Masahiro Kitami1. 1. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to examine the utility of dynamic compression and other sonographic signs in diagnosing enteric duplication. METHODS: This study reviewed real-time sonographic findings from ultrasound examinations performed by the author between April 2015 and March 2017, including 4 consecutive cases of enteric duplication and 7 cases of other abdominal cysts (control group). The ability of dynamic compression to separate the lesion from the adjacent intestine was analyzed, as were other sonographic signs, including the 5-layer sign, peristalsis, and the split-wall sign. RESULTS: The 5-layer sign and peristalsis were seen in only 1 of 4 cases of enteric duplication. The split-wall sign was positive in all 4 cases of enteric duplication. In a case of gastric duplication, the split-wall sign was not detected during the first examination. One case showed an atypical white split wall, and 3 cases showed a pseudo-split wall; however, this pseudo-split wall was differentiated from the true split-wall sign using dynamic compression. The dynamic compression technique correctly differentiated enteric duplication from other abdominal cysts in all but 2 cases (82%). CONCLUSIONS: The 5-layer sign and peristalsis were not sensitive for enteric duplication. The split-wall sign may have the highest sensitivity and specificity for enteric duplication, but finding this sign is technically difficult and interpretation is complicated by atypical variations. Dynamic compression differentiated enteric duplication from other abdominal cysts with 82% accuracy, and this technique was simple to perform and easier to interpret than the split-wall sign.
OBJECTIVES: This study aims to examine the utility of dynamic compression and other sonographic signs in diagnosing enteric duplication. METHODS: This study reviewed real-time sonographic findings from ultrasound examinations performed by the author between April 2015 and March 2017, including 4 consecutive cases of enteric duplication and 7 cases of other abdominal cysts (control group). The ability of dynamic compression to separate the lesion from the adjacent intestine was analyzed, as were other sonographic signs, including the 5-layer sign, peristalsis, and the split-wall sign. RESULTS: The 5-layer sign and peristalsis were seen in only 1 of 4 cases of enteric duplication. The split-wall sign was positive in all 4 cases of enteric duplication. In a case of gastric duplication, the split-wall sign was not detected during the first examination. One case showed an atypical white split wall, and 3 cases showed a pseudo-split wall; however, this pseudo-split wall was differentiated from the true split-wall sign using dynamic compression. The dynamic compression technique correctly differentiated enteric duplication from other abdominal cysts in all but 2 cases (82%). CONCLUSIONS: The 5-layer sign and peristalsis were not sensitive for enteric duplication. The split-wall sign may have the highest sensitivity and specificity for enteric duplication, but finding this sign is technically difficult and interpretation is complicated by atypical variations. Dynamic compression differentiated enteric duplication from other abdominal cysts with 82% accuracy, and this technique was simple to perform and easier to interpret than the split-wall sign.