European journal of radiology · 2001
Fecal impaction: a cause of isolated small bowel dilatation on abdominal radiographs.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Torigian D A, Levine M S, Rubesin S E, Laufer I
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the frequency of isolated small bowel dilatation on abdominal radiographs in patients with colonic fecal impaction and also to elucidate the cause of this finding.
METHODS: A computerized search of radiology files revealed 515 patients with colonic fecal impaction on abdominal radiographs. The radiologic reports described isolated small bowel dilatation not related to other known causes of ileus or obstruction in 18 (3.5%) of the 515 patients. The films were reviewed to determine the distribution of fecal impaction and the degree and extent of small bowel dilatation. In 16 cases, medical records were reviewed to determine the clinical presentation, treatment, and course. Finally, follow-up radiographs were reviewed in four cases to determine the response to treatment of the impaction.
RESULTS: All 16 patients with available medical records had abdominal symptoms. The average diameter of the dilated small bowel on abdominal radiographs was 3.7 cm. Fourteen patients (78%) had a diffuse colonic fecal impaction (nine) or a predominantly right-sided fecal impaction (five) that involved the cecum, and the remaining four (22%) had a left-sided colonic fecal impaction. All 12 patients with clinical follow-up had resolution of symptoms and all four with follow-up radiographs had resolution of small bowel dilatation after treatment of the underlying impaction.
CONCLUSION: Fecal impaction should be considered in the differential diagnosis of small bowel dilatation on abdominal radiographs, as treatment of the underlying impaction usually produces a dramatic clinical response with resolution of the small bowel dilatation on follow-up radiographs.
METHODS: A computerized search of radiology files revealed 515 patients with colonic fecal impaction on abdominal radiographs. The radiologic reports described isolated small bowel dilatation not related to other known causes of ileus or obstruction in 18 (3.5%) of the 515 patients. The films were reviewed to determine the distribution of fecal impaction and the degree and extent of small bowel dilatation. In 16 cases, medical records were reviewed to determine the clinical presentation, treatment, and course. Finally, follow-up radiographs were reviewed in four cases to determine the response to treatment of the impaction.
RESULTS: All 16 patients with available medical records had abdominal symptoms. The average diameter of the dilated small bowel on abdominal radiographs was 3.7 cm. Fourteen patients (78%) had a diffuse colonic fecal impaction (nine) or a predominantly right-sided fecal impaction (five) that involved the cecum, and the remaining four (22%) had a left-sided colonic fecal impaction. All 12 patients with clinical follow-up had resolution of symptoms and all four with follow-up radiographs had resolution of small bowel dilatation after treatment of the underlying impaction.
CONCLUSION: Fecal impaction should be considered in the differential diagnosis of small bowel dilatation on abdominal radiographs, as treatment of the underlying impaction usually produces a dramatic clinical response with resolution of the small bowel dilatation on follow-up radiographs.