Dataset Information

Gastrointestinal perforation: clinical and MDCT clues for identification of aetiology.

ABSTRACT: Gastrointestinal tract (GIT) perforation is a common medical emergency associated with considerable mortality, ranging from 30 to 50%. Clinical presentation varies: oesophageal perforations can present with acute chest pain, odynophagia and vomiting, gastroduodenal perforations with acute severe abdominal pain, while colonic perforations tend to follow a slower progression course with secondary bacterial peritonitis or localised abscesses. A subset of patients may present with delayed symptoms, abscess mimicking an abdominal mass, or with sepsis.Direct multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) findings support the diagnosis and localise the perforation site while ancillary findings may suggest underlying conditions that need further investigation following primary repair of ruptured bowel. MDCT findings include extraluminal gas, visible bowel wall discontinuity, extraluminal contrast, bowel wall thickening, abnormal mural enhancement, localised fat stranding and/or free fluid, as well as localised phlegmon or abscess in contained perforations.The purpose of this article is to review the spectrum of MDCT findings encountered in GIT perforation and emphasise the MDCT and clinical clues suggestive of the underlying aetiology and localisation of perforation site.

SUBMITTER: Pouli S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7035412 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Gastrointestinal perforation: clinical and MDCT clues for identification of aetiology.

Pouli Styliani S Kozana Androniki A Papakitsou Ioanna I Daskalogiannaki Maria M Raissaki Maria M

Insights into imaging 20200221 1

Gastrointestinal tract (GIT) perforation is a common medical emergency associated with considerable mortality, ranging from 30 to 50%. Clinical presentation varies: oesophageal perforations can present with acute chest pain, odynophagia and vomiting, gastroduodenal perforations with acute severe abdominal pain, while colonic perforations tend to follow a slower progression course with secondary bacterial peritonitis or localised abscesses. A subset of patients may present with delayed symptoms, ...[more]

PMID: 32086627

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimTo investigate the safety and efficacy of adding bevacizumab to first-line chemotherapy in metastatic colorectal cancer patients with peritoneal disease.MethodsWe compared rates of gastrointestinal perforation in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer and peritoneal disease receiving first-line chemotherapy with and without bevacizumab in three distinct cohorts: (1) the AGITG MAX trial (Phase III randomised clinical trial comparing capecitabine vs capecitabine and bevacizumab vs capecitabine, bevacizumab and mitomycinC); (2) the prospective Treatment of Recurrent and Advanced Colorectal Cancer (TRACC) registry (any first-line regimen ± bevacizumab); and (3) two cancer centres in New South Wales, Australia [Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centre and Liverpool Cancer Therapy Centre (NSWCC) from January 2005 to Decenber 2012, (any first-line regimen ± bevacizumab). For the AGITG MAX trial capecitabine was compared to the other two arms (capecitabine/bevacizumab and capecitabine/bevacizumab/mitomycinC). In the AGITG MAX trial and the TRACC registry rates of gastrointestinal perforation were also collected in patients who did not have peritoneal metastases. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival, chemotherapy duration, and overall survival. Time-to-event outcomes were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test.ResultsEighty-four MAX, 179 TRACC and 69 NSWCC patients had peritoneal disease. There were no gastrointestinal perforations recorded in either the MAX subgroup or the NSWCC cohorts. Of the patients without peritoneal disease in the MAX trial, 4/300 (1.3%) in the bevacizumab arms had gastrointestinal perforations compared to 1/123 (0.8%) in the capecitabine alone arm. In the TRACC registry 3/126 (2.4%) patients who had received bevacizumab had a gastrointestinal perforation compared to 1/53 (1.9%) in the chemotherapy alone arm. In a further analysis of patients without peritoneal metastases in the TRACC registry, the rate of gastrointestinal perforations was 9/369 (2.4%) in the chemotherapy/bevacizumab group and 5/177 (2.8%) in the chemotherapy alone group. The addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy was associated with improved progression-free survival in all three cohorts: MAX 6.9 m vs 4.9 m, HR = 0.64 (95%CI: 0.42-1.02); P = 0.063; TRACC 9.1 m vs 5.5 m, HR = 0.61 (95%CI: 0.37-0.86); P = 0.009; NSWCC 8.7 m vs 6.8 m, HR = 0.75 (95%CI: 0.43-1.32); P = 0.32. Chemotherapy duration was similar across the groups.ConclusionPatients with peritoneal disease do not appear to have an increased risk of gastrointestinal perforations when receiving first-line therapy with bevacizumab compared to systemic therapy alone.

Project description:Ischemic colitis (IC) is the most common vascular disorder of the gastrointestinal tract with a reported incidence of 6.1-44 cases/100,000 person years with confirmatory histopathology. However, the true incidence of IC poses some difficulty, and even vigilant clinicians with patients at high risk often miss the diagnosis, since clinical presentation is non-specific or could have a mild transient nature. Detection of IC results is crucial to plan the correct therapeutic approach and reduce the reported mortality rate (4-12%). Diagnosis of IC is based on a combination of clinical suspicion, radiological, endoscopic and histological findings. Some consider colonoscopy as a diagnostic test of choice; however, preparation is required and it is not without risk, above all in patients who are severely ill. There are two manifestations of vascular colonic insult: ischaemic and reperfusive. The first one occurs above all during ischaemic/non-occlusive mesenteric ischaemia; in this case, the colonic wall appears thinned with dilated lumen and fluid appears in the paracolic space. When reperfusion occurs, the large bowel wall appears thickened and stratified, because of subepithelial oedema and/or haemorrhage, with consequent lumen calibre reduction. Shaggy contour of the involved intestine and misty mesentery are associated with the pericolic fluid. The pericolic fluid results are a crucial finding for IC diagnosis since its evidence suggests the presence of an ongoing damage thus focusing the attention on other pathological aspects which could be otherwise misdiagnosed, such as thinned or thickened colonic wall. Moreover, the pericolic fluid may increase or decrease, depending on the evolution of the ischaemic damage, suggesting the decision of medical or surgical treatment. Radiologists should not forget the hypothesis of IC, being aware that multidetector CT could be sufficient to suggest the diagnosis of IC, allowing for early identification and grading definition, and in a short-term follow-up, discriminating patients who need urgent surgery from patients in whom medical treatment and follow-up can be proposed.

Project description:BackgroundGastrointestinal mucormycosis (GIM) is a rare, opportunistic fungal infection with poor prognosis. Clinically, it is difficult to diagnose GIM owing to its nonspecific clinical symptoms and poor suspicion. The estimated incidence of GIM is inaccurate, and most cases are diagnosed accidentally during surgery or upon postmortem examination. GIM usually occurs in patients with immune deficiencies or diabetes. Here, we report two cases of immunocompetent young patients with GIM who had good prognosis after treatment. Compared to other case reports on GIM, our cases had unusual infection sites and no obvious predisposing factors, which make it important to highlight these cases.Case presentationThe first case was that of a 16-year-old immunocompetent boy who was admitted with gastrointestinal bleeding and perforation due to a gastric ulcer. Strategies used to arrest bleeding during emergency gastroscopy were unsuccessful. An adhesive mass was then discovered through laparoscopy. The patient underwent type II gastric resection. Pathological examination of the mass revealed bacterial infection and GIM. The second case was of a 33-year-old immunocompetent woman with a recent history of a lower leg sprain. The patient subsequently became critically ill and required ventilatory support. After hemodynamic stabilization and extubation, she presented with hematemesis due to exfoliation and necrosis of the stomach wall. The patient underwent total gastrectomy plus jejunostomy. The pathology results revealed severe bacterial infection and fungal infection that was confirmed as GIM. The patient fully recovered after receiving anti-infective and antifungal treatments.ConclusionsNeither patient was immunosuppressed, and both patients presented with gastrointestinal bleeding. GIM was confirmed via pathological examination. GIM is not limited to immunocompromised patients, and its diagnosis mainly relies on pathological examination. Early diagnosis, timely surgical treatment, and early administration of systemic drug treatment are fundamental to improving its prognosis.

Dataset Information

Gastrointestinal perforation: clinical and MDCT clues for identification of aetiology.

Publications

Gastrointestinal perforation: clinical and MDCT clues for identification of aetiology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets