Rationale:Even though barium sulphate aspiration during upper gastrointestinal examination is a well-known phenomenon, complication such as long-term lung injury and death may still occur. This may depend upon the concentration, amount, anatomy, or certain predisposing factors.Patient concerns:A 47-year-old woman who had a barium swallow to screen for foreign body in esophagus.Diagnoses:Chest radiographs demonstrated massive barium sulphate depositions in her trachea and inferior lobe of right lung.Interventions:A chest x-ray was done that revealed massive barium sulphate depositions in her trachea and lower lobe of right lung. As the patient did not have further complaints, she requested a transfer to West China Hospital of Sichuan University, the hospital being near her residence, for further treatment. She eventually recovered and was discharged after 1 week.Outcomes:There were 23 articles (22 English and 1 Chinese with 17 men and 11 women) included in the study. The risk factors of barium sulphate aspiration are dysphagia (10/28, 35.71%) followed by esophageal obstruction caused by tumor (5/28, 17.86%) and foreign body in esophagus (3/28, 10.71%). Infants (5/28, 17.86%) are also one of the high-risk population. Both the lungs were affected in most of the patients (21/28, 75%). Majority of the presentation in patients (21/28, 75%) were dyspnea, hypoxemia, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), or respiratory failure. Few patients (7/28, 25%) showed no symptoms or mild symptoms such as cough and fever. Barium sulphate aspiration can be life-threatening with a high risk of death (nearly 40%).Lessons:When performing an upper gastrointestinal examination with barium sulphate, careful consideration of concentration and amount of barium sulphate and that of risk factors should be undertaken so as to avoid life-threatening aspiration.
SummaryBackgroundA systematic review and meta-analysis of all available publications was performed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of percutaneous transthoracic needle biopsy (PTNB) using a C-Arm Cone-Beam CT (CBCT) system in patients with lung nodules.Material/MethodsThedatabases of PUBMED, OVID, EBSCO, EMBASE, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were systematically searched for relevant original articles on the diagnostic accuracy of CBCT-guided PTNB for the diagnosis of nodules in the lungs. Diagnostic indices including sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) and diagnostic score (DS) were calculated. Moreover,summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROC) were constructed with Stata (version 13.0), Rev Man (version 5.3), and Meta-disc (version 1.4) software. Other clinical indices such as incidence of complications were also recorded.ResultsEight studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, DOR, DS, and SROC with 95% confidence intervals were 0.96 (0.93–0.98), 1.00 (0.91–1.00), 711.15 (9.48–53325.89), 0.04 (0.02–0.07), 16585.29 (284.88–9.7e+05), 9.72 (5.65–13.78), and 0.99 (0.97–0.99), respectively. The incidence of pneumothorax and hemorrhage was 10–29.27% and 1.22–47.25%, respectively.ConclusionsCBCT-guided PTNB has an acceptable rate of complications and is associated with a reasonable radiation exposure. Moreover, it is a highly accurate and safe technique for the diagnosis of lung nodules and can be recommended to be used in routine clinical practice.
Background Solitary pulmonary nodules (SPNs) are one of the most common chest computed tomography (CT) abnormalities clinically. We aimed to investigate the value of non-contrast enhanced CT (NECT), contrast enhanced CT (CECT), CT perfusion imaging (CTPI), and dual- energy CT (DECT) used for differentiating benign and malignant SPNs with a multi-institutional and prospective study. Patients and methods Patients with 285 SPNs were scanned with NECT, CECT, CTPI and DECT. Differences between the benign and malignant SPNs on NECT, CECT, CTPI, and DECT used separately (NECT combined with CECT, DECT, and CTPI were methods of A, B, and C) or in combination (Method A + B, A + C, B + C, and A + B + C) were compared by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Results Multimodality CT imaging showed higher performances (sensitivities of 92.81% to 97.60%, specificities of 74.58% to 88.14%, and accuracies of 86.32% to 93.68%) than those of single modality CT imaging (sensitivities of 83.23% to 85.63%, specificities of 63.56% to 67.80%, and accuracies of 75.09% to 78.25%, all p < 0.05). Conclusions SPNs evaluated with multimodality CT imaging contributes to improving the diagnostic accuracy of benign and malignant SPNs. NECT helps to locate and evaluate the morphological characteristics of SPNs. CECT helps to evaluate the vascularity of SPNs. CTPI using parameter of permeability surface and DECT using parameter of normalized iodine concentration at the venous phase both are helpful for improving the diagnostic performance.
Radiomics involves high-throughput extraction and analysis of quantitative information from medical images. Since it was proposed in 2012, there are some publications on the application of radiomics for (1) predicting recurrent acute pancreatitis (RAP), clinical severity of acute pancreatitis (AP), and extrapancreatic necrosis in AP; (2) differentiating mass-forming chronic pancreatitis (MFCP) from pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC), focal autoimmune pancreatitis (AIP) from PDAC, and functional abdominal pain (functional gastrointestinal diseases) from RAP and chronic pancreatitis (CP); and (3) identifying CP and normal pancreas, and CP risk factors and complications. In this review, we aim to systematically summarize the applications and progress of radiomics in pancreatitis and it associated situations, so as to provide reference for related research.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.