Value of enhanced or non-enhanced computed tomography in the detection of rare causes of bowel obstruction

Year 2020, Volume: 45 Issue: 3, 1157 - 1164, 30.09.2020

Yasemin Altıntaş Mehmet Bayrak Omer Alabaz

https://doi.org/10.17826/cumj.711411

Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to reveal the uncommon causes of intestinal obstructions and to compare the diagnostic accuracy of enhanced or non-enhanced computed tomography.
Materials and Methods: This cohort was a retrospective study of different patients diagnosed with acute mechanical intestinal obstruction in the emergency room or hospital between 15 January 2009 and 15 June 2018. Exclusion criteria were common causes of mechanical bowel obstruction and inclusion criteria were uncommon causes of bowel obstruction. Non-enhanced or enhanced computed tomography were used to diagnose mechanical bowel obstruction.
Results: The population included 46 females and 41 males and the age range from 20 to 81. Of the patients with uncommon mechanical obstruction, 58 (66.7 %) were caused by the small intestine, and 29 (33.3%) by the large intestine. When compared to uncommon causes of the small and large bowel with age, body mass index, and use of contrast or not, no significant difference was detected between them. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy of enhanced computed tomography were %93.9, %93.3, %96.9, %87.5, %94 and non-enhanced computed tomography were %96.0, %85.7, %92.3, %92.3, %92.3 respectively.
Conclusion: Non-enhanced computed tomography has similar diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity compared to enhanced computed tomography for identifying the location, severity, and etiology of bowel obstruction.

Keywords

computed tomography, bowel obstruction, non enhanced CT

Bağırsak tıkanıklığının nadir nedenlerinin saptanmasında kontrastlı ve kontrastsız bilgisayarlı tomografinin değeri

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışma, bağırsak tıkanıklıklarının nadir nedenlerini ortaya koymayı ve kontrastlı veya kontrastsız bilgisayarlı tomografinin tanısal doğruluğunu karşılaştırmayı amaçlamaktadır.
Gereç ve Yöntem: 15 Ocak 2009 ve 15 Haziran 2018 tarihleri arasında, acil serviste veya hastanede akut mekanik bağırsak tıkanıklığı tanısı alan hastalar retrospektif olarak değerlendirildi. Veriler hasta dosyalarından ve görüntüleme sisteminden elde edildi. Mekanik bağırsak tıkanıklığı tanısı; muayene, klinik bulgular ve bilgisayarlı tomografi tetkikine dayanarak koyuldu.
Bulgular: Hastaların 46'sı kadın ve 41'i erkek ve yaş aralığı 20 ila 81 arasında idi. Mekanik tıkanıklığı olan hastalarda 58 (% 66.7) ince bağırsaktan ve 29 (% 33.3) kalın bağırsaktan kaynaklanmakta idi. Yaş, beden kitle indeksi ve kontrast kullanımı ile nadir görülen ince ve kalın barsak nedenleri karşılaştırıldığında, aralarında anlamlı bir fark saptanmadı. Altın standart cerrahi ile karşılaştırıldığında, kontrastlı veya kontrastsız bilgisayarlı tomografi bulgularının duyarlılık, özgüllük, pozitif prediktif değer, negatif prediktif değer ve tanısal doğruluğu sırası ile % 93,9, % 93.3, % 96.9, % 87.5, % 94 ve % 96.0, % 85.7, % 92.3, % 92.3, % 92.3 idi.
Sonuç: Kontrastsız bilgisayarlı tomografi, bağırsak tıkanıklığının yerini, şiddetini ve etiyolojisini tanımlamak için kontrastlı bilgisayarlı tomografi ile karşılaştırıldığında benzer bir tanısal doğruluk, duyarlılık ve özgüllüğe sahip olduğu saptanmıştır.

Keywords

bağırsak tıkanıklığı, bilgisayarlı tomografi, kontrastlı

References

• 1. Welch J. Bowel obstruction: differential diagnosis and clinical management. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 1989
• 2.Sielezneff I, Karoui M (2016) Prise en charge ducancer colique en occlusion: Rapport présenté au 118e Congrès français de chirurgie.
• 3. Runkel NS,Schlag P, SchwarzV, HerfarthC. Outcome after emergency surgery for cancer of the largein testine. Br J Surg. 1991. 78(2): 183–18.
• 4. Taourel P, Kessler N, Lesnik A, Pujol J, Morcos L, Bruel JM. Helical CT of large bowel obstruction. Abdom Imaging. 2003; 28: 267‑75.
• 5. Jaffe T, Thompson W. Large bowel obstruction in the adult: classic radiographic and CT findings, etiology, and mimics. Radiology. 2015; 275:651–663
• 6. Cappell MS, Batke M. Mechanical obstruction of the small bowel and colon. Med Clin North Am. 2008; 92:575–597
• 7.Drożdż W, Budzyński P. Change in mechanical bowel obstruction demographic and etiological patterns during the past century: observations from one health care institution. Arch Surg 2012; 147:175–180.
• 8. Ramanathan S, Ojili V, Vassa R, Nagar A. Large Bowel Obstruction in the Emergency Department: Imaging Spectrum of Common and Uncommon Causes. J ClinImaging Sci. 2017 Apr 5;7:15.
• 9. S. Kurochka, S. Costa Dias, L. F. P. Gonçalves, H. Torrão, A. C. Costa, C. Leite; Braga/PT.CT findings in the small bowel pathology: A pictorial essay. ECR 2010 Poster No.: C-1598 10. Maglinte DDT, Heitkamp DE, Howard TJ, et al. Current concepts in imaging of small bowel obstruction. Radiol Clin North Am 2003; 41:263–283
• 11.Smith RC, Rosenfield AT, Choe KA, et al. Acute flank pain: comparison of non-contrast-enhanced CT and intravenous urography. Radiology 1995;194:789–94.
• 12.Sommer FG, Jeffrey Jr RB, Rubin GD, et al. Detection of ureteral calculi in patients with suspected renal colic: value of reformatted noncontrast helical CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:509–13.
• 13.Lane MJ, Liu DM, Huynh MD, Jeffrey Jr RB, Mindelzun RE, Katz DS. Suspected acute appendicitis: nonenhanced helical CT in 300 consecutive patients. Radiology 1999;213:341–6.
• 14.Christopher FL, Lane MJ, Ward JA, Morgan JA. Unenhanced helical CT scanning of the abdomen and pelvis changes disposition of patients presenting to the emergency department with possible acute appendicitis. J Emerg Med 2002;23:1–7.
• 15.Atri M, McGregor C, McInnes M, Power N, Rahnavardi K, Law C, Kiss A.Multidetector helical CT in the evaluation of acute small bowel obstruction: comparison of non-enhanced (no oral, rectal or IV contrast) and IV enhanced CT. Eur J Radiol. 2009 Jul;71(1):135-40.
• 16. Burkill GJC, Bell JRG, Healy JC. The utility of computed tomography in acute small bowel obstruction. Clin Radiol 2001; 56:350–359
• 17. Furukawa A, Yamasaki M, Furuichi K, et al. Helical CT in the diagnosis of small bowel obstruction. RadioGraphics 2001; 21:341–355
• 18. Sawai RS. Management of colonic obstruction: a review. Clin Colon Rectal Surg 2012; 25:200–203
• 19. Gabriel A Molina, Mauricio Fabián Palacios Gordon, Jonathan Rafael Jerez Ortiz, Ricardo Chong Menendez, Jonathan Eduardo Constante Ruiz, Hernán Isai Padilla Paredes, Bowel obstruction due to the migration of the deflated intragastric balloon, a rare and potentially lethal complication. Journal of Surgical Case Reports, 2019;4, 1–4
• 20.Casey M. Calkins. Hirschsprung Disease beyond Infancy. Clinics in Colon and Rectal Surgery 2018; 31(02): 051-060.