Search

Ingestion of magnetic foreign bodies in pediatric settings has become more common in the last years due to the marketing of various toys containing small magnetic parts. Most magnets, especially if a single element is ingested, usually pass through the gastrointestinal tract without complications. However, ingestion of multiple magnets or magnets and small metallic components may require a prompt intervention due to the risk of attraction across bowel layers, leading to pressure necrosis, perforation, and even death. Routinely, serial radiological evaluations are needed to follow the progression of magnets through the intestine, while the role of small bowel ultrasound is regarded as marginal. Here we report a case of a 5-years old boy who ingested 8 magnets and in which small bowel ultrasound was pivotal for the correct assessment of magnets location to correct address the surgical approach., (© 2022. Società Italiana di Ultrasonologia in Medicina e Biologia (SIUMB).)

Purpose: To analyze the amount of free abdominal gas and ascites on computed tomography (CT) images relative to the location of a perforation., Methods: We retrospectively included 172 consecutive patients (93:79 = m:f) with GIT perforation, who underwent abdominal surgery (ground truth for perforation location). The volume of free air and ascites were quantified on CT images by 4 radiologists and a semiautomated software. The relation of the perforation location (upper/lower GIT) and amount of free air and ascites was analyzed by the Mann-Whitney test. Furthermore, best volume cutoff for upper and lower GIT perforation, areas under the curve (AUC), and interreader volume agreement were assessed., Results: There was significantly more abdominal ascites with upper GIT perforation (333 ml, range 5 to 2000 ml) than with lower GIT perforation (100 ml, range 5 to 2000 ml, p = 0.022). The highest volume of free air was found with perforations of the stomach, descending colon and sigmoid colon. Significantly less free air was found with perforations of the small bowel and ascending colon compared to the aforementioned. An ascites volume > 333 ml was associated with an upper GIT perforation demonstrating an AUC of 0.63 ± 0.04., Conclusion: Using a two-step process based on the volumes of free air and free fluid can help localizing the site of perforation to the upper, middle or lower GI tract., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD) is the most common malignant complication after solid organ transplantation. Gastrointestinal involvement as the presentation in early PTLD can occur in 25-30% of pediatric liver transplant recipients and can be the only system involved in 20%. Recurrent gastrointestinal perforation due to resolution of PTLD is an extremely rare complication. We report a 13-month-old male child diagnosed with PTLD, treatment of which lead to recurrent intestinal perforations. The child presented with gastrointestinal bleed 5 months after living donor liver transplantation for biliary atresia. Evaluation was suggestive of PTLD and biopsy confirmed diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Positron emission tomography scan showed diffuse involvement of small intestine and ileum. Tacrolimus was withdrawn abruptly following diagnosis of PTLD as there was associated renal impairment. Child developed six episodes of small intestinal perforations over 3 weeks which required multiple laparotomies with closure of perforation and/or small bowel resection. Complete remission was achieved six months after diagnosis with cessation of immunosuppression alone and child is alive at 48 months follow-up without any recurrence. To avoid bowel perforation and complications related to tumor necrosis, immunosuppression reduction in PTLD should be gradual while carefully monitoring Epstein-Barr virus levels, tumor response, graft function, and general health status of the patient., (© 2021. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Gastrointestinal tract (GI) perforations can occur due to various causes such as trauma, iatrogenic factor, infectious condition, peptic ulcer, inflammatory disease, or a neoplasm. Because GI perforations represent an emergency and life-threatening condition, prompt diagnosis and surgical treatment are required in most cases. However, according to the underlying causes of GI perforations, additional treatment strategies may be needed. Adjuvant chemotherapy or immunotherapy may be required in various GI neoplasms such as adenocarcinoma, lymphoma or gastrointestinal stromal tumor. Inflammatory bowel disease is a chronic disease repeating cycle of intermittent, thus appropriate medical treatment and periodic follow-up are also required. Moreover, vascular intervention may have a role in some cases of mesenteric ischemia associated with mesenteric artery occlusion. Recently, computed tomography (CT) has been the first choice for patients with suspected GI perforations, because CT plays an important role in the accurate assessment of the perforation site, the pathology causing the perforation and the ensuing complications. This review will illustrate characteristic CT findings that differentiate underlying pathologies causing GI perforations to help clinicians decision-making regarding an optimal treatment plan.

Lenvatinib, a novel potent multikinase inhibitor, was approved for the treatment of radioiodine-refractory differentiated thyroid cancer based on results from phase III trial (SELECT study). Thyroid cancer is a diverse disease that includes anaplastic thyroid cancer (ATC), which the most aggressive form of the disease, although it accounts for <2% of all thyroid cancers. Current treatments for ATC have limited efficacy. We report the case of a woman with recurrent well-differentiated papillary carcinoma of the thyroid that had transformed into ATC who developed a perforation of the small intestine secondary to a marked effect of lenvatinib. She received lenvatinib (24 mg once a day) at only two doses during two weeks due to pleurodesis with talc for malignant pleural effusion. Eventually, she developed peritonitis due to the perforation and died of sepsis. However, an autopsy revealed marked efficacy of lenvatinib for ATC at a metastatic site in the small intestine despite limited exposure to the drug. Here, we report on our experience with lenvatinib treatment and gastrointestinal perforation concerning anti-angiogenic therapy.

Large bowel perforation is an abdominal emergency that results from a wide range of etiologies. Computed tomography is the most reliable modality in detecting the site of large bowel perforation. The diagnosis is made by identifying direct CT findings such as extraluminal gas or contrast and discontinuity along the bowel wall. Indirect CT findings can help support the diagnosis, and include bowel wall thickening, pericolic fat stranding, abnormal bowel wall enhancement, abscess, and a feculent collection adjacent to the bowel. Common etiologies that cause large bowel perforation are colon cancer, foreign body aspiration, stercoral colitis, diverticulitis, ischemia, inflammatory and infectious colitides, and various iatrogenic causes. Recognizing a large bowel perforation on CT can be difficult at times, and there are various entities that may be misinterpreted as a colonic perforation. The purpose of this article is to outline the MDCT technique used for evaluation of suspected colorectal perforation, discuss relevant imaging findings, review common etiologies, and point out potential pitfalls in making the diagnosis of large bowel perforation.

Purpose: To determine reliable CT features to distinguish cancerous from inflammatory colorectal perforations., Materials and Methods: A total of 43 patients with surgically and pathologically confirmed colorectal perforation caused by either colorectal cancer (n =27) or an inflammatory conditions (n = 16) were identified. Two radiologists independently assessed the contrast-enhanced CT features for locations of perforation, mural configurations, soft-tissue alterations, lymphadenopathy, and metastases. Intergroup comparisons for univariate analysis were performed using Fisher's exact test or chi-square test for categorical data and Mann-Whitney test for numeric data. Stepwise logistic regression analysis was conducted with features that were found significant under the univariate analysis. Interobserver agreement was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and kappa test., Results: Maximal mural thickness >1.39 cm (sensitivity, 100%; specificity, 68.75%), luminal mass or shoulder formation (sensitivity, 88.89%; specificity, 68.75%), absence of diverticula (sensitivity, 96.30%; specificity, 50.00%), irregular mural thickening (sensitivity, 92.59%; specificity, 81.25%), lymphadenopathy (sensitivity, 40.74%; specificity, 93.75%), and metastases (sensitivity, 25.93%; specificity, 100%) were significantly frequent in cancerous perforations. The maximal mural thickness (P = 0.0493, odds ratio = 439.83) and irregular mural thickening (P = 0.0343, odds ratio = 4.69) were identified as the highly distinguished identifiers., Conclusions: The CT manifestations of cancerous and inflammatory colorectal perforations overlap. Definitive diagnosis is not always possible with imaging alone. The maximal mural thickness >1.39 cm and irregular configuration of the thickened bowel wall were the two highly statistically significant CT features that may help order the difference between the two entities.

Purpose: To investigate whether peritoneal fluid of low CT Hounsfield units is an important screening criterion for traumatic bowel perforation., Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective study on two cohorts of blunt trauma patients who had peritoneal fluid. Intravenous and oral contrast was used for the first cohort (61 patients) as opposed to intravenous contrast only for the second cohort (60 patients). We compared the CT Hounsfield units of peritoneal fluid with bowel perforation. The optimal cutoff value of CT Hounsfield units was determined, and its diagnostic values for bowel perforation were calculated., Results: The mean CT Hounsfield units (HU) of peritoneal fluid with bowel perforation were significantly lower (30.3 ± 9.0 versus 44.1 ± 13.6 HU, p = 0.008) in the second cohort. The optimal cutoff value was 43 HU, and its sensitivity, specificity, accuracy and positive likelihood ratio were 100.0, 69.2, 73.3% and 3.3, respectively, for bowel perforation. Comparisons of CT HUs of peritoneal fluid with bowel perforation in the first cohort that used additional oral contrast for CT did not show statistically significant differences., Conclusion: Peritoneal fluid of low CT HU is a sensitive and important CT screening criterion for traumatic bowel perforation.

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.

We report the case of a 44-year-old man presenting with abdominal pain and leukocytosis. His initial computed tomography demonstrated a pancreatic head mass concerning for pancreatic adenocarcinoma. However, on further review of the patient's imaging, the mass was determined to be an abscess caused by foreign body ingestion and gastric perforation rather than cancer. This report describes the clinical and radiographic distinctions between pancreatic neoplasia and abscess. It also reviews the pertinent medical literature on how such viscus perforations affect subsequent prognostication and clinical management.

Anti-VEGF (vascular endothelial growth factor) therapy with the monoclonal antibody bevacizumab can cause gastrointestinal (GI) perforations. In recent years it became apparent that GI perforations also occur during treatment with antiangiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). It is of clinical importance to consider (vague) abdominal complaints during antiangiogenic treatment as a sign of a GI perforation. To illustrate this serious complication, we report four cases of antiangiogenic treatment related GI perforations. In three cases this was due to antiangiogenic TKI treatment. Reported risk factors of GI perforations due to bevacizumab include the presence of a primary tumor in situ and recent history of endoscopy or abdominal radiotherapy. Pathology assessments of surgical removal of the perforated intestinal part reveal that perforations are predominantly seen at the tumor or anastomotic site, in case of carcinomatosis or diverticulitis or when GI obstruction or an intra-abdominal abscess is present. Whether the same risk factors may be involved in antiangiogenic TKI related GI perforations is unknown. The underlying mechanisms responsible for GI perforation during antiangiogenic treatment is unknown, but disturbance of host cell homeostasis of immune cells as well as platelet-endothelial cell interactions may play an important role. In conclusion, while clinical awareness that antiangiogenic treatment can cause GI perforations is critical for current medical practice, it is also very important to get more insight in its underlying mechanisms so that this life-threatening complication may be prevented in the near future.

Foreign-body ingestion is relatively common in the pediatric population and most objects pass through the gastrointestinal tract with minimal complications. Popular toy magnetic construction sets have resulted in numerous reports in the literature of serious complications including death following ingestion of multiple magnets. We report a case of a 5-year-old girl who presented to our emergency department with nonbilious vomiting and mild abdominal pain after accidentally ingesting 2 magnets 10 hours apart. Abdominal radiography showed the presence of 2 magnets, and a laparoscopy revealed multiple areas of bowel wall necrosis and perforation requiring subsequent laparotomy for repair of the bowel wall and retrieval of the magnets. This report aims to alert emergency care physicians of the necessity for early surgical referral with any multiple magnet ingestion to prevent severe complications.

Background: As the performance of upper gastrointestinal endoscopy, especially endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP), has increased since 1968, so has the incidence of duodenal perforations. The frequency of ERCP use varies among hospitals and depends on the availability of trained endoscopists, equipment, and facilities., Methods: A retrospective review of ERCP-related perforations to the duodenum was conducted to identify their incidence, optimal management, and clinical outcome. Charts were reviewed for the following data: ERCP indication, clinical presentation, diagnostic methods, time to diagnosis and treatment, type of injury, management, length of hospital stay, and clinical outcome., Results: From April 1999 to February 2008, 4,358 ERCP were performed, 15 of which (0.34%) resulted in perforation to the duodenum. Only four of the perforations were discovered during ERCP, with another eight requiring computed tomography or abdominal radiography for diagnosis. Surgery was performed for 13 of the patients (87%), and 2 patients died (15%). One patient was managed conservatively with a successful outcome. Nine patients underwent surgery within 24 h after the ERCP, with only one patient undergoing surgery after 24 h. The overall mortality rate was 20% (3 of 15 patients)., Conclusions: Clinical and radiographic features can be used to determine the surgical or conservative treatment of ERCP-related duodenal perforations, whereas patient age and intraoperative findings can determine the final outcome and morbidity or mortality. The interval between the perforation and the operation is of great significance. The mortality rate increases dramatically with late surgical management (>24 h). An algorithm for the selective management of ERCP-induced duodenal perforations is proposed.

We present a rare occurrence of a perforated diverticulum of the sigmoid colon found within the contents of a strangulated left inguinal hernia in a 75-year-old man. The hernia was repaired using the Bassini technique. An end colostomy was established after resection of the diseased section of the sigmoid. We review the relevant literature and discuss the choice of repair techniques in such situations.

Tension-free and sutureless hernioplasty by plug and mesh of nonreabsorbable material is one of the most common techniques for inguinal hernia repair. It's a simple and quick procedure with a low cost and allows for a short hospital stay. It shows a low reoccurrence rate, but it can result, in very few cases, in complications strictly related to prosthetic material. The literature describes some cases of plug migration from its proper position, for example, to the scrotum, preperitoneal adipose tissue, and abdominal cavity. We report on a case of sigmoid colon perforation due to a plug of Trabucco hernioplasty performed 2 years previously.

We describe a case of a patient who had a percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube placed for enteral access. The patient's medical history was remarkable for chronic malnutrition, coronary artery disease, coronary bypass surgery, and severe esophageal dysmotility. We discuss the patient&'s course through treatment and we review the management options for patients that sustain colonic injury related to PEG placement. We conclude that colonic injury can be difficult to diagnose in the acute setting and that diagnosis may be facilitated by abdominal computerized tomographic (CT) scanning.

Background: Recent studies have documented the feasibility of ultrasonography (US) to diagnose acute colonic diverticulitis (ACD). This prospective observational trial determined the sonomorphology of ACD and evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of routine US performed on admission by surgeons in training., Methods: Fifty-seven consecutive patients with a confirmed episode of ACD were entered into this study, and the sonomorphology of the involved colon was assessed. US findings were compared to the results of the clinical evaluation and correlated to the clinicopathological outcome., Results: The sonomorphology of ACD was characterized by segmental inflammatory transformation of the colon averaging 9.9 +/- 3.2 cm (range, 6-20) in length and visualized as target phenomena of a mean 3.5 +/- 0.8 cm (range, 2.4-4.8) width. Targets were caused by hypoechogenic thickening of the colonic wall of an average 7.7 +/- 2. 6 mm (range, 4-18). In 40% of cases, a hyperechogenic halo representing peridiverticulitis (average width, 2.3 +/- 0.6; range, 1.2-3 cm) was noted. Diverticula were seen in almost half of the cases. Of the 57 cases with confirmed ACD, the diagnosis was made by US in 48, for a global accuracy of 84.2%. US was false negative in nine patients, suggesting perforated appendicitis in five cases and acute appendicitis in one (the final diagnoses were perforated sigmoid diverticulitis in five cases and cecal diverticulitis in one case). In three patients, US was nondiagnostic., Conclusion: In the hands of sonographically trained surgeons, ultrasound is a useful modality to image acute colonic diverticulitis. US reveals diagnostic sonomorphology in most cases of ACD and therefore facilitates early confirmation of the diagnosis and assessment of severity.

In nine patients with meconium peritonitis prenatal ultrasonographic findings were correlated with the clinical course and outcome. Ultrasound findings included polyhydramnion (n = 4), ascites (n = 4), disseminated (n = 3) and solitary echogenic areas (n = 1), echopoor cystic areas (n = 3) and echogenic-echopoor solitary areas (n = 1). Intra-abdominal calcifications were found in five patients before delivery. Eight neonates survived and were subsequently followed up, one fetus died in utero. Four of the eight survivors required surgery, namely for meconium ileus (n = 1), perforation secondary to intestinal volvulus (n = 2) and inguinal hernia associated with prenatal rubella infection (n = 1). Three patients were healthy, one patient required drainage of pleural effusion and respirator therapy but recovered without further problems. Cystic fibrosis was diagnosed in the patient with meconium ileus. Postnatal outcome could not be predicted from the prenatal sonographic findings.

Perforation of the colon can have any number of causes. Most often, it is the result of carcinoma or diverticulitis; specific inflammatory disease of the large intestine is a less common cause. Other possibilities are iatrogenic perforation, perforation as a result of blunt or penetrating abdominal trauma, and ingestion of a foreign body. A case of perforation of the cecum by a toothpick 3 weeks after consumption of a beef olive is reported; possible diagnostic problems, other conditions that need to be considered in the differential diagnosis and treatment are discussed.

A number of studies have shown that ultrasound has an advantage over physical examination in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Most of these studies were conducted by experts in the field of ultrasonography. In this study the influence of experience on the results of the sonography of acute appendicitis were evaluated. All 203 patients admitted to our unit between December 1990 and December 1992 were examined physically and sonographically by a team of surgeons consisting of one experienced sonographer and six inexperienced surgical trainees. Laparotomy was performed in 136 patients (46%). Appendicitis was demonstrated histologically in 119 cases (39.4%). Initial clinical findings were positive in 87 (28.8%). Sonography was positive in 119 patients (39.4%). The 163 patients not operated on demonstrated other pathology on ultrasound in 60 cases (19.9%). The rate of negative laparotomies amounted to 7.2% in our study. Sensitivity and specificity for the sonographic diagnosis were 92% and 95%, respectively. They were only 81% and 80% for physical examination. Overall accuracy was 92% for sonography. Sensitivity and specificity for the inexperienced surgeons were 87% and 93%, respectively, while the experienced surgeon reached values of 97% and 98%, respectively. The results of both groups are comparable with values in the literature, suggesting that ultrasound evaluation of appendicitis is not a diagnostic tool limited to a few experienced sonographers.