Advertisement

La radiologia medica

, Volume 115, Issue 7, pp 1038–1046 | Cite as

Evaluation of pericardial sinuses and recesses with 2-, 4-, 16-, and 64-row multidetector CT

  • C.A. OzmenEmail author
  • M.G. Akpinar
  • H.O. Akay
  • F.B. Demirkazik
  • M. Ariyurek
Cardiac Radiology/Cardioradiologia

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to describe visualisation rate and appearance of all pericardial sinuses and recesses and to evaluate whether there is a significant difference between visualisation of these sinuses and recesses on 2-, 4-, 16- and 64-slice multidetector computed tomography (MDCT).

Materials and methods

We retrospectively analysed 588 MDCT scans of the chest obtained with a protocol for pulmonary embolism.

Results

The visualisation rate of any pericardial recess was 85.2%. The rates on 2-, 4-, 16- and 64-slice MDCT were 74.7%, 90.6%, 90.3% and 88.7%, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference in visualisation rates of pericardial recesses between 2-slice MDCT and other MDCT systems (p<0.01). Age, and 4-, 16- and 64-slice MDCT versus 2-slice MDCT and the presence of pleural effusion appeared as significant predictors of the presence of any recess.

Conclusions

Visualisation rates of pericardial recesses are higher with 4-, 16- and 64-slice MDCT than with 2-slice MDCT. Therefore, radiologists need to be familiar with the different appearances of pericardial recesses on MDCT to avoid misdiagnosis.

Keywords

Pericardial recesses MDCT Anatomic pitfalls Chest imaging 

Valutazione dei seni e recessi pericardici con TC multistrato a 2-, 4-, 16- e 64- strati

Abstract

Obiettivo

Descrivere frequenza e aspetto di tutti i seni e recessi pericardici e valutare se vi sia differenza significativa nella loro visualizzazione con la tomografia computerizzata multidetettore (TCMS) a 2-, 4-, 16- o 64-strati.

Materiali e metodi

Sono stati retrospettivamente analizzati 588 esami TCMS del torace ottenuti con protocollo di studio per embolia polmonare.

Risultati

I recessi pericardici sono stati visualizzati nell’85,2% dei casi. La frequenza di visualizzazione con la TCMS a 2-, 4-, 16- e 64-strati è stata rispettivamente del 74,7%, 90,6%, 90,3% e 88,7%. La differenza nella frequenza di identificazione dei recessi pericardici è risultata significativa tra la TCMS a 2 strati e le TCMS con differente numero di strati (p<0,01). L’età del paziente, l’utilizzo della TCMS a 4-, 16- e 64-strati piuttosto che della TCMS a 2 strati e la presenza di effusione pleurica sono risultati essere significativamente correlati con la presenza di recessi.

Conclusioni

Il tasso di visualizzazione di recessi pericardici con la TCMS a 4-, 16- e 64-strati è risultato superiore rispetto a quello con la TCMS a 2 strati. Di conseguenza è necessario approfondire la conoscenza degli aspetti variabili dei recessi pericardici con la TCMS per evitare diagnosi errate.

Parole chiave

Recessi pericardici TCMS Anomalie anatomiche Imaging del torace 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References/Bibliografia

  1. 1.
    Vesely TM, Cahill DR (1986) Cross-sectional anatomy of the pericardial sinuses, recesses and adjacent structures. Surg Radiol Anat 8:221–227CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kubota H, Sato C, Ohgushi M et al (1996) Fluid collection in the pericardial sinuses and recesses. Invest Radiol 31:603–610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Protopapas Z, Westcott JL (1995) Left pulmonic recess of the pericardium: findings at CT and MR imaging. Radiology 196:85–88PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aronberg DJ, Peterson RR, Glazer HS et al (1984) The superior sinus of the pericardium: CT appearance. Radiology 153:489–492PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Choi YW, McAdams HP, Jeon SC et al (2000) The “high-riding” superior pericardial recess: CT findings. Am J Roentgenol AJR 175:1025–1028Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levy-Ravetch M, Auh YH, Rubenstein WA et al (1985) CT of the pericardial recesses. Am J Roentgenol AJR 144:707–714Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Budoff MJ, Lu B, Mao S et al (2000) Evaluation of fluid collection in the pericardial sinuses and recesses: noncontrast-enhanced electron beam tomography. Invest Radiol 35:359–365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kodama F, Fultz PJ, Wandtke JC (2003) Comparing thin-section and thick-section CT of pericardial sinuses and recesses. Am J Roentgenol AJR 181:1101–1108Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lumia D, Laganà D, Canì A et al (2009) MDCT evaluation of the cardiac venous system. Radiol Med 114:837–851CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Benini K, Marini M, Del Greco M et al (2008) Role of multidetector computed tomography in the anatomical definition of the left atrium-pulmonary vein complex in patients with atrial fibrillation. Personal experience and pictorial assay. Radiol Med 113:779–798CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Groell R, Schaffler GJ, Rienmueller R (1999) Pericardial sinuses and recesses: findings at electrocardiographically triggered electron-beam CT. Radiology 212:69–73PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Basile A, Bisceglie P, Giulietti G et al (2006) Prevalence of “high-riding” superior pericardial recesses on thinsection 16-MDCT scans. Eur J Radiol 59:265–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Truong MT, Erasmus JJ, Sabloff BS et al (2004) Pericardial “sleeve” recess of right inferior pulmonary vein mimicking adenopathy: computed tomography findings. J Comput Assist Tomogr 28:361–365CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Truong MT, Erasmus JJ, Gladish GW et al (2003) Anatomy of pericardial recesses on multidetector CT: implications for oncologic imaging. Am J Roentgenol AJR 181:1109–1113Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Batra P, Bigoni B, Manning J et al (2000) Pitfalls in the diagnosis of thoracic aortic dissection at CT angiography. Radiographics 20:309–320PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Chiles C, Baker ME, Silverman PM (1986) Superior pericardial recess simulating aortic dissection on computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 10:421–423PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ko JP, Drucker EA, Shepard JA et al (2000) CT depiction of regional nodal stations for lung cancer staging. Am J Roentgenol AJR 174:775–782Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shin MS, Jolles PR, Ho KJ (1986) CT evaluation of distended pericardial recess presenting as a mediastinal mass. J Comput Assist Tomogr 10:860–862CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Winer-Muram HT, Gold RE (1990) Effusion in the superior pericardial recess simulating a mediastinal mass. Am J Roentgenol AJR 154:69–71Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • C.A. Ozmen
    • 1
    Email author
  • M.G. Akpinar
    • 2
  • H.O. Akay
    • 1
  • F.B. Demirkazik
    • 2
  • M. Ariyurek
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyDicle University School of MedicineDiyarbakirTurkey
  2. 2.Department of RadiologyHacettepe University School of MedicineAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations