Ferhat Cengel1, Mesut Bulakci2, Tuba Selcuk3,4, Yildiray Savas5, Muhammet Ceyhan6, Ayhan Kocak7, Cigdem Ozkara Bilgili8. 1. Department of Radiology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Millet Caddesi, Aksaray, 34096, Istanbul, Turkey. doc_20_1@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Radiology, Istanbul Faculty of Medicine, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey. mesutbulakci@yahoo.com. 3. Department of Radiology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Millet Caddesi, Aksaray, 34096, Istanbul, Turkey. drtubas@gmail.com. 4. Department of Medical Sciences, Istanbul Gelisim University, Istanbul, Turkey. drtubas@gmail.com. 5. Department of Radiology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Millet Caddesi, Aksaray, 34096, Istanbul, Turkey. ysavas15@gmail.com. 6. Department of Radiology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Millet Caddesi, Aksaray, 34096, Istanbul, Turkey. dr.mcey@hotmail.com. 7. Department of Radiology, Haseki Training and Research Hospital, Millet Caddesi, Aksaray, 34096, Istanbul, Turkey. dr.ayhankocak@hotmail.com. 8. Department of Radiology, Bayrampasa State Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey. dr.cigdembilgili@yahoo.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigated the sonographic properties of drug packets containing narcotic drugs and the diagnostic role of ultrasonography in detecting body packing in comparison with CT. METHODS: Forty-five suspects admitted to our hospital for diagnosis and management were routinely evaluated by non-contrast CT for the presence of drug packets. A single radiologist blind to CT data independently performed the abdominal ultrasonographic scans. RESULTS: Thirty-five of 45 suspects were carrying packets. In positive cases, two types of packets with different properties were noted. Twenty-eight cases had type 1 packets (solid form drug) and 7 had type 2 packets (liquid form cocaine). The sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values of ultrasonography for detecting drug packets were 91%, 70%, 91%, and 70%, respectively. Ultrasonography accurately determined the presence or absence of packs in 39 of 45 suspects. CONCLUSION: Ultrasonography was found to have a high sensitivity but a low specificity in suspected cases. A negative ultrasonography cannot rule out the diagnosis of body packing. However, it may be preferred as the initial imaging method or for follow-up of suspected cases as a radiation-free, easy-to-use, and inexpensive technique.
PURPOSE: This study investigated the sonographic properties of drug packets containing narcotic drugs and the diagnostic role of ultrasonography in detecting body packing in comparison with CT. METHODS: Forty-five suspects admitted to our hospital for diagnosis and management were routinely evaluated by non-contrast CT for the presence of drug packets. A single radiologist blind to CT data independently performed the abdominal ultrasonographic scans. RESULTS: Thirty-five of 45 suspects were carrying packets. In positive cases, two types of packets with different properties were noted. Twenty-eight cases had type 1 packets (solid form drug) and 7 had type 2 packets (liquid form cocaine). The sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values of ultrasonography for detecting drug packets were 91%, 70%, 91%, and 70%, respectively. Ultrasonography accurately determined the presence or absence of packs in 39 of 45 suspects. CONCLUSION: Ultrasonography was found to have a high sensitivity but a low specificity in suspected cases. A negative ultrasonography cannot rule out the diagnosis of body packing. However, it may be preferred as the initial imaging method or for follow-up of suspected cases as a radiation-free, easy-to-use, and inexpensive technique.
Keywords:
Abdominal ultrasound; Body packing; Computed tomography; Drug smuggling