Comparison between MRI and CEUS in the follow-up of patients with blunt abdominal trauma managed conservatively.

INTRODUCTION: Over the past two decades, there has been a shift toward non-operative treatment of patients undergoing a solid organ injury, thus requiring an increasing number of imaging studies to monitor the healing of lesions, which were performed by computed tomography (CT). In consideration of the use of ionizing radiation and contrast media, nowadays there is a trend toward the use contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the follow-up of blunt abdominal trauma. However CEUS has some limits, especially in the assessments of small lesions and in the evaluation of urinary tract lesions and vascular complications. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a useful alternative, since its lack of use of ionizing radiation, its panoramicity, the possibility to avoid contrast media and the ability to properly evaluate even small lesions. The aim of this study is to evaluate the usefulness and the feasibility of MRI in the follow-up of patients with low-grade blunt abdominal trauma.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of a cohort including 270 consecutive patients with a history of blunt abdominal trauma; among them, 118 underwent a high-energy trauma, and 152 a low-energy trauma. 124 patients had findings of abdominal injuries at the contrast-enhanced multidetector CT (CE-MDCT), including 68 from the group of major trauma and 56 from the group of minor trauma. 39 patients were operated for incoming lesions. The remaining 85 patients were treated conservatively. Eight patients underwent surgery later for delayed bleeding. The remaining 77 underwent the full follow-up protocol. Follow-up protocol included CEUS at 24 and 72 h and CEUS and MRI at 1 month after trauma; only MRI was performed until the complete resolution.
RESULTS: CEUS at 24-h and at 72-h from trauma showed a very good correlation with onset CE-MDCT in lesions staging. With respect to onset CE-MDCT, CEUS did not identified 2 adrenal injuries and 2 lesions of urinary tract, an intrinsic limit of this technique. CEUS performed at 1 month did not show traumatic lesions in 49/77 of patients. In the remaining 28/77 cases, CEUS demonstrated reduction of the size of the lesions ranging from 25 to 50%. MRI performed at 1 month from trauma did not show traumatic injuries in 37/77 patients; it demonstrated persistence of organ lesion in 40/77 patients. Therefore, in 12/77 patients MRI performed at 1-month demonstrated the persistence of minimal or moderate organ injury, while CEUS was completely negative. In addition, MRI allowed to enhance the persistence of adrenal lesions in 2 cases and the integrity of urinary tract in 2. In the remaining 28 patients, in which both CEUS and MRI showed disease persistence, MRI, however, allowed a better definition of injury extension with respect to CEUS, in terms of dimensions, edges, and morphological evolution. DISCUSSION AND
CONCLUSIONS: MRI allowed to make a better assessment of injuries than CEUS, allowing also a temporal stage of lesions. Infact, there are different evolution stages corresponding to accurate imaging findings. To our knowledge, this is the first study that describes the evolution of blood collection in parenchymal abdominal organs. Therefore, in patients who underwent abdominal traumatic injuries conservatively treated, the follow-up at 1 month can be made by MRI, due to its panoramicity and its high contrast resolution, which allow a better morphological and temporal trauma staging respect to the CEUS.