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