Imagen abdominal en urgencias: presentación interactiva de casos

 

1.  Educational Objectives
  • Identify common pitfalls in interpretation of blunt abdominal trauma CT studies
  • Optimize CT acquisition techniques to reduce likelihood of missing potentially significant injuries
  • Develop a search pattern that includes organs and areas where important lesions are commonly missed
2.  Sources of Error/Pitfalls
  • Improper MDCT technique
  • Degradation by artifacts
  • Patient-related factors: body habitus, low cardiac output, overhydration
  • Anatomic variants, pre-existent conditions
  • Potentially physiologic (vs. significant) findings
  • Subtle or difficult-to-perceive injuries (true misses)
3.  MDCT Technique
  • NO oral contrast
  • YES intravenous contrast at fast rate, saline chaser
  • Radiation modulation techniques to lower dose, BUT diagnostic quality should not be compromised
  • Routine orthogonal plane reformations
  • Number of phases: 1, 2 or 3?
  • CT cystography: full bladder, can be combined with delayed series
4.  CT Phases in Abdomino-Pelvic Trauma
  • PVP of upper abdomen (65 to 70 sec): detection of solid organ injury (peak parenchymal enhancement)
  • Second (third?) phases:
    • “Second look”: confirm questionable finding, characterize bleeds: active vs.contained vascular injury
  • Delayed (5 to 7 minutes):
    • Determine integrity of renal collecting system and ureters
  • Arterial (22 to 30 sec):
    • Optimal evaluation of vascular structures
  • Low radiation dose for delayed andarterial phases
5.  Multi-phasic imaging for Characterization of Bleeds
  • Active extravasation:
    • Not contained
    • Morphology and size change over time
    • Attenuation likely > aorta on delayed images
  • Pseudoaneurysm:
    • Contained
    • No change in morphology on delayed images
    • Attenuation similar to aorta
6.  Recommendation
  • ALWAYS:PVP Abdomen/Pelvis
  • Severe trauma ORinjury seen in PVP: at least one more phase (often two more):
    • Arterial phase of A/P: vessels, displaced pelvic
    • Delayed phase A/P: selective, findings on PVP
  • CT cystography: pelvic fracture/hematoma, gross hematuria
  • Radiation?:
    • NOT main concern in initialCT for major trauma
    • Arterial and delayed series: low radiation technique
7.  Problematic Anatomic Variants
  • Splenic clefts
    • very common finding
    • often source of confusion
    • clefts: well defined, linear, medial
    • true laceration: irregular, surrounded by blood
    • may be indistinguishable
8.  Easily (but important!) Missed Injuries

Lawson CM et al. Missed injuries in the era of the trauma scan. J Trauma 2011: 26,000+ trauma scans, > 8 years

  • Bowel and Mesentery
  • Pancreas
  • Diaphragm
  • Major vessels: arteries, veins
9.  Bowel Trauma
  • Challenging diagnosis: most commonly missed significant injury!
  • 1-2% abdominal trauma patients
  • Leading cause of failed conservative therapy and delayed laparotomy
  • Delay in diagnosis (8 hs!!) is important cause of morbidity and mortality in blunt trauma
10.  Mortality in Hollow Viscus Trauma
  • Independent risk factors for mortality:
  1. – Age (odds ratio [OR] = 1.04, p = 0.005)
  2. Presence of significant extra-abdominal injury (OR = 3.4, p = 043)
  3. Delay of more than 5 hours between admission and laparotomy(OR = 2, p = 0.0499)
  • 86% of deaths in patients who had a delay of >5 hours were because of abdominal-re- lated
11. CT Findings –Bowel Injury
  • Bowel wall discontinuity
  • Extraluminalair
  • Intramural hematoma/Intraluminalbleeding
  • Bowel wall thickening
  • Bowel wall enhancement
  • Pneumatosis
  • Free intra-or retroperitoneal fluid
12.  Bowel Wall Thickening as Sign of Injury
  • Unequivocal, localized thickening: contusion, hematoma, ischemia (i.e., “surgical” lesion)
  • Associated high attenuation free fluid
  • Triangular accumulations of fluid between leaves of mesentery
  • Diffuse thickening: hypoperfusion complex (“shock bowel”)
    • Additional associated findings
13.  Free Fluid in Trauma
  • Free fluid in peritoneal cavity
    • Often with solid organ injury
    • ? hollow viscus injury
  • Isolated free pelvic fluid in females
    • Physiologic
  • Isolated free fluid males
    • Raises suspicion of occult injury
14.  Isolated Free Fluid in Males:Physiologic or Significant?
  • Drasin E et al(AJR ’08): 669 consecutive males
  1. 8% isolated finding
  2. Mean attenuation= 10.6 HU
  3. 0 proven bowel injury

 

  • Yu J et al (Radiology ‘10): 1000males
  1. 8% isolated fluid, all below S3 vertebral body
  2. Mean attenuation= 8.1 HU
  3. 0 proven bowel injury
  • Likely cause: IV fluids for resuscitation
15.  Management Implications
  • Isolated free fluid in males after blunt trauma
  • Carefully scrutinize for direct signs of bowel or mesenteric injury
  • Recommendation:
  • Admit
  • Observe for at least 24 hs
  • Optional: Repeat CT with oral contrast, 12 hs later (earlier if abdominal pain develops)
  • No mandatory exploration

 

16.  Extraluminal Air
  • Intra-or retroperitoneal
  • Appropriate window settings (lung or bone)
  • Sensitivity: 50-75%, may appear over time!
  • Pitfalls (FP, ):
    • DPL
    • Barotrauma and mechanical ventilation
    • Bladder rupture
    • “Pseudopneumoperitoneum” -Extraperitoneal

 

17.  Pseudopneumoperitoneum
  • Air trappedbetweenabdominal walland peritoneum
  • Foundwithextraperitonealrectal injuries, ribfractures, pneumothoraxorpneumomediasti- num
  • Maycoexistwithpneumoperitoneum!
  • Troubleshooting:
    • true pneumoperitoneum: + collectionsof gas deeperin abdomen oradjacenttoruptu- redviscus
    • ifin doubt: delayedimagesordecubitusseries
18.  Pancreatic Trauma
  • Uncommon injury: ~ 2% patients admitted with blunt trauma
  • …but important!
    • 20% mortality: majority occur in initial 48 hours
    • Early deaths: acute hemorrhage
    • Delayed complications tardias: fistula, abscess, hemorrhage, sepsis

 

19.  Imaging the Pancreatic Duct
  • MDCT may demonstrate duct directly
  • Injury also predicted by depth of laceration
  • Pancreatography: MRCP, ERCP
  • Advantages of MRCP:
    • Non-invasive, no radiation!
    • Used mostly for surveillance and follow-up
  • Advantages of ERCP:
    • Complete visualization of pancreatic duct
    • Ability to diagnose injury and treatment in some patients: stent placement

 

20.  MR in Pancreatic Trauma
  • Why?
  • Confirm / clarify questionable CT findings
  • Evaluation of pancreatic duct: non-invasive alternative to ERP
  • Follow-up of panc lacs: young patients/children (radiation)
  • Monitoring of fluid collections / duct stenosis

 

21.  Pancreas: Problematic Variants
  • Pancreatic clefts
    • linear hypoattenuating defects oriented perpendicular to long axis of the gland
    • usually contain fat
  • Lobulations, fatty replacement
    • Anatomic variants common, usually in the head, may mimic laceration
    • Fatty replacement: elderly, obese, diabetics
  • Solution: delayed images (5 to 7 min), repeat CT (24 to 48 hours), MR as problem solver

 

22.  Diaphragmatic injuries
  • Sensitivity of CT traditionally considered low
  • Right hemidiaphragm especially problematic
  • MDCT:
    • Spatial resolution: subtle findings
    • Multi-planar reformations
  • Multiple signs described
  • Direct discontinuity and abnormal location of abdominal viscera

 

23.  Major Vascular Injuries
  • Rare, highly lethal
  • Rapid deceleration, direct crush injury, flex-ext
  • Findings: active extravasation, pseudoaneurysms, dissections, intimal flaps, thrombosis

 

24.  Summary: Avoiding Traps
  • Multiple phases: rational use, be aware of radiation dose but do not cut corners!
  • Routine orthogonal MPR’s
  • Search specifically for easily missed significant injuries: bowel, pancreas, diaphragm, vessels
  • ? Significant injury on initial CT: admit, observe, repeat CT if necessary (bowel: short interval)