D H Jamieson1, P S Babyn, R Pearl. 1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging, The Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X8, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the role of imaging, in particular CT, in the early detection of GI perforation. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In a 10-year period, 43 patients with surgically confirmed GI perforation were identified from hospital records; 22 of these had preoperative CT evaluation. Medical records and radiology were retrospectively reviewed and CT studies were particularly assessed for extraluminal air, free intraperitoneal fluid, bowel wall thickening, bowel wall enhancement, and bowel dilatation. During the study period an additional 12 trauma patients were identified who had CT studies demonstrating the above findings, but who had hypovolemic shock bowel or nondisrupting bowel injury without perforation evident. RESULTS: Extraluminal air was demonstrated in 47 % of the imaged perforations. There was one false-positive extraluminal air. Perforation was confirmed in patients who had all five of the above CT findings, but this was the case for only 18 % of patients with perforation. One or more of the five specified CT findings were present in all CT studies reviewed. No false-negative CT study was performed in the study period. CONCLUSION: Separating nondisrupting bowel injury from perforation is diagnostically difficult; however, CT remains a good modality for assessing GI perforation in pediatric blunt trauma, but it cannot replace diligent and repeated clinical evaluation of all potential perforation victims.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the role of imaging, in particular CT, in the early detection of GI perforation. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: In a 10-year period, 43 patients with surgically confirmed GI perforation were identified from hospital records; 22 of these had preoperative CT evaluation. Medical records and radiology were retrospectively reviewed and CT studies were particularly assessed for extraluminal air, free intraperitoneal fluid, bowel wall thickening, bowel wall enhancement, and bowel dilatation. During the study period an additional 12 traumapatients were identified who had CT studies demonstrating the above findings, but who had hypovolemic shock bowel or nondisrupting bowel injury without perforation evident. RESULTS: Extraluminal air was demonstrated in 47 % of the imaged perforations. There was one false-positive extraluminal air. Perforation was confirmed in patients who had all five of the above CT findings, but this was the case for only 18 % of patients with perforation. One or more of the five specified CT findings were present in all CT studies reviewed. No false-negative CT study was performed in the study period. CONCLUSION: Separating nondisrupting bowel injury from perforation is diagnostically difficult; however, CT remains a good modality for assessing GI perforation in pediatric blunt trauma, but it cannot replace diligent and repeated clinical evaluation of all potential perforation victims.