Imaging methods in non-traumatic acute abdomen
Authors:
Bartušek D. 1; Válek V. 1; Kala Z. 2; Prochazka V. 2; Andrašina T. 1; Janeček P. 2; Kunovsky L. 2,3
Authors place of work:
Klinika radiologie a nukleární medicíny LF MU a FN Brno
1; Chirurgická klinika LF MU a FN Brno
2; Interní gastroenterologická klinika LF MU a FN Brno
3
Published in the journal:
Gastroent Hepatol 2020; 74(6): 520-532
Category:
Clinical and Experimental Gastroenterology: Review Article
doi:
https://doi.org/10.48095/ccgh2020520
Summary
Summary: An acute abdomen is an urgent condition requiring rapid diagnosis and treatment. Nowadays, with the new developments and progression in ultrasonography (US) and computed tomography (CT), these methods have become a far better alternative to plain abdominal radiography. US is now an available and proven method used to provide a “final” diagnosis in various conditions. The frequency for CT examination for the diagnosis of acute abdomen has increased. A disadvantage of using CT examination includes high doses of radiation for the patient. Fortunately, this disadvantage is outweighed by the multitude of advantages. The advantages include high sensitivity and specificity in the detection of causes in urgent conditions. The CT protocol of examination is primarily lead by the radiologist.
Keywords:
acute abdomen – imaging methods – plain abdominal radiography – ultrasonography – computed tomography
Zdroje
1. Gore RM, Levine MS. Textbook of gastrointestinal radiology. Volume 2. 4th ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier Saunders 1994.
2. Válek V, Prokeš B, Benda K et al. Moderní dia gnostické metody. I. díl. Kontrastní vyšetření trávicí trubice. 1. vyd. Brno: Institut pro další vzdělávání pracovníků ve zdravotnictví 1996.
3. Válek V, Zbořil V, Hep A et al. Tenké střevo – radiologická dia gnostika patologických stavů. 1. vyd. Brno: NCONZO: Národní centrum ošetřovatelství a nelékařských oborů 2003.
4. Friemann-Dahl J. Roentgen examination in acute abdominal diseases. 3rd ed. Springfield: Charles C Thomas Publisher 1974.
5. Mirvis SE, Young JW, Keramati B et al. Plain film evaluation of patients with abdominal pain: are three radiographs necessary? AJR Am J Roentgenol 1986; 147 (3): 501–503. doi: 10.2214/ajr.147.3.501.
6. Maglinte DD, Reyes BL, Harmon BH et al. Reliability and role of plain film radiography and CT in the dia gnosis of small-bowel obstruction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996; 167 (6): 1451–1455. doi: 10.2214/ajr.167.6.8956576.
7. Maasco G, Verardi FM, Eusebi LH et al. Dia gnostic imaging for acute abdominal pain an Emergency Department in Italy. Intern Emerg Med 2019; 14 (7): 1147–1153. doi: 10.1007/s11739-019-02189-y.
8. Kopf H, Schima W, Meng S. Differential dia gnosis of gallbladder abnormalities: ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Radiologe 2019; 59 (4): 328–337. doi: 10.1007/s00117-019-0504-y.
9. Megibow AJ, Balthazar EJ, Cho KC et al. Bowel obstruction: evaluation with CT. Radiology 1991; 180 (2): 313–318. doi: 10.1148/radiology. 180.2.2068291.
10. Jaffe TA, Miller CM, Merkle EM. Practice pat terns in imaging of the pregnant patient with abdominal pain: a survey of academic centers. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007; 189 (5): 1128–1134. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.2277.
11. Patenaude Y, Pugash D, Lim K et al. The use of magnetic resonance imaging in the obstetric patient. J Obstet Gynaecol Can 2014; 36 (4): 349–363. doi: 10.1016/s1701-2163 (15) 30 612-5.
12. Ray JG, Vermeulen MJ, Bharatha A et al. Association between MRI exposure during pregnancy and fetal and childhood outcomes. JAMA 2016; 316 (9): 952–961. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016. 12126.
13. Puylaert JB, Rijke AM. An Inflamed appendix at sonography when symptoms are improv ing: to operate or not to operate? Radiology 1997; 205 (1): 41–42. doi: 10.1148/radiology. 205.1.9314958.
14. Cha SH, Kim SH, Lee ES et al. Saline-filled appendiceal ultrasonography in clinically equivocal acute appendicitis. Abdom Imaging 1997; 21 (6): 525–529. doi: 10.1007/s002619900 119.
15. Lane MJ, Katz DS, Ross BA et al. Unenhanced helical CT for suspected acute appendicitis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168 (2): 405–409. doi: 10.2214/ajr.168.2.9016216.
16. Rao PM. Cecal apical changes with appendicitis: dia gnosing appendicitis when the appendix is borderline abnormal or not seen. J Comput Assist Tomogr 1999; 23 (1): 55–59. doi: 10.1097/00004728-199901000- 00012.
17. Incesu L, Coskun A, Selcuk MB et al. Acute appendicitis: MR imaging and sonographic cor relation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168 (3): 669–674. doi: 10.2214/ajr.168.3.9057512.
18. Kadlčík T, Straka L. Akutní apendicitida – vzácná komplikace koloskopie. Gastroent Hepatol 2017; 71 (4): 337–340. doi: 10.14735/amgh 2017337.
19. Kunovsky L, Kala Z, Mitas L et al. Rare cases imitating acute appendicitis: three case reports and a review of literature. Rozhl Chir 2017; 96 (2): 82–87.
20. Young-Fadok TM, Roberts PL, Spencer MP et al. Colonic diverticular disease. Curr Probl Surg 2000; 37 (7): 457–514. doi: 10.1016/s0011-3840 (00) 80011-8.
21. Lukáš M. Divertikulární choroba tlustého střeva – nový pohled na klasifikaci a léčbu. Gastroent Hepatol 2019; 73 (5): 413–417. doi: 10.14735/amgh2019413.
22. Panes J, Bouhnik Y, Reinisch W et al. Ima - g ing techniques for assessment of inflammatory bowel disease: joint ECCO and ESGAR evidence-based consensus guidelines. J Crohns Colitis 2013; 7 (7): 556–585. doi: 10.1016/j.crohns.2013.02.020.
23. Ritz JP, Lehmann KS, Loddenkemper C et al. Preoperative CT staging in sigmoid diverticulitis – does it correlate with intraoperative and histological findings? Langenbecks Arch Surg 2010; 395 (8): 1009–1015. doi: 10.1007/ /s00423-010-0609-2.
24. Hinchey EJ, Schaal PG, Richards GK. Treatment of perforated diverticular disease of the colon. Adv Surg 1978; 12: 85–109.
25. Wasvary H, Turfah F, Kadro O et al. Same hospitalization resection for acute diverticulitis. Am Surg 1999; 65 (7): 632–635.
26. Nolan DJ. The small intestine. In: Grainger RG, Allison DJ (eds). Grainger & Allison’s dia gnostic radiology: a textbook of medical imaging. Michigan: Churchill Livingstone 1997: 985–1008.
27. Maglinte DD, Balthazar EJ, Kelvin FM et al. The role of radiology in the dia gnosis of small-bowel obstruction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 168 (5): 1171–1180. doi: 10.2214/ajr.168.5.9129 407.
28. Maglinte DD, Gage SN, Harmon BH et al. Obstruction of the small intestine: accuracy and role of CT in dia gnosis. Radiology 1993; 188 (1): 61–64. doi: 10.1148/radiology.188.1.8511 318.
29. Madsen SM, Thomsen HS, Schlichting P et al. Evaluation of treatment response in active Crohn’s disease by low-field magnetic resonance imaging. Abdom Imaging 1999; 24 (3): 232–239. doi: 10.1007/s002619900487.
30. Ogilvie H. Large-intestine colic due to sympathetic deprivation; a new clinical syndrome. Br Med J 1948; 2 (4579): 671–673. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.4579.671.
31. Cerro P, Magrini L, Porcari P et al. Sonographic dia gnosis of intussusceptions in adults. Abdom Imaging 2000; 25 (1): 45–47. doi: 10.1007/s002619910008.
32. Hadač J, Novotná B, Kasalický M. Neobvyklý případ biliárního ileu. Gastroent Hepatol 2017; 71 (5): 439–444. doi: 10.14735/amgh2017439.
33. Mikoviny Kajzrlíková I, Vítek P, Chalupa J et al. Kolonické dekomprese v běžné praxi. Gastroent Hepatol 2017; 71 (3): 215–219. doi: 10.14735/amgh2017215.
34. Kunovsky L, Hemmelova B, Kala Z et al. Crohn disease and pregnancy: a case report of an acute abdomen. Int J Colorectal Dis 2016; 31 (8): 1493–1494. doi: 10.1007/s00384-016-25 54-1.
35. Kettritz U, Isaacs K, Warshauer DM et al. Crohn’s disease. Pilot study comparing MRI of the abdomen with clinical evaluation. J Clin Gastroenterol 1995; 21 (3): 249–253.
36. Chou CK. CT manifestations of bowel ischemia. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002; 178 (1): 87–89. doi: 10.2214/ajr.178.1.1780087.
37. Gralnek IM, Dumonceau JM, Kuipers EJ et al. Dia gnosis and management of nonvariceal upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline. Endoscopy 2015; 47 (10): a1–6. doi: 10.1055/s-0034-1393172.
38. Mortele KJ, Wiesner W, Intriere L et al. A modified CT severity index for evaluating acute pancreatitis: improved correlation with patient outcome. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004; 183 (5): 1261–1265. doi: 10.2214/ajr.183.5.1831 261.
39. Balthazar EJ. Acute pancreatitis: assessment of severity with clinical and CT evaluation. Radiology 2002; 223 (3): 603–613. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2233010680.
40. Banks PA, Bollen TL, Dervenis C et al. Classification of acute pancreatitis 2012: revision of the Atlanta classification and definitions by international consensus. Gut 2013; 62 (1): 102–111. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2012-302779.
Štítky
Paediatric gastroenterology Gastroenterology and hepatology SurgeryČlánok vyšiel v časopise
Gastroenterology and Hepatology
2020 Číslo 6
- Spasmolytic Effect of Metamizole
- Metamizole at a Glance and in Practice – Effective Non-Opioid Analgesic for All Ages
- Metamizole in perioperative treatment in children under 14 years – results of a questionnaire survey from practice
- Current Insights into the Antispasmodic and Analgesic Effects of Metamizole on the Gastrointestinal Tract
- Obstacle Called Vasospasm: Which Solution Is Most Effective in Microsurgery and How to Pharmacologically Assist It?
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Imaging methods in non-traumatic acute abdomen
- Superior mesenteric artery syndrome in conjunction with Crohn’s disease – a case report
- Eosinophilic enteritis – case report of a rare manifestation and review of updates
- Eosinophilic esophagitis – 10 years of experience in five Czech pediatric endoscopy centers