when trainees had completed radiation safety training, likely reflecting behavioral changes including fewer image acquisitions and shorter fluoroscopy activation [10]. Thus image acquisition should be intentional to reduce unnecessary radiation to both patients and personnel.

Radiation exposure follows the inverse square law, where if you double your distance from the X-ray source, you reduce exposure by one-fourth the original intensity. When possible, standing further away (at least 1 meter) from the X-ray source is recommended to reduce exposure (Figure 6) [5].

Additionally, use of radiation protective equipment such as lead aprons, thyroid shields, and leaded glasses, can significantly attenuate scatter radiation [8]. See Figure 7.

Inverse square law of radiation

Figure 6: Inverse square law of radiation

Radiation protective equipment

Figure 7: Radiation protective equipment

Bottom line:

  • Image only when necessary
  • Stand at least 1 meter away from the X-ray source when feasible
  • Utilize appropriate radiation protective equipment
  • By adhering to these principles, radiation exposure can be minimized when using a mini C-arm

Case: Distal radius fracture reduction with mini C-arm fluoroscopy

You are rotating through orthopedics and holding the consult pager. A 30-year-old patient presents to the ED after falling on their right outstretched hand, resulting in a deformity to the right distal forearm.

On examination, the skin appears intact and distal neurovascular exam is normal. Formal three-view wrist radiographs show an impacted, dorsally angulated transverse distal radius fracture without intra-articular extension.

Your senior recommends a reduction under fluoroscopy with your assistance. You perform a hematoma block, apply finger traps, and suspend the extremity vertically under ~10 lbs of traction. While the arm remains in traction, you bring the mini C-arm into the room and apply lead shields.

Obtaining images:

  1. Position the C-arm so that the image detector is near the affected arm. For a reduction, you should obtain PA and lateral views (oblique views are excluded in this example for simplicity).
  2. To obtain a PA view, ensure the palmar side of the distal forearm is against the detector (Figure 8).
  3. To obtain a lateral view, place the ulnar aspect of the distal forearm against the detector (Figure 9).

Note: Since the forearm is suspended in traction, sometimes you will need to rotate the mini C-arm around the extremity to obtain the correct alignment, instead of manipulating the arm.

Illustrated mini C-arm image of a distal radius fracture in posteroanterior view

Figure 8: Illustrated mini C-arm image of a distal radius fracture in posteroanterior view

\Illustrated mini C-arm image of a distal radius fracture in lateral view

Figure 9: Illustrated mini C-arm image of a distal radius fracture in lateral view

Important radiographic measurements:

In these views, assess radiographic parameters such as radial height, radial inclination, ulnar variance, and volar versus dorsal angulation angles (Supplemental Figures 1 and 2).

Post-reduction imaging:

Once the fracture appears appropriately reduced, obtain repeat C-arm images prior to applying a splint (Figure 10). After splint placement, obtain another set of images to confirm the reduction was maintained. Finally, order a formal post-reduction three-view wrist radiograph.

Illustrated mini C-arm images of a post-reduction distal radius fracture

Figure 10: Illustrated mini C-arm images of a post-reduction distal radius fracture

Restrictions on the use of fluoroscopy

Before using a mini C-arm, clinicians should confirm that they are appropriately credentialed and permitted to operate the device under local or state regulations, as fluoroscopy use laws differ across states and countries. Alternatively, a fluoroscopy credentialed radiation technologist can operate the device while the clinician performs the reduction.

Conclusions

Mini C-arms are a useful imaging modality available in select emergency departments. With an understanding of proper device operation and radiographic concepts such as image projection and radiation safety, the mini C-arm can be an effective tool to facilitate procedures such as distal radius fracture reduction. Although ultrasound remains the primary imaging modality for many procedures in the emergency department, the mini C-arm may potentially be a useful adjunct in other ED procedures such as joint aspirations and could warrant future exploration.

Measurements of the distal radius in posteroanterior view

Supplemental Figure 1: Measurements of the distal radius in posteroanterior view

Measurements of the distal radius in lateral view

Supplemental Figure 2: Measurements of the distal radius in lateral view

References

  1. Lee SM, Orlinsky M, Chan LS. Safety and effectiveness of portable fluoroscopy in the emergency department for the management of distal extremity fractures. Ann Emerg Med. 1994;24(4):725-730. doi:10.1016/S0196-0644(94)70284-5. PMID: 7998561
  2. Lee MC, Stone NE 3rd, Ritting AW, et al. Mini-C-arm fluoroscopy for emergency-department reduction of pediatric forearm fractures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(15):1442-1447. doi:10.2106/JBJS.J.01052. PMID 21915550 
  3. Dailey SK, Miller AR, Kakazu R, Wyrick JD, Stern PJ. The effectiveness of mini-C-arm fluoroscopy for the closed reduction of distal radius fractures in adults: a randomized controlled trial. J Hand Surg Am. 2018;43(10):927-931. doi:10.1016/j.jhsa.2018.02.015. PMID: 29573894
  4. Sumko MJ, Hennrikus WL, Slough J, King S. Measurement of radiation exposure when using the mini C-arm in pediatric orthopaedics. J Pediatr Orthop. 2016;36(2):122-125. doi:10.1097/BPO.0000000000000418. PMID: 25730377
  5. Bushberg JT, Seibert JA, Leidholdt EM Jr, Boone JM. The essential physics of medical imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2012.
  6. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Toxicological Profile for Ionizing Radiation. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1999. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK597577/
  7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Radiation Thermometer. Updated January 2, 2024. Accessed December 26, 2025. https://www.cdc.gov/radiation-emergencies/causes/radiation-thermometer.html
  8. Giordano BD, Ryder S, Baumhauer JF, DiGiovanni BF. Exposure to direct and scatter radiation with use of mini-C-arm fluoroscopy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(5):948-952. doi:10.2106/JBJS.F.00733. PMID: 17473130
  9. Giordano BD, Baumhauer JF, Morgan TL, Rechtine GR. Patient and surgeon radiation exposure: comparison of standard and mini-C-arm fluoroscopy. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(2):297-304. doi:10.2106/JBJS.H.00407. PMID: 19181973
  10. Gendelberg D, Hennrikus W, Slough J, King S. A radiation safety training program results in reduced radiation exposure for orthopedic residents using the mini C-arm. J Pediatr Orthop. 2015;35(8):e123-e129. doi:10.1097/BPO.0000000000000345. PMID: 26566977
By |2025-12-30T18:08:43-08:00Dec 31, 2025|Orthopedic, Radiology|

Gamechanger: Do we really need a lumbar puncture for all febrile infants 0-28 days old?

PECARN febrile infant rule age 0-28 days

A new international pooled analysis challenges the age-old dogma that all febrile infants 0-28 days require a lumbar puncture (LP). Can the PECARN febrile infant prediction rule safely identify a low-risk subset for invasive bacterial illnesses (bacterial meningitis and bacteremia) [1]?

Bottom Line

For more than  four decades, the standard of care for febrile infants in the first month of life has been aggressive: full sepsis workup (including an LP), admission, and IV antibiotics. A new study in JAMA suggests this paradigm may be shifting [2, 3].

  • In an international pooled analysis of more than  1,500 febrile infants aged ≤28 days, the updated PECARN febrile infant prediction rule missed zero cases of bacterial meningitis.
  • Inclusion Criteria: Non-ill-appearing, full time (≥37 weeks) infants aged 0–28 days with fever (≥38.0°C), who underwent blood and urine testing including procalcitonin (PCT).
  • Exclusion Criteria: Critically ill appearance, prematurity, comorbidities, or antibiotic use in preceding days.
  • Implication: Cerebrospinal fluid analysis is unnecessary for a subset of non-ill-appearing febrile infants ≤28 days old.
  • What now? The current data provides a solid, practice-changing, evidence-based foundation for a shared decision-making conversation that wasn’t possible before.

Study

To answer this question, the authors performed 2 distinct analyses:

  1. Primary Analysis (The “External” Test): To test the rule’s validity in new, diverse populations, the primary analysis pooled data from 4 prospective international cohort studies (Canada, Spain, Europe, UK/Ireland).
    • Population: 1,537 non-ill-appearing, full-term (≥37 weeks) infants aged 0–28 days with fever (≥38C)
    • Why no US data? This was done to validate the PECARN rule externally, avoiding the bias of testing it on the same US population from which it was derived.
  1. Secondary Analysis (The “Maximize Power” Test): To generate the most precise safety estimates possible, the authors then pooled the 4 international cohorts PLUS the 2 original US-based PECARN cohorts.
    • Population: 2,531 infants total
    • Result: Even with the added US data, the rule missed zero cases of bacterial meningitis.

What is the updated PECARN febrile infant prediction?

An infant ≤28 days old is low risk if they meet all 3 criteria:

  1. Urinalysis: Negative
  2. Absolute neutrophil count (ANC): ≤4,000/mm3
  3. Serum procalcitonin: ≤0.5 ng/mL

The Findings

The prevalence of Invasive Bacterial Infections (IBI) in all studied patients was 4.5%.

  • 3.8% bacteremia
  • 0.7% meningitis

Performance of the PECARN Rule

MetricPrimary Analysis of 4 International Cohorts (95% CI)Secondary Analysis of 4 International + 2 US PECARN Cohorts (95% CI)
Total Infants1,5372,531
Classified as “Low Risk”632 (41.1%)1,079 (42.6%)
Sensitivity94.2%
(85.6–97.8%)
94.8%
(88.1–97.8%)
Specificity41.6%
(36.7–46.7%)
43.3%
(38.7–48.0%)
Negative Predictive Value (NPV)99.4%
(98.1–99.8%)
99.6%
(98.7–99.9%)
Positive Predictive Value (PPV)6.9% ( 4.8–9.9%)6.1%
(4.5–8.2%)
Missed Meningitis Cases0 (out of 11 cases)0 (out of 22 cases)
Missed Bacteremia Cases4 (5.8% of IBI cases)5 (5.3% of IBI cases)

Number needed to tap calculation

One of the most compelling arguments for using this rule is the statistical trade-off required to find a single missed case. The authors provide estimated Negative Predictive Values (NPV) across a range of disease prevalences.

If we assume a 1.00% prevalence of bacterial meningitis (which is conservative; the study observed 0.7%), the NPV for bacterial meningitis is 99.95% [2].

This means that for every 10,000 PECARN low-risk infants, 9,995 do not have bacterial meningitis, and 5 might. We can translate this into a “Number Needed to Tap” (NNT) to find one missed case:

  • Risk of Missed Case = 1 – 0.9995 = 0.0005
  • NNT = 1 / 0.0005 = 2000

Bottom Line: You would hypothetically need to perform 2,000 lumbar punctures on low-risk infants to find ONE case of bacterial meningitis that the rule missed.

Important guardrails: Who is this rule for?

Before applying these findings, we need to understand the strict inclusion criteria. This study—and the PECARN rule itself—was only validated on a specific population.

The “Must-Have” Checklist:

  • Non-ill-Appearing: The infant cannot appear ill. The study defined this strictly, excluding infants with abnormal appearance, work of breathing, or circulation findings (often using the Pediatric Assessment Triangle or other illness indicators). If the baby looks sick, the rule does not apply.
  • Full-Term: Infants must be ≥37 weeks gestation. Preterm infants have different immunological risks and were excluded.
  • Age 0–28 Days: This specific analysis focused exclusively on the first 28 days of life.
  • ✅ Proven Fever: Documented temperature ≥38C

The SBI vs. IBI distinction

If you are already using the PECARN rule for older infants (29–60 days), you likely use it to rule out Serious Bacterial Infections (SBIs), which includes urinary tract infections (UTIs) [1].

This study is different – it focused purely on invasive bacterial infections (IBIs), which is defined as bacteremia and/or bacterial meningitis.

What did the PECARN rule miss?

The rule had perfect sensitivity for bacterial meningitis, but it did miss 5 cases of bacteremia out of more than 2,500 infants ≤28 days old despite a low-risk stratification. Let’s look at the 5 cases classified as “missed bacteremia:

  • 1 case: H. influenzae bacteremia
  • 1 case: E. coli bacteremia (without UTI)
  • 1 case: E. coli bacteremia (with E. coli UTI)
  • 2 cases: S. aureus bacteremia (One of these also had a concurrent E. coli UTI).

The authors note that S. aureus in blood cultures can be a contaminant rather than a true pathogen. If these S. aureus cases were indeed contaminants, the true sensitivity of the rule would be even higher than reported.

Notably, all 5 cases of missed bacteremia occurred in infants aged 8-21 days. There were 0 missed bacteremia cases in the 22-28 day age group.

How do we reconcile this with the most current 2021 AAP guidelines?

To understand why this study is a big deal, we have to look at what the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines currently tells us to do. The new data exposes a potential practice shift specifically for infants in the third week of life (8–21 days).

Age GroupCurrent AAP Guidelines (2021)New PECARN Data (2025)Bottom Line for Practice
0–7 Days

Excluded

Standard of care is full sepsis workup (including LP), IV antibiotics, and admission.

Technically Included

Rule missed 0 cases of IBI in this age group, but sample size was smaller (~15% of cohort).

No Change

Due to perinatal risks and smaller sample sizes, the full sepsis workup remains a safe standard of care.

8–21 Days

Action: Routine LP required

Strategy: Full sepsis workup (including LP), IV antibiotics, and admission

Reasoning: Previously considered insufficient data

Potential to Defer LP

Meningitis: 0 missed cases

Bacteremia: 5 missed cases (all occurred in the 8–21 day window).

Nuance: High sensitivity for meningitis challenges the mandatory LP rule, but missed bacteremia warrants caution.

Proceed with Caution

While you might safely skip the LP (since 0 infants with bacterial meningitis were missed), the risk of missed bacteremia suggests these infants still require close monitoring. A reasonable approach for a well-appearing infant with normal inflammatory markers and urinalysis might be to skip the LP, give no antibiotics, but still hospitalize for observation.

22–28 Days

Action: Risk stratify

Strategy: Defer LP if inflammatory markers are normal.

Reasoning: Biomarkers considered reliable risk stratification tools for meningitis.

Evidence to Defer LP

Meningitis: 0 missed cases

Bacteremia: 0 missed cases

Strong Validation

This study supports the AAP’s existing recommendation: Skip the LP if all the PECARN criteria (UA, ANC, PCT) are negative, but admit for observation.

Additional Considerations

  1. Procalcitonin is mandatory: This rule relies on serum procalcitonin. If your facility only uses CRP and WBC, you cannot use this reduction strategy safely.
  1. Consider herpes simplex virus (HSV) meningoencephalitis: This PECARN rule is to identify young febrile infants with bacterial infections and not HSV. You thus must still risk-stratify for HSV separately (seizures, vesicles, maternal history, etc) and perform a LP if HSV is suspected, independent of the PECARN prediction rule.

Summary

For the first time, we have high-quality, multi-national data suggesting that a routine LP may not be necessary for every febrile infant ≤28 days old. While guidelines have not officially changed, this study provides the evidence needed to support shared decision-making with caregivers.

We can now honestly tell parents: “Based on these blood and urine tests, the chance of your baby having bacterial meningitis is extremely low—likely less than 1 in 2,000. We can safely hold off on the spinal tap and antibiotics right now and admit for observation.”

That is a conversation we couldn’t have yesterday.

References

  1. Kuppermann N, Dayan PS, Levine DA, et al; Febrile Infant Working Group of the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN). A clinical prediction rule to identify febrile infants 60 days and younger at low risk for serious bacterial infections. JAMA Pediatr. 2019;173(4):342-351. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2018.5501. PMID 30776077
  2. Burstein B, Waterfield T, Umana E, Xie J, Kuppermann N. Prediction of Bacteremia and Bacterial Meningitis Among Febrile Infants Aged 28 Days or Younger. JAMA. Published online December 8, 2025. doi: 10.1001/jama.2025.21454
  3. Searns JB, O’Leary ST. Moving the Field Forward to Safely Do Less With Febrile Neonates. JAMA. Published online December 8, 2025. doi: 10.1001/jama.2025.23133
  4. Pantell RH, Roberts KB, Adams WG, et al; Subcommittee on Febrile Infants. Evaluation and management of well-appearing febrile infants 8 to 60 days old. Pediatrics. 2021;148(2):e2021052228. PMID 34281996

SAEM Clinical Images Series: I Cannot Control My Right Side

CT

The patient is a 47-year-old female whose past medical history includes ESRD on dialysis, type 1 diabetes, and hypertension, who presents to the Emergency Department for uncontrollable right-sided movements of her body. The patient states these symptoms have been present for several weeks and have progressively worsened over the past week. She reports difficulty with ambulation secondary to these involuntary movements of the right side of her body. She denies any missed dialysis sessions. She denies fever, headaches, sensory problems, or any other complaints at this time.

Vitals: BP 201/88 HR 92 R 18 T 97.5 O2sat 99% room air.

General: Awake and alert, no acute distress.

Cardiovascular: Regular rate and rhythm with no murmur. Right upper extremity fistula with good thrill and no signs of infection.

Neurologic: GCS 15, moving all four extremities well. Cranial nerves intact, but repetitive twitching of the right side of the face is seen on examination. There are repetitive jerking movements of her right upper and right lower extremity. Sensation intact and equal bilaterally.

CMP: 

Na 127
K 4.5
Cl 92
HCO3 25
BUN 24
Creat 5.5
Glucose 540

Hyperintensity along the left lentiform nucleus.

Hemichorea-Hemiballismus Syndrome.

There is a stripe of hyperintensity along the left lentiform nucleus seen on head CT, which is a finding consistent with hemichorea- hemiballismus syndrome. This syndrome is a rare presentation that can occur in the setting of acute hyperglycemia or uncontrolled diabetes. Patients with hemichorea-hemiballismus syndrome typically present with involuntary movements of upper and lower limbs, usually unilaterally, but in even more rare cases bilateral symptoms may occur. Neuroimaging may show hyperintense lesions along the contralateral striatum of the affected extremities. Proposed pathophysiology of this syndrome includes hyperviscosity secondary to hyperglycemia and disruption of the blood- brain barrier, decrease in GABA availability in the striatum, and hypersensitivity of the dopamine system receptors due to decreased estrogen concentration in postmenopausal women. Treatment includes management of hyperglycemia; neurological symptoms typically resolve with glycemic control.

Take-Home Points

  • Hemichorea-hemiballismus syndrome can occur in the setting of hyperglycemia and uncontrolled diabetes, and it typically presents with unilateral involuntary movements of the body.
  • Neurological symptoms resolve with management of hyperglycemia and improved glycemic control.

  • Dong M, E JY, Zhang L, Teng W, Tian L. Non-ketotic Hyperglycemia Chorea-Ballismus and Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Case Report and Literature Review. Front Neurosci. 2021;15:690761. Published 2021 Jun 23. doi:10.3389/fnins.2021.690761
  • Salem A, Lahmar A. Hemichorea-Hemiballismus Syndrome in Acute Non-ketotic Hyperglycemia. Cureus. 2021;13(10):e19026. Published 2021 Oct 25. doi:10.7759/cureus.19026

By |2025-12-16T22:35:25-08:00Dec 19, 2025|Emergency Medicine, Neurology, SAEM Clinical Images|
Go to Top