Publication:
The Role of Abdominal Computed Tomography in Determining Perforation Findings and Site in Patients with Gastrointestinal Tract Perforation

dc.authorscopusid12798771200
dc.authorscopusid23093729400
dc.authorscopusid8279592300
dc.contributor.authorIlgar, M.
dc.contributor.authorElmali, M.
dc.contributor.authorNural, M.S.
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-21T14:16:48Z
dc.date.available2020-06-21T14:16:48Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.departmentOndokuz Mayıs Üniversitesien_US
dc.department-temp[Ilgar] Mehtap, Department of Radiology, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey; [Elmali] Muzaffer, Department of Radiology, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey; [Nural] Mehmet Selim, Department of Radiology, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkeyen_US
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: In this study, we investigated the role of abdominal computed tomography (CT) in determining perforation findings and site in patients with gastrointestinal tract perforation. METHODS: Preoperative abdominal CT scans of 47 patients who had surgically proven gastrointestinal tract perforation between July 2007 and July 2010 were reviewed retrospectively. The presence of free air, leakage of contrast material, wall thickness, wall discontinuity, abscess, free fluid, and phlegmon were investigated for each patient. The site of perforation was estimated in light of these findings and compared with the surgical outcomes. RESULTS: Perforation sites were determined correctly in 85.7% of patients with gastroduodenal perforation, 85.7% of patients with small bowel perforation, 69.2% of patients with large bowel perforation, 100% of patients with rectum perforation, 90.9% of patients with appendix perforation, and 82.9% of all patients according to the abdominal CT findings. The most common CT finding in gastrointestinal tract perforation was free fluid, with a rate of 89.4%. The rates of other findings were as follows: free air 76.6%, segmental wall thickening 48.9%, wall discontinuity 25.5%, abscess 12.8%, and phlegmon 10.6%. Of 30 patients who received oral contrast, 7 (23.3%) had extraluminal contrast leakage. CONCLUSION: CT is very effective in determining gastrointestinal tract perforation findings and the site of perforation.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.5505/tjtes.2013.44538
dc.identifier.endpage40en_US
dc.identifier.issue1en_US
dc.identifier.pmid23588977
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-84875074626
dc.identifier.startpage33en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.5505/tjtes.2013.44538
dc.identifier.volume19en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000315847100007
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherTurkish Association of Trauma and Emergency Surgeryen_US
dc.relation.ispartofUlusal Travma ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisien_US
dc.relation.journalUlusal Travma Ve Acil Cerrahi Dergisi-Turkish Journal of Trauma & Emergency Surgeryen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectComputed Tomographyen_US
dc.subjectIntestinal Perforationen_US
dc.subjectSpiral Computed Tomographyen_US
dc.titleThe Role of Abdominal Computed Tomography in Determining Perforation Findings and Site in Patients with Gastrointestinal Tract Perforationen_US
dc.title.alternativeGastrointestinal Kanal Perforasyonlarında Perforasyon Bulgularının Ve Yerinin Saptanmasında Karın Bilgisayarlı Tomografisinin Rolüen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files