19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Gastrointestinal perforation: ultrasonographic diagnosis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Gastrointestinal tract perforations can occur for various causes such as peptic ulcer, inflammatory disease, blunt or penetrating trauma, iatrogenic factors, foreign body or a neoplasm that require an early recognition and, often, a surgical treatment.

          Ultrasonography could be useful as an initial diagnostic test to determine, in various cases the presence and, sometimes, the cause of the pneumoperitoneum.

          The main sonographic sign of perforation is free intraperitoneal air, resulting in an increased echogenicity of a peritoneal stripe associated with multiple reflection artifacts and characteristic comet-tail appearance.

          It is best detected using linear probes in the right upper quadrant between the anterior abdominal wall, in the prehepatic space.

          Direct sign of perforation may be detectable, particularly if they are associated with other sonographic abnormalities, called indirect signs, like thickened bowel loop and air bubbles in ascitic fluid or in a localized fluid collection, bowel or gallbladder thickened wall associated with decreased bowel motility or ileus.

          Neverthless, this exam has its own pitfalls. It is strongly operator-dependant; some machines have low-quality images that may not able to detect intraperitoneal free air; furthermore, some patients may be less cooperative to allow for scanning of different regions; sonography is also difficult in obese patients and with those having subcutaneous emphysema. Although CT has more accuracy in the detection of the site of perforation, ultrasound may be particularly useful also in patient groups where radiation burden should be limited notably children and pregnant women.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Value of pneumoperitoneum in the diagnosis of visceral perforation.

          The presence or absence of pneumoperitoneum may not be as reliable an indicator of visceral perforation as commonly thought. Visceral perforation as commonly thought. Visceral perforation resulted in pneumoperitoneum in only 51 percent of patients in this study. Pneumoperitoneum occurred in 14 percent of patients in whom the extraalimentary intraperitoneal air had sources other than a perforated viscus. These patients' clinical findings were often indistinguishable from those of patients with a perforated viscus, and three patients underwent celiotomy unnecessarily. The routine use of the left lateral decubitus film to detect pneumoperitoneum and the judicious use of gastrointestinal contrast studies should be part of the optimal management of patients with suspected visceral perforation.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Errors in the radiological evaluation of the alimentary tract: part II.

            Plain abdominal radiography and computed tomographic (CT) enteroclysis are 2 essential radiological investigations in the study of gastrointestinal tract. Errors in patient preparation, execution, and interpretation may lead to severe consequences in the diagnosis and thus in patient outcome. Abdominal radiography is one of the most frequently requested radiographic examinations, and has an established role in the assessment of the acute abdomen. CT enteroclysis has revolutionized the assessment of small-bowel pathology, especially in patients with inflammatory bowel. The purpose of this article is to describe the pitfalls in the execution and interpretation of plain abdominal film and CT enteroclysis. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Focussed Assessment Sonograph Trauma (FAST) and CT scan in blunt abdominal trauma: surgeon's perspective.

              Diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma is a real challenge even for experienced trauma surgeons. Diagnostic tools that help the treating doctor in optimum management of blunt abdominal trauma include; Focussed Assessment Sonography for Trauma (FAST), Diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) and CT scan. the aim of this communication is to define the recent role of FAST and CT scan of the abdomen in the diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma. FAST is useful as the initial diagnostic tool for abdominal trauma to detect intraabdominal fluid. With proper training and understanding the limitations of ultrasound, the results of FAST can be optimized. DPL is indicated to diagnose suspected internal abdominal injury when ultrasound machine is not available, there is no trained person to perform FAST, or the results of FAST are equivocal or difficult to interpret in a haemodynamically unstable patient. In contrast, in haemodynamically stable patients the diagnostic modality of choice is CT with intravenous contrast. It is useful to detect free air and intraperitoneal fluid, delineate the extent of solid organ injury, detect retroperitoneal injuries, and help in the decision for conservative treatment. Helical CT is done rapidly which reduces the time the patient stays in the CT scan room. Furthermore, this improves sagittal and coronal reconstruction images which are useful for detecting ruptured diaphragm.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Crit Ultrasound J
                Crit Ultrasound J
                Critical Ultrasound Journal
                Springer
                2036-3176
                2036-7902
                2013
                15 July 2013
                : 5
                : Suppl 1
                : S4
                Affiliations
                [1 ]University of Palermo, Department of Radiology, Palermo, Italy
                [2 ]Second University of Naples, Department of Clinical and Experimental Internistic F. Magrassi – A. Lanzara, Naples, Italy
                [3 ]University of Naples Federico II, Department of Biomorphological and Functional Sciences, Naples, Italy
                [4 ]University of Ferrara, Dipartimento di Scienze Chirurgiche, Ferrara, Italy
                [5 ]University of Cagliari, Department of Radiology, Cagliari, Italy
                Article
                2036-7902-5-S1-S4
                10.1186/2036-7902-5-S1-S4
                3711723
                23902744
                44c10f05-3d28-43f1-be3f-11efdcfa46d1
                Copyright ©2013 Coppolino et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                Categories
                Research

                Radiology & Imaging
                Radiology & Imaging

                Comments

                Comment on this article