Advertisement

Complicated Peptic Ulcer Findings on Abdominal CT Scan

  • Bruno M. Pereira
  • Thiago J. Penachim
  • Gustavo P. Fraga
Chapter
Part of the Hot Topics in Acute Care Surgery and Trauma book series (HTACST)

Abstract

Complicated peptic ulcer disease (PUD) remains a common entity, and many times CT is the initial diagnostic test of choice to investigate patients with abdominal pain in the emergency setting. Recognition of CT signs of complicated PUD can be the key on making a timely diagnosis that is critical for appropriate management of patients who can be critically ill. Detailed CT examinations of the stomach can routinely be performed when water is used as an oral contrast agent, along with a rapid intravenous contrast material bolus and the thin collimation that is possible with new multidetector row CT scanners.

References

  1. 1.
    Lau JY, Sung J, Hill C, et al. Systematic review of the epidemiology of complicated peptic ulcer disease: incidence, recurrence, risk factors and mortality. Digestion. 2011;84:102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sung JJ, Tsoi KK, Ma TK, et al. Causes of mortality in patients with peptic ulcer bleeding: a prospective cohort study of 10,428 cases. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105:84.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Møller MH, Adamsen S, Thomsen RW, Møller AM. Preoperative prognostic factors for mortality in peptic ulcer perforation: a systematic review. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2010;45:785.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Noguiera C, Silva AS, Santos JN, et al. Perforated peptic ulcer: main factors of morbidity and mortality. World J Surg. 2003;27:782.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sharma SS, Mamtani MR, Sharma MS, Kulkarni H. A prospective cohort study of postoperative complications in the management of perforated peptic ulcer. BMC Surg. 2006;6:8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ghekiere O, Lesnik A, Hoa D, et al. Value of computed tomography in the diagnosis of the cause of nontraumatic gastro- intestinal tract perforation. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2007;31(2):169–76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bashinskaya B, Nahed BV, Redjal N, et al. Trends in peptic ulcer disease and the identification of Helicobacter Pylori as a causative organism: population-based estimates from the US Nationwide Inpatient Sample. J Glob Infect Dis. 2011;3:366.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leontiadis GI, Sreedharan A, Dorward S, et al. Systematic reviews of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of proton pump inhibitors in acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Health Technol Assess. 2007;11:iii–v.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jacobs JM, Hill MC, Steinberg WM. Peptic ulcer disease: CT evaluation. Radiology. 1991;178(3):745–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Behrman SW. Management of complicated peptic ulcer disease. Arch Surg. 2005;140(2):201–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Madrazo BL, Halpert RD, Sandler MA, Pearlberg JL. Computed tomographic findings in penetrating peptic ulcer. Radiology. 1984;153(3):751–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ongolo-Zogo P, Borson O, Garcia P, Gruner L, Valette PJ. Acute gastroduodenal peptic ulcer perforation: contrast-enhanced and thin-section spiral CT findings in 10 patients. Abdom Imaging. 1999;24(4):329–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Furukawa A, Sakoda M, Yamasaki M, et al. Gastrointestinal tract perforation: CT diagnosis of presence, site, and cause. Abdom Imaging. 2005;30(5):524–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pun E, Firkin A. Computed tomography and complicated peptic ulcer disease. Australas Radiol. 2004;48(4):516–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ramsay DW, Markham DH, Morgan B, Rodgers PM, Liddicoat AJ. The use of dilute Calogen as a fat density oral contrast medium in upper abdominal computed tomography, compared with the use of water and positive oral contrast media. Clin Radiol. 2001;56:670–3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thompson SE, Raptopoulos V, Sheiman RL, McNicholas MM, Prassopoulos P. Abdominal helical CT: milk as a low-attenuation oral contrast agent. Radiology. 1999;211:870–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Matsuoka Y, Masumoto T, Koga H, et al. Positive and negative oral contrast agents for combined abdominal and pelvic helical CT: first iodinated agent and second water. Radiat Med. 2000;18:213–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lee DH. Two-dimensional and three-dimensional imaging of gastric tumors using spiral CT. Abdom Imaging. 2000;25:1–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruno M. Pereira
    • 1
  • Thiago J. Penachim
    • 2
  • Gustavo P. Fraga
    • 3
  1. 1.Chief of the Division of Trauma Surgery, Department of SurgeryUniversity of CampinasCampinasBrazil
  2. 2.Division of Abdominal Radiology and Intervention, Department of Diagnostic ImagingUniversity of CampinasCampinasBrazil
  3. 3.Department of SurgeryUniversity of CampinasCampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations