Clinical study on role of CECT abdomen in intestinal obstruction

Abstract

Background: Intestinal obstruction is a common clinical occurrence and can be either dynamic or adynamic. The old saying “Never let the sun set or rise on an obstructed bowel” taught to minimize missing strangulation. Helical CT with its multiplanar reformatted imaging can accurately characterize the level, degree, cause and associated complications of obstruction. Aim of the study was to depict the spectrum of MDCT findings in cases of small and large bowel obstruction and correlation of CT scan with intraoperative findings and the cause of intestinal obstruction.Methods: Contrast enhanced MDCT examination of 50 patients were prospectively included in the study who had evidence of clinical as well as MDCT evidence of bowel obstruction and in whom surgical/clinical follow-up for final diagnosis was available. CT scan was done in all the patients with MDCT (Brightspeed GE 16 slice system). The axial sections were reconstructed in coronal and saggital planes to determine site and cause of bowel obstruction.Results: The commonest cause of intestinal obstruction in adults in this study series was adhesions/bands in 38% cases. Out of 47 operated patients for intestinal obstruction, CT findings matched with intraoperative findings in 43 patients (91%) whereas cause of intestinal obstruction matched with CT findings in 37 patients (74%).Conclusions: Management decisions in intestinal obstruction remain notoriously difficult, relying on a combination of clinical, laboratory, and imaging factors to help stratify patients into conservative or surgical treatment. CT in these patients can help surgeon to go for surgery early and prevent complications.

Correlation of Clinical Findings with Radiological and Intraoperative Findings in Cases of Intestinal Obstruction

“…MDCT findings were consistent with intraoperative findings in 22 out of 30 patients (73%). In a study done by Vaishnani BV et al 27 CT had the sensitivity of 91.48%, Specificity 33.33%, PPV 95.55%, NPV 20%. Similar results were obtained by Mallo RD et al 28 who conducted a systemic review.…”