Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Non-traumatic acute bowel disease: differential diagnosis with 64-row MDCT

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

Abstract

To evaluate the role of 64-row multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in the differential diagnosis of non-traumatic acute bowel disease. We retrospectively reviewed CT findings of 57 patients (29 men and 28 women; mean age, 65.5 years, range 19–99) who presented to our institutions with symptoms of acute abdomen. All patients underwent MDCT. MDCT diagnosis was compared with surgical findings and histological examinations. A total concordance between the MDCT findings and discharge diagnosis (based on surgical findings and histological examinations) was found in 47/57 cases (82.4%); partial discordance was seen in 10 of 57 cases (17.5%) and discordance in 0 of 57 (0%) cases. The overall sensitivity of MDCT was 82.4%. MDCT is a very reliable method in the diagnostic management of non-traumatic acute bowel diseases allowing a fast and precise differential diagnosis and therefore a timely treatment.

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
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Marincek B (2002) Nontraumatic abdominal emergencies: acute abdominal pain: diagnostic strategies. Eur Radiol 12:2136–2150

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Werner A, Diehl SJ, Farag-Soliman M, Duber C (2003) Multislice spiral CT in routine diagnosis of suspected acute left-sided colonic diverticulitis: a prospective study of 120 patients. Eur Radiol 13:2596–2603

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Grassi R, Di Mizio R, Pinto A, Romano L, Rotondo A (2004) Serial plain abdominal film findings in the assessment of acute abdomen: spastic ileus, hypotonic ileus, mechanical ileus and paralytic ileus. Radiol Med 108:56–70

    Google Scholar 

  4. Leschka S, Alkadhi H, Wildermuth S, Marincek B (2005) Multi-detector computed tomography of acute abdomen. Eur Radiol 15:2435–2447

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ahn SH, Mayo-Smith WW, Murphy BL, Reinert SE, Cronan JJ (2002) Acute nontraumatic abdominal pain in adult patients: abdominal radiography compared with CT evaluation. Radiology 225:159–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Funaki B, Grosskreuts SR, Funaki CN (1998) Using unenhanced helical CT with enteric contrast material for suspected appendicitis in patients treated at a community hospital. AJR 171:997–1001

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Lane MJ, Liu DM, Huynh MD, Jeffrey RB Jr, Mindelzun RE, Katz DS (1999) Suspected acute appendicitis: nonenhanced helical CT in 300 consecutive patients. Radiology 213:341–346

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Stroman DL, Bayouth CV, Kuhn JA, Westmoreland M, Jones RC, Fisher TL, McCarty TM (1999) The role of computed tomography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Am J Surg 178:485–489

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Horton MD, Counter SF, Florence MG, Hart MJ (2000) A prospective trial of computed tomography and ultrasonography for diagnosing appendicitis in the atypical patient. Am J Surg 179:379–381

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Pickuth D, Spielmann RP (2001) Unenhanced spiral CT for evaluating acute appendicitis in daily routine. A prospective study. Hepatogastroenterology 48:140–142

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wong SK, Chan LP, Yeo A (2002) Helical CT imaging of clinically suspected appendicitis: correlation of CT and histological findings. Clin Radiol 57:741–745

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hershko DD, Sroka G, Bahouth H, Ghersin E, Mahajna A, Krausz MM (2002) The role of selective computed tomography in the diagnosis and management of suspected acute appendicitis. Am Surg 68:1003–1007

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Holloway JA, Westerbuhr LM, Chain J, Forney GA, White TW, Hushes RJ, Blankenship JD (2003) Is appendiceal computed tomography in a community hospital useful. Am J Surg 186:682–684

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Paulson EK, Harris JP, Jaffe TA, Haugan PA, Nelson RC (2005) Acute appendicitis: added diagnostic value of coronal reformations from isotropic voxels at multi-detector row CT. Radiology 235:879–985

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Iwahashi N, Kitagawa Y, Mayumi T, Kohno H (2005) Intravenous contrast-enhanced computed tomography in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. World J Surg 29:83–87

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ambrosetti P, Becker C, Terrier F (2002) Colonic diverticulitis: impact of imaging on surgical management—a prospective study of 542 patients. Eur Radiol 12:1145–1149

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Rao PM, Rhea JT, Novelline RA, Dobbins JM, Lawrason JN, Sacknoff R, Stuk JL (1998) Helical CT with only colonic contrast material for diagnosing diverticulitis: prospective evaluation of 150 patients. AJR 170:1445–1449

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Kircher MF, Rhea JT, Kihiczac D, Novelline RA (2002) Frequency, sensitivity, and specificity of individual signs of diverticulitis on thin-section helical CT with colonic contrast material: experience with 312 cases. AJR 178:1313–1318

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Peck JJ, Milleson T, Phelan J (1999) The role of computed tomography with contrast and small bowel follow-through in management of small bowel obstruction. Am J Surg 177:375–378

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Beall DP, Fortman BJ, Lawler BC, Regan F (2002) Imaging bowel obstruction: a comparison between fast magnetic resonance imaging and helical computed tomography. Clin Radiol 57:719–724

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Jaffe TA, Martin LC, Thomas J, Adamson AR, DeLong DM, Paulson EK (2006) Small-bowel obstruction: coronal reformations from isotropic voxels at 16-section multidetector row CT. Radiology 238:135–142

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. La Seta F, Buccellato A, Tesè L, Biscaldi E, Rollandi GA, Barbiera F, Cappabianca S, Di Mizio R, Grassi R (2006) Multidetector-row CT enteroclysis: indications and clinical applications. Radiol Med 111:141–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Balthazar EJ, Liebeskind ME, Macari M (1997) Intestinal ischemia in patients in whom small bowel obstruction is suspected: evaluation of accuracy, limitations, and clinical implications of CT in diagnosis. Radiology 205:519–522

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Donckier V, Closet J, Van Gansbeke D, Zalcman M, Sy M, Houben JJ, Lambilliotte JP (1998) Contribution of computed tomography to decision making in the management of adhesive small bowel obstruction. Br J Surg 85:1071–1074

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Makanjuola D (1998) Computed tomography compared with small bowel enema in clinically equivocal intestinal obstruction. Clin Radiol 53:203–208

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Zalcman M, Sy M, Donckier V, Closset J, Gansbeke DV (2000) Helical CT signs in the diagnosis of intestinal ischemia in small-bowel obstruction. AJR 175:1601–1607

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Obuz F, Terzi C, Sokmen S, Yilmaz E, Yildiz D, Fuzun M (2003) The efficacy of helical CT in the diagnosis of small bowel obstruction. Eur J Radiol 48:299–304

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim JH, Ha HK, Kim JK, Eun HW, Park KB, Kim BS, Kim TK, Kim JC, Auh JH (2004) Usefulness of known computed tomography and clinical criteria for diagnosing strangulation in small bowel obstruction: analysis of true and false interpretation groups in computed tomography. World J Surg 28:63–68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Scaglione M, Grassi R, Pinto A, Giovine S, Gagliardi N, Stavolo C, Romano L (2004) Positive predictive value and negative predictive value of spiral CT in the diagnosis of closed loop obstruction complicated by intestinal ischemia. Radiol Med 107:69–77

    Google Scholar 

  30. Pinto A, Scaglione M, Giovine S, Romano S, Lassandro F, Grassi R, Romano L (2004) Comparison between the site of multislice CT signs of gastrointestinal perforation and the site of perforation detected at surgery in forty perforated patients. Radiol Med 108:208–217

    Google Scholar 

  31. Catalano O (1996) Computed tomography in the study of gastrointestinal perforation. Radiol Med 91:247–252

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Grassi R, Di Mizio R, Pinto A, Cioffi A, Romano L, Rotondo A (1996) Sixty-one consecutive patients with gastrointestinal perforation: comparison of conventional radiology, ultrasonography and computerized tomography, in terms of the timing of the study. Radiol Med 91:747–755

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Grassi R, Romano S, Pinto A, Romano L (2004) Gastro-duodenal perforations: Conventional plain film, US and CT findings in 166 consecutive patients. Eur J Radiol 50:30–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Lohrmann C, Ghanem N, Pache G, Makowiec F, Kotter E, Langer M (2005) CT in acute perforated sigmoid diverticulitis. Eur J Radiol 56:78–83

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Di Mizio R, Rollandi GA, Bellomi M, Meloni GB, Cappabianca S, Grassi R (2006) Multidetector-row helical CT enteroclysis. Radiol Med 111:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rollandi GA, Curone PF, Biscaldi E, Nardi F, Bonifacino E, Conzi R, Derchi LE (1999) Spiral CT of the abdomen after distension of small bowel loops with transparent enema in patients with Crohn’s disease. Abdom Imaging 24:544–549

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Ospedale di Circolo e Fondazione Macchi, University of Insubria, Viale Borri, 57-21100, Varese, Italy

    Monica Mangini, Gianpaolo Carrafiello, Domenico Laganà, Laura Palma, Carlo Neri & Carlo Fugazzola

  2. Department of Medical Physic, Ospedale di Circolo e Fondazione Macchi, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy

    Raffele Novario

  3. Department of Surgery, Ospedale di Circolo e Fondazione Macchi, University of Insubria, Varese, Italy

    Gianlorenzo Dionigi

Authors
  1. Monica Mangini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gianpaolo Carrafiello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Domenico Laganà
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Laura Palma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Raffele Novario
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gianlorenzo Dionigi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Carlo Neri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Carlo Fugazzola
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gianpaolo Carrafiello.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mangini, M., Carrafiello, G., Laganà, D. et al. Non-traumatic acute bowel disease: differential diagnosis with 64-row MDCT. Emerg Radiol 15, 171–178 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-007-0692-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-007-0692-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation