Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The value of repeat scintigraphy in patients with a high clinical suspicion for Meckel diverticulum after a negative or equivocal first Meckel scan

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Pediatric Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Technetium 99mTc-pertechnetate is the most common and accurate noninvasive method of preoperative investigation for Meckel diverticulum. Despite introducing various methods to increase the sensitivity of the study, there are many case reports of false-negative Meckel scans. A repeat scan is sometimes requested in patients with a high suspicion for Meckel diverticulum and negative or equivocal first Meckel scan.

Objectives

The purpose of this retrospective study is to evaluate the value of repeat scintigraphy for these patients.

Materials and methods

Seven hundred fifty-three Meckel scans were recorded retrospectively. In 33 cases (22 male and 11 female; mean age: 6.8 years), the Meckel scintigraphy was repeated either due to a high clinical suspicion of Meckel diverticulum and a negative study (n = 21) or due to equivocal findings in the first scan (n = 12). The study was interpreted as positive if an abnormal focal activity was identified in the abdomen and pelvis during the procedure. The results were correlated with pathology and clinical symptoms.

Results

Seven out of 12 (58%) equivocal studies were positive on the second study. Six of them were proven to be positive at operation (confirmed by pathology) while one of them was negative on laparoscopy. From 21 negative first scans with a high suspicion for Meckel diverticulum, three (14%) were positive on the second study. All three were proven to be Meckel diverticulum on pathology.

Conclusion

Repeat Meckel scans in patients with equivocal findings on the first study or a negative result with a high clinical suspicion for a Meckel diverticulum are useful especially in cases in which the first study had been done without appropriate preparation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Satya R, O’Malley JP (2005) Case 86: Meckel diverticulum with massive bleeding. Radiology 236:836–840

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Park JJ, Wolff BG, Tollefson MK et al (2005) Meckel diverticulum: the Mayo Clinic experience with 1476 patients (1950–2002). Ann Surg 241:529–533

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Matsagas MI, Fatouros M, Koulouras B et al (1995) Incidence, complications, and management of Meckel’s diverticulum. Arch Surg 130:143–146

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sfakianakis GN, Conway JJ (1981) Detection of ectopic gastric mucosa in Meckel’s diverticulum and in other aberrations by scintigraphy: ii. indications and methods–a 10-year experience. J Nucl Med 22:732–738

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bemelman WA, Hugenholtz E, Heij HA et al (1995) Meckel’s diverticulum in Amsterdam: experience in 136 patients. World J Surg 19:734–736

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Elsayes KM, Menias CO, Harvin HJ et al (2007) Imaging manifestations of Meckel’s diverticulum. AJR Am J Roentgenol 189:81–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Wilton G, Froelich JW (1982) The “false-negative” Meckel’s scan. Clin Nucl Med 7:441–443

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Ariga M, Suga K, Matsunaga N et al (2001) Failure to detect a huge Meckel’s diverticulum with abundant ectopic gastric mucosa on gastric mucosal scintigraphy with Tc-99 m pertechnetate. Clin Nucl Med 26:470–471

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Sharma RK, Jain VK (2008) Emergency surgery for Meckel’s diverticulum. World J Emerg Surg 3:27

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tulchinsky M (2006) Meckel’s scan: pitfall in patients with active small bowel bleeding. Clin Nucl Med 31:814–816

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gelfand MJ, Parisi MT, Treves ST et al (2011) Pediatric radiopharmaceutical administered doses: 2010 North American consensus guidelines. J Nucl Med 52:318–322

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Schwartz MJ, Lewis JH (1984) Meckel’s diverticulum: pitfalls in scintigraphic detection in the adult. Am J Gastroenterol 79:611–618

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Petrokubi RJ, Baum S, Rohrer GV (1978) Cimetidine administration resulting in improved pertechnetate imaging of Meckel’s diverticulum. Clin Nucl Med 3:385–388

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Singh PR, Russell CD, Dubovsky EV et al (1978) Technique of scanning for Meckel’s diverticulum. Clin Nucl Med 3:188–192

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Rerksuppaphol S, Hutson JM, Oliver MR (2004) Ranitidine-enhanced 99mtechnetium pertechnetate imaging in children improves the sensitivity of identifying heterotopic gastric mucosa in Meckel’s diverticulum. Pediatr Surg Int 20:323–325

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Datz FL, Taylor A Jr (1985) Utility of bladder lavage in Meckel’s scanning. Clin Nucl Med 10:804–806

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Dillman JR, Wong KK, Brown RK et al (2009) Utility of SPECT/CT with Meckel’s scintigraphy. Ann Nucl Med 23:813–815

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schneider P, Duren C, Reiners C (2010) SPECT-CT image fusion could enhance Meckel scan. World J Pediatr 6:281

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Papathanassiou D, Liehn JC, Meneroux B et al (2007) SPECT-CT of Meckel diverticulum. Clin Nucl Med 32:218–220

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sagar J, Kumar V, Shah DK (2006) Meckel’s diverticulum: a systematic review. J R Soc Med 99:501–505

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Spottswood SE, Pfluger T, Bartold SP et al (2014) SNMMI and EANM practice guideline for meckel diverticulum scintigraphy 2.0. J Nucl Med Technol 42:163–169

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflicts of interest

None

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Diagnostic Imaging, Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Ave., Toronto, M5G 1X8, Canada

    Reza Vali, Alan Daneman, Susan McQuattie & Amer Shammas

Authors
  1. Reza Vali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alan Daneman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Susan McQuattie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Amer Shammas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Reza Vali.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vali, R., Daneman, A., McQuattie, S. et al. The value of repeat scintigraphy in patients with a high clinical suspicion for Meckel diverticulum after a negative or equivocal first Meckel scan. Pediatr Radiol 45, 1506–1514 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-015-3340-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-015-3340-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation