G Gayer1, R Zissin, S Apter, A Oscadchy, M Hertz. 1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, Sheba Medical Center affiliated to the Sackler School of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Hashomer 52621, Israel.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We report the computed tomographic (CT) features of colorectal perforations caused by cleansing enema. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records and CT studies of all patients with colorectal perforations caused by a cleansing enema. RESULTS: Fourteen patients (10 men, four women; average age = 80 years) were included in the study. The most common presenting symptoms were severe abdominal pain and fever. CT was performed within 48 h after the event in most patients. Extraluminal air in the perirectal fat was the most frequent finding on CT and was present in all patients. Additional findings were extraperitoneal ( n = 9), intraperitoneal ( n = 3) and /or subcutaneous ( n = 3) air, free fluid ( n = 9), extraluminal feces ( n = 8), and focal bowel wall thickening ( n = 4). No leak of contrast from the rectum was observed in any patient including the one patient in whom contrast was administered rectally. Ten patients were treated by surgery; five recovered and the other five died. The other four patients were treated conservatively and all four died. CONCLUSION: The diagnosis of colorectal perforation can be made on CT. Because the diagnosis is not always suspected by the clinician, the radiologist may be the first to suggest it. Therefore, the radiologist should be familiar with the CT features of a potentially lethal, rectally induced perforation.
BACKGROUND: We report the computed tomographic (CT) features of colorectal perforations caused by cleansing enema. METHODS: We reviewed the medical records and CT studies of all patients with colorectal perforations caused by a cleansing enema. RESULTS: Fourteen patients (10 men, four women; average age = 80 years) were included in the study. The most common presenting symptoms were severe abdominal pain and fever. CT was performed within 48 h after the event in most patients. Extraluminal air in the perirectal fat was the most frequent finding on CT and was present in all patients. Additional findings were extraperitoneal ( n = 9), intraperitoneal ( n = 3) and /or subcutaneous ( n = 3) air, free fluid ( n = 9), extraluminal feces ( n = 8), and focal bowel wall thickening ( n = 4). No leak of contrast from the rectum was observed in any patient including the one patient in whom contrast was administered rectally. Ten patients were treated by surgery; five recovered and the other five died. The other four patients were treated conservatively and all four died. CONCLUSION: The diagnosis of colorectal perforation can be made on CT. Because the diagnosis is not always suspected by the clinician, the radiologist may be the first to suggest it. Therefore, the radiologist should be familiar with the CT features of a potentially lethal, rectally induced perforation.
Authors: P Christensen; K Krogh; B Perrouin-Verbe; D Leder; G Bazzocchi; B Petersen Jakobsen; A V Emmanuel Journal: Tech Coloproctol Date: 2015-11-16 Impact factor: 3.781
Authors: Carla Lorena Vasques Mendes de Miranda; Camila Soares Moreira de Sousa; Nathalie Gonçalves Nascimento Pinheiro Cordão; Breno Braga Bastos; Francisco Edward Mont'Alverne Filho Journal: Radiol Bras Date: 2017 Sep-Oct