OBJECTIVE: The objectives of our study were to determine the accuracy of single-detector helical CT (including coronal and sagittal reconstructions) for the diagnosis of traumatic diaphragmatic injury, establish measurements for the thickness of the normal diaphragmatic crus, and describe an additional sign of diaphragmatic injury: active arterial extravasation of contrast material at the level of the diaphragm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The CT scans of 25 patients with surgically proven diaphragmatic injury and 22 patients with surgically confirmed uninjured diaphragms were blindly reviewed by five thoracic radiologists. Sagittal and coronal reconstructions were performed for 20 of the 25 patients with a proven diaphragmatic injury and for all the patients without a diaphragmatic injury. Scans were evaluated for findings suggestive of diaphragmatic injury and for associated injuries. Reviewers scored the usefulness of the reconstructed images for establishing the final diagnosis. Measurements of the right and left crura were performed to establish a threshold measurement that would enable radiologists to discriminate between a normal diaphragm and an injured diaphragm. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of helical CT were 84%, 77%, 81%, 81%, and 83%, respectively. Scans showing active arterial extravasation of contrast material enabled reviewers to correctly identify diaphragmatic injury in two patients. Reconstructed images confirmed the correct diagnosis in three patients but supported an incorrect diagnosis in two. The mean thickness of the diaphragmatic crura (right and left) was not significantly greater in patients with an injured diaphragm than in those with an uninjured diaphragm. CONCLUSION: Helical CT shows good sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the diagnosis of diaphragmatic injury. Coronal and sagittal reconstructions are of limited use in establishing or refuting this diagnosis. Active arterial extravasation of contrast material near the diaphragm should raise suspicion for injury. Crus measurements cannot be used to reliably distinguish between injured and uninjured diaphragms.
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of our study were to determine the accuracy of single-detector helical CT (including coronal and sagittal reconstructions) for the diagnosis of traumatic diaphragmatic injury, establish measurements for the thickness of the normal diaphragmatic crus, and describe an additional sign of diaphragmatic injury: active arterial extravasation of contrast material at the level of the diaphragm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The CT scans of 25 patients with surgically proven diaphragmatic injury and 22 patients with surgically confirmed uninjured diaphragms were blindly reviewed by five thoracic radiologists. Sagittal and coronal reconstructions were performed for 20 of the 25 patients with a proven diaphragmatic injury and for all the patients without a diaphragmatic injury. Scans were evaluated for findings suggestive of diaphragmatic injury and for associated injuries. Reviewers scored the usefulness of the reconstructed images for establishing the final diagnosis. Measurements of the right and left crura were performed to establish a threshold measurement that would enable radiologists to discriminate between a normal diaphragm and an injured diaphragm. RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of helical CT were 84%, 77%, 81%, 81%, and 83%, respectively. Scans showing active arterial extravasation of contrast material enabled reviewers to correctly identify diaphragmatic injury in two patients. Reconstructed images confirmed the correct diagnosis in three patients but supported an incorrect diagnosis in two. The mean thickness of the diaphragmatic crura (right and left) was not significantly greater in patients with an injured diaphragm than in those with an uninjured diaphragm. CONCLUSION: Helical CT shows good sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the diagnosis of diaphragmatic injury. Coronal and sagittal reconstructions are of limited use in establishing or refuting this diagnosis. Active arterial extravasation of contrast material near the diaphragm should raise suspicion for injury. Crus measurements cannot be used to reliably distinguish between injured and uninjured diaphragms.
Authors: Uttam K Bodanapally; Kathirkamanathan Shanmuganathan; Stuart E Mirvis; Clint W Sliker; Thorsten R Fleiter; Kamal Sarada; Lisa A Miller; Deborah M Stein; Melvin Alexander Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2009-03-31 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Chi Wan Koo; Tucker F Johnson; David S Gierada; Darin B White; Shanda Blackmon; Jane M Matsumoto; Jooae Choe; Mark S Allen; David L Levin; Ronald S Kuzo Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-03-12 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Michael N Patlas; Vincent A Leung; Luigia Romano; Nicola Gagliardi; Gianluca Ponticiello; Mariano Scaglione Journal: Radiol Med Date: 2014-08-13 Impact factor: 3.469