Dergiler / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2015 / Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 5

Computed tomography arterial portography for assessment of portal vein injury after blunt hepatic trauma

Sayfa
361–367
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

This finding suggests that CTAP is superior to rCTAP and CT in evaluating portal vein injuries after blunt liver trauma.

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:PURPOSE Intrahepatic portal vein injuries secondary to blunt abdominal trauma are difficult to diagnose and can result in insidious bleeding.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:RESULTSA total of 13 patients (seven males/six females) with a mean age of 34.5±14.1 years were included in the study.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:This finding suggests that CTAP is superior to rCTAP and CT in evaluating portal vein injuries after blunt liver trauma.
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

PURPOSE Intrahepatic portal vein injuries secondary to blunt abdominal trauma are difficult to diagnose and can result in insidious bleeding. We aimed to compare computed tomography arterial portography (CTAP), reperfusion CTAP (rCTAP), and conventional computed tomography (CT) for diagnosing portal vein injuries after blunt hepatic trauma.METHODSPatients with blunt hepatic trauma, who were eligible for nonoperative management, underwent CTAP, rCTAP, and CT. The number and size of perfusion defects observed using the three methods were compared. RESULTSA total of 13 patients (seven males/six females) with a mean age of 34.5±14.1 years were included in the study. A total of 36 hepatic segments had perfusion defects on rCTAP and CT, while there were 47 hepatic segments with perfusion defects on CTAP. The size of perfusion defects on CT (239 cm3; interquartile range [IQR]: 129.5, 309.5) and rCTAP (238 cm3; IQR: 129.5, 310.5) were significantly smaller compared with CTAP (291 cm3; IQR: 136, 371) (both, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONPerfusion defects measured by CTAP were significantly greater than those determined by either rCTAP or CT in cases of blunt hepatic trauma. This finding suggests that CTAP is superior to rCTAP and CT in evaluating portal vein injuries after blunt liver trauma.

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

FU, C., WONG, Y., TSANG, Y., WANG, L., CHEN, H., KU, Y., WU, C., CHEN, H., KANG, S. (2015). Computed tomography arterial portography for assessment of portal vein injury after blunt hepatic trauma. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 5, 361–367. https://ajindex.com/articles/210804

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (2)

  1. Tinkoff G, Esposito TJ, Reed J, et al. American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Organ Injury Scale I: spleen, liver, and kidney, valida- tion based on the National Trauma Data Bank. J Am Coll Surg 2008; 207:646-655. [CrossRef] Croce MA, Fabian TC, Menke PG, et al. Nonop- erative management of blunt hepatic trauma is the treatment of choice for hemodynamically stable patients: results of a prospective trial. Ann Surg 1995; 221:744-755. [CrossRef] Malhotra AK, Fabian TC, Croce MA, et al. Blunt hepatic injury: a paradigm shift from operative to nonoperative management in the 1990s. Ann Surg 2000; 231:804-813. [CrossRef] Hurtuk M, Reed RL 2nd, Esposito TJ, Davis KA, Luchette FA. Trauma surgeons practice what they preach: The NTDB story on solid organ in- jury management. J Trauma 2006; 61:243-254. [CrossRef] Clancy TV, Gary Maxwell J, Covington DL, Brink- er CC, Blackman D. A statewide analysis of level I and II trauma centers for patients with major injuries. J Trauma 2001; 51:346-351. [CrossRef] Bonariol L, Massani M, Caratozzolo E, et al. Management of grade III-IV blunt liver traumas: a comparative, observational study. Minerva Chir 2015; 70:7-15.
  2. Kong YL, Zhang HY, He XJ, et al. Angiographic embolization in the treatment of intrahepatic arterial bleeding in patients with blunt ab- dominal trauma. Hepatobiliary Pancreat Dis Int 2014; 13:173-178. [CrossRef] Raza M, Abbas Y, Devi V, Prasad KV, Rizk KN, Nair PP. Nonoperative management of abdominal trauma - a 10 years review. World J Emerg Surg 2013; 8:14. [CrossRef] Bouras AF, Truant S, Pruvot FR. Management of blunt hepatic trauma. J Visc Surg 2010; 147:e351-e358. [CrossRef] Fraga GP, Bansal V, Fortlage D, Coimbra R. A 20- year experience with portal and superior mes- enteric venous injuries: has anything changed? Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2009; 37: 87-91. [CrossRef] Jurkovich GJ, Hoyt DB, Moore FA, et al. Por- tal triad injuries. J Trauma 1995; 39:426-434. [CrossRef] Cho A, Okazumi S, Miyazawa Y, et al. Proposal for a reclassification of liver based anatomy on por- tal ramifications. Am J Surg 2005; 189:195-199. [CrossRef] Kim HC, Kim TK, Sung KB, et al. CT during hepatic arteriography and portography: an illustrative review. Radiographics 2002; 22:1041-1051. [CrossRef] Bach AM, Hann LE, Brown KT, et al. Portal vein evaluation with US: comparison to angiogra- phy combined with CT arterial portography. Radiology 1996; 201:149-154. [CrossRef] Graf O, Dock WI, Lammer J, et al. Determina- tion of optimal