Advertisement

Emergency Radiology

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 29–37 | Cite as

Comparison of computed tomography-enteroclysis and traditional computed tomography in the setting of suspected partial small bowel obstruction

  • Daniel W. Walsh
  • Gregory N. Bender
  • H. Timmons
Original Article

Abstract

Traditional computed tomography (CT) is sometimes limited in its ability to diagnose partial small bowel obstruction (SBO), especially if low grade. Standard enteroclysis is sensitive in diagnosing partial SBO; however, extraluminal abnormalities are not well visualized. CT-enteroclysis (CT-E) offers both crosssectional imaging and a contrast volume challenge. CT-E is compared to traditional abdominal/pelvic CT to identify any group(s) of patients who might benefit from having CT-E as the front-line examination.

We performed a retrospective review of 36 patients who underwent both CT-E and traditional CT in the evaluation of suspected partial SBO. Chart review and surgical results were used as gold standards. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated and compared for each modality. Chart review was performed to identify the major referral categories for utilization review.

Two referral categories were identified: (1) patients with a history of malignancy (N=15), and (2) patients with a benign medical or surgical history (N=21). Overall, CT-E was more sensitive (89%; 16 of 18 patients) in diagnosing partial SBO than was traditional CT (50%; 9 of 18). This was especially evident when considering only patients who presented with a history of malignancy. Of these patients, CT-E was 100% sensitive (8 of 8), whereas traditional CT was only 25% sensitive (2 of 8). The specificity of each modality was almost equivalent (100% for CT-E vs. 94% for CT). Of the patients with malignancy, CT-E was able to identify tumor involvement of the small bowel with 100% sensitivity (7 of 7), as compared with only 57% (4 of 7) for traditional CT.

In patients with malignancy, CT-E was found to be superior to traditional CT in identifying partial SBO and in identifying small bowel intraluminal or intramural disease. The greater strength of CT-E is its superiority in excluding disease of the small bowel, a desired trait in the management of patients with malignancy.

Key Words

Obstruction small bowel Enteroclysis Computed tomography CT-enteroclysis Malignancy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Maglinte DDT, Gage SN, Harmon BH, et al. Obstruction of the small intestine: accuracy and role of CT in diagnosis. Radiology 1993;188:61–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shrake PD, Rex DK, Lappas JC, Maglinte DDT. Radiographic evaluation of suspected small bowel obstruction. Am J Gastroenterol 1991;86:175–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bender GN, Timmons JH, Williard WC, Carter J. Computed tomographic enteroclysis: one methodology. Invest Radiol 1996;31:43–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maglinte DDT, Reyes BL, Harmon BH, et al. Reliability and role of plain film radiography and CT in the diagnosis of small-bowel obstruction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:1451–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herlinger H, Maglinte DDT. Small bowel obstruction. In: Herlinger H, Maglinte DDT, editors. Clinical radiology of the small bowel. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1989;479–509.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Megibow AJ, Balthazar EJ, Cho KC, Medwid SW, Birnbaum BA, Noz ME. Bowel obstruction: evaluation with CT. Radiology 1991;180:313–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fukuya T, Hawes DR, Lu CC, Chang PJ, Barloon TJ. CT diagnosis of small-bowel obstruction: efficacy in 60 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1992;158:765–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maglinte DDT, Herlinger H, Turner WW Jr, Kelvin FM. Radiologic management of small bowel obstruction: a practical approach. Emerg Radiol 1994;1:138–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Maglinte DDT, Kelvin FM, O’Connor K, Lappas JC, Chernish SM. Current status of small bowel radiography. Abdom Imaging 1996;21:247–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Welch JP. General consideration and mortality in bowel obstruction. In: Welch JP, editor. Bowel obstruction: differential diagnosis and clinical management. Philadelphia: WB Saunders, 1990; 59–95.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Taourel PG, Fabre VM, Pradel JA, et al. Value of CT in diagnosis and management of patients with suspected acute small-bowel obstruction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995;165:1187–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frager D, Medwid SW, Baer JW, Mollinelli B, Friedman M. CT of small-bowel obstruction: value in establishing the diagnosis and determining the degree and cause. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;162:37–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maglinte DDT, Lappas JC, Kelvin FM, Rex D, Chernish SM. Small bowel radiography: how, when and why? Radiology 1987;163:297–305.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Balthazar EJ. CT of small-bowel obstruction. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1994;162:255–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mucha P. Small intestinal obstruction. Surg Clin North Am 1987;67:597–620.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ketcham AS, Hoye RC, Pilch YH, Morton DL. Delayed intestinal obstruction folliwing treatment for cancer. Cancer 1970;25:406–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Osteen RT, Guyton S, Steele G Jr, Wilson RE. Malignant intestinal obstruction. Surgery 1980;87:611–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maglinte DDT, Miller RE, Lappas JC. Radiologic diagnosis of occult incisional hernias of the small intestine. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1984;142:931–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Society of Emergency Radiology 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel W. Walsh
    • 1
  • Gregory N. Bender
    • 1
  • H. Timmons
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyMadigan Army Medical CenterTacoma

Personalised recommendations