Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2017
Abdominal manifestations of fishbone perforation: a pictorial essay.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Paixão Tassia Soraya Araujo, Leão Renata Vidal, de Souza Maciel Rocha Horvat Natally, Viana Publio Cesar Cavalcante, Da Costa Leite Claudia, de Azambuja Rodrigo Lautert, Damasceno Rodrigo Sanford, Ortega Cinthia Denise, de Menezes Marcos Roberto, Cerri Giovanni Guido
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The present article provides an overview of the spectrum of abdominal presentations of fishbone (FB) ingestion and its complications.
METHODS: In image data from 9 patients, FB perforations were found in different levels of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT), including duodenal, jejunal, and sigmoid perforations; in 4 asymptomatic patients, FBs were observed in the mesentery, falciform ligament, and intestinal bowel.
RESULTS: The main imaging features of FB perforation were focal gastric or intestinal wall thickening, fat stranding, bowel obstruction, ascites, localized pneumoperitoneum, intra-abdominal abscess, liver abscess, and a linear hyperdense structure in the abdominal cavity in the GIT or within a parenchymal organ often surrounded by inflammatory changes. Free pneumoperitoneum was rare.
CONCLUSION: Although in most cases, a FB does not cause any serious complications, an inflammatory process and complications may occur when it perforates the stomach or bowel loops. Radiologists need to be aware of the possibility of FB perforation, especially in high-risk patients, because it is not always considered in the differential diagnosis by referring physicians and can mimic other inflammatory conditions and tumoral lesions.
METHODS: In image data from 9 patients, FB perforations were found in different levels of the gastrointestinal tract (GIT), including duodenal, jejunal, and sigmoid perforations; in 4 asymptomatic patients, FBs were observed in the mesentery, falciform ligament, and intestinal bowel.
RESULTS: The main imaging features of FB perforation were focal gastric or intestinal wall thickening, fat stranding, bowel obstruction, ascites, localized pneumoperitoneum, intra-abdominal abscess, liver abscess, and a linear hyperdense structure in the abdominal cavity in the GIT or within a parenchymal organ often surrounded by inflammatory changes. Free pneumoperitoneum was rare.
CONCLUSION: Although in most cases, a FB does not cause any serious complications, an inflammatory process and complications may occur when it perforates the stomach or bowel loops. Radiologists need to be aware of the possibility of FB perforation, especially in high-risk patients, because it is not always considered in the differential diagnosis by referring physicians and can mimic other inflammatory conditions and tumoral lesions.