Search

Purpose: This study investigated the sonographic properties of drug packets containing narcotic drugs and the diagnostic role of ultrasonography in detecting body packing in comparison with CT.Methods: Forty-five suspects admitted to our hospital for diagnosis and management were routinely evaluated by non-contrast CT for the presence of drug packets. A single radiologist blind to CT data independently performed the abdominal ultrasonographic scans.Results: Thirty-five of 45 suspects were carrying packets. In positive cases, two types of packets with different properties were noted. Twenty-eight cases had type 1 packets (solid form drug) and 7 had type 2 packets (liquid form cocaine). The sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive values of ultrasonography for detecting drug packets were 91%, 70%, 91%, and 70%, respectively. Ultrasonography accurately determined the presence or absence of packs in 39 of 45 suspects.Conclusion: Ultrasonography was found to have a high sensitivity but a low specificity in suspected cases. A negative ultrasonography cannot rule out the diagnosis of body packing. However, it may be preferred as the initial imaging method or for follow-up of suspected cases as a radiation-free, easy-to-use, and inexpensive technique. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Body packing is the ingestion or insertion in the human body of packed illicit substances. Over the last 20 years, drug smuggling has increased global and new means of transport of narcotics have emerged. Among these, the most frequent one is the gastrointestinal tract: from mouth to anus, vagina, and ears. Cocaine is one of the most traded drugs, followed by heroin. Condoms, latex gloves, and balloons are typically used as drug packets for retention in the body. There are different radiologic modalities to detect illicit drugs in body packing: Plain radiography, computed tomography (CT), ultrasound, and magnetic resonance. Current protocols recommend the use of radiography to confirm packet retention and, in case of doubt, the use of abdominal CT scan with reduced mAs. In case of packet rupture, catastrophic effects can occur. Management of patients carrying packets of drugs is a recurrent medico-legal problem. To improve diagnostic accuracy and prevent hazardous complications, radiologists and emergency physicians should be familiar with radiologic features of body packing. The radiologist plays both a social and a medico-legal role in their assessment, and it should not be limited only to the identification of the packages but must also provide accurate information about their number and their exact location. In this review, we focus on diagnostic errors and medico-legal issues related to the radiological assessment of body packers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In this study, we aimed to describe non-contrast abdominal MRI findings in body packers and emphasize the role of this imaging technique in diagnosis of body packing. Materials and methods: Non-contrast abdominopelvic MRI was performed at the radiology department in 16 suspected body packers that were brought to our hospital, and 13 of them were diagnosed with body packing. We evaluated the presence, location, and shapes of packets as well as signal characteristics on T1- and T2-weighted images. Results: We came across two types of packets: those containing solid substances (10 cases) and those filled with liquid cocaine (3 cases). Both types were accurately diagnosed with the help of MRI. Only 1 suspected body packer received a false positive diagnosis. Conclusion: Abdominopelvic MRI is a reliable and valuable method of diagnosing body packing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the imaging characteristics and the diagnostic value of both abdominal ultrasound and conventional abdominal x-ray in identifying ingested drug packages in "body packers."Materials and Methods: Twelve individuals were studied prospectively by abdominal ultrasound and by abdominal x-ray to rule out incorporated drug containers.Results: Both abdominal ultrasound and abdominal x-ray correctly identified the 7 of 12 individuals who had ingested multiple drug packages. In 5 of the 12 individuals, ultrasound as well as abdominal x-ray were correctly unremarkable with regard to abdominal foreign bodies.Conclusions: Abdominal ultrasound and abdominal x-ray both represent valuable diagnostic tools in the assessment of ingested drug packages. Abdominal x-ray is superior to ultrasound in differentiating ingested drug-filled condoms from "pseudocondoms." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]