Hepato-gastroenterology · 1997
Closed perforation of the small intestine showing continuity and the diagnostic role of enteroclysis.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание 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.
Ipek T, Korman U, Kayabasi B, Eyuboglu E
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Conventional abdominal CT and Ultrasonography were not adequate for the immediate assessment of a closed perforation of the small intestine showing continuity. For definitive diagnosis of the main pathology, we advise enteroclysis.
METHODS: All patients had non-traumatic small bowel perforation and had many diagnostic procedures including conventional abdominal CT and ultrasonography, but did not get a positive result from them. Following the enteroclysis, it was obvious that there existed a closed small bowel perforation with continuity.
RESULTS: The first patient had fistula and interloop pouch filled with contrast in pelvis minor and perforations in small intestine and cecum. The second patient had closed perforation showing continuity in the level of ileum and the third patient had a pouch showing continuity in the ileum and a fistula in ileum. All patients had operation; the first one had a Crohn's disease and discharged postoperatively on 16th day, but the second one having ileal tumor was lost postoperatively due to pulmonary embolism and the third one having Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma was lost postoperatively due to sepsis.
CONCLUSION: Conventional techniques were not sufficient to classify the main pathology in these cases, but enteroclysis revealed good results in diagnosis of the main event, and does not cause a delay in diagnosis.
METHODS: All patients had non-traumatic small bowel perforation and had many diagnostic procedures including conventional abdominal CT and ultrasonography, but did not get a positive result from them. Following the enteroclysis, it was obvious that there existed a closed small bowel perforation with continuity.
RESULTS: The first patient had fistula and interloop pouch filled with contrast in pelvis minor and perforations in small intestine and cecum. The second patient had closed perforation showing continuity in the level of ileum and the third patient had a pouch showing continuity in the ileum and a fistula in ileum. All patients had operation; the first one had a Crohn's disease and discharged postoperatively on 16th day, but the second one having ileal tumor was lost postoperatively due to pulmonary embolism and the third one having Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma was lost postoperatively due to sepsis.
CONCLUSION: Conventional techniques were not sufficient to classify the main pathology in these cases, but enteroclysis revealed good results in diagnosis of the main event, and does not cause a delay in diagnosis.