IMAGING CHARACTERISTICS OF MULTISLICE COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF GASTRODUODENAL PERFORATION
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objectives: To study imaging characteristics of multislice computed tomography in diagnosing gastroduodenal perforation. Methods: A retrospective, prospective, and cross-sectional descriptive study on 83 patients who underwent multislice computed tomography scans with contrast injections and were surgically diagnosed with gastroduodenal perforation between July 2021 and June 2023. Results: The most common perforation site was the duodenal bulb in 57 patients (68.67%), and the least common was the basal - body in 3 patients (3.61%). The most common cause was ulcerative perforation in 61 patients (73.5%). Abdominal free gas signs were seen in 80 patients (96.4%). The pylorus-duodenal perforation group: Diaphragmatic sub-arch gas 64 patients (92.8%), falciform ligament sign/ligamentum teres sign 52 patients (75.4%), peri-portal free air 40 patients (58%) appeared at a higher rate than the fixed duodenal perforation group (0 - 9.1%) (p < 0.05). Retroperitoneal cavity gas was common in the 5 patients fixed-segment duodenal perforation group (54.5%). Focal wall defect 68 patients (81.9%), concentration of extraluminal air bubbles 66 patients (79.5%), focal wall thickening 75 patients (90.4%), perivisceral fat stranding 78 patients (94%), extraluminal fluid 55 patients (66.3%), focal wall poor absorption 73 patients (88%) were present with a high incidence in the puncture site groups and there was no difference between groups. Conclusion: Abdominal free gas occurs at a high rate in gastroduodenal perforation; the gas distribution varies between gastroduodenal perforation sites.
Article Details
Keywords
Gastroduodenal perforation, Abdominal free gas distribution, Perforation site
References
2. Tanner TN, Hall BR, Oran J. Pneumoperitoneum. Surgical Clinics of North America. 2018; 98(5):915-932. DOI:10.1016/j.suc.2018.06.004.
3. Xu X, Dong HC, Yao Z, Zhao YZ. Risk factors for postoperative sepsis in patients with gastrointestinal perforation. World J Clin Cases. 2020; 8(4):670-678. DOI:10.12998/ wjcc.v8.i4.670.
4. Cadenas Rodríguez L, Martí de Gracia M, Saturio Galán N, Pérez Dueñas V, Salvatierra Arrieta L, Garzón Moll G. [Use of multidetector computed tomography for locating the site of gastrointestinal tract perforations]. Cir Esp. 2013; 91(5):316-323. DOI:10.1016/j.ciresp.2012.06.004.
5. Klein JS, Brant WE, Vinson EN, Helms CA. Brant and Helms’ Fundamentals of Diagnostic Radiology. Wolters Kluwer; 2018.
6. Ashi M, Saleh A, Albargi S, Babkour S, Banjar A, Ghazawi M. Isolated duodenal injury following blunt abdominal trauma. Radiology Case Reports. 2020; 15(7):939-942. DOI:10.1016/j.radcr.2020.04.048.
7. García Santos E, Soto Sánchez A, Verde JM, Marini CP, Asensio JA, Petrone P. Lesiones duodenales secundarias a traumatismo: Revisión de la literatura. Cirugía Española. 2015; 93(2):68-74. DOI:10.1016/ j.ciresp.2014.08.004.
8. Lee D, Park M hyun, Shin BS, Jeon GS. Multidetector CT diagnosis of non-traumatic gastroduodenal perforation. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology. 2016; 60(2):182-186. DOI:10.1111/1754-9485.12408.
9. Bhattacharjee HK, Misra MC, Kumar S, Bansal VK. Duodenal perforation following blunt abdominal trauma. Journal of Emergencies, Trauma, and Shock. 2011; 4(4):514. DOI:10.4103/0974-2700.86650.
10. Drakopoulos D, Arcon J, Freitag P, et al. Correlation of gastrointestinal perforation location and amount of free air and ascites on CT imaging. Abdom Radiol. 2021; 46(10):4536-4547. DOI:10.1007/s00261-021-03128-2.