OBJECTIVES: Incidental findings of thickened luminal GI organs (LGIO) on CT are not uncommon. However, the significance of these findings is unclear. Because of the lack of scientific data, there are no clinical guidelines for the evaluation of these radiologic abnormalities. Our objective was to determine whether endoscopic evaluation of these findings revealed significant abnormalities. METHODS: This study evaluated all incidental findings of thickened LGIO in a large medical center from October, 1997 to March, 1999 that were followed by endoscopic examinations. RESULTS: Ninety-six percent of patients with incidental findings of thickening of the sigmoid colon or rectum, 81% of patients with thickening of the distal esophagus, and 13% of patients with thickening of the cecum had significant abnormalities on further endoscopic work up. CONCLUSIONS: Although positive pathologic findings are less common in thickening of the cecum than in other LGIO, all of these incidental findings on CT warrant further endoscopic examination.
OBJECTIVES: Incidental findings of thickened luminal GI organs (LGIO) on CT are not uncommon. However, the significance of these findings is unclear. Because of the lack of scientific data, there are no clinical guidelines for the evaluation of these radiologic abnormalities. Our objective was to determine whether endoscopic evaluation of these findings revealed significant abnormalities. METHODS: This study evaluated all incidental findings of thickened LGIO in a large medical center from October, 1997 to March, 1999 that were followed by endoscopic examinations. RESULTS: Ninety-six percent of patients with incidental findings of thickening of the sigmoid colon or rectum, 81% of patients with thickening of the distal esophagus, and 13% of patients with thickening of the cecum had significant abnormalities on further endoscopic work up. CONCLUSIONS: Although positive pathologic findings are less common in thickening of the cecum than in other LGIO, all of these incidental findings on CT warrant further endoscopic examination.
Authors: Brian D Nicholson; Rachel Hyland; Bjorn J Rembacken; Mark Denyer; Mark A Hull; Damian J M Tolan Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2011-02-27 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Susan M Wolf; Frances P Lawrenz; Charles A Nelson; Jeffrey P Kahn; Mildred K Cho; Ellen Wright Clayton; Joel G Fletcher; Michael K Georgieff; Dale Hammerschmidt; Kathy Hudson; Judy Illes; Vivek Kapur; Moira A Keane; Barbara A Koenig; Bonnie S Leroy; Elizabeth G McFarland; Jordan Paradise; Lisa S Parker; Sharon F Terry; Brian Van Ness; Benjamin S Wilfond Journal: J Law Med Ethics Date: 2008 Impact factor: 1.718
Authors: Felix I Tellez-Avila; Sandra García-Osogobio; Norberto C Chavez-Tapia; Miguel Angel Ramirez-Luna; Ada Franco-Guzman; Antonio Sosa-Lozano; Marc Giovannini Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2009-01-01 Impact factor: 4.584