Accuracy of CT chest without oral contrast for ruling out esophageal perforation using fluoroscopic esophagography as reference standard: a retrospective study

Criteria for assessing the diagnostic significance of modern methods of imaging gastrointestinal diseases in practical gastroenterology

Imaging methods are frequently used to diagnose gastrointestinal diseases and play a crucial role in verifying clinical diagnoses among all diagnostic algorithms. However, these methods have limitations, challenges, benefits, and advantages. Addressing these limitations requires the application of objective criteria to assess the effectiveness of each diagnostic method. The diagnostic process is dynamic and requires a consistent algorithm, progressing from clinical subjective data, such as patient history (anamnesis), and objective findings to diagnostics ex juvantibus. Caution must be exercised when interpreting diagnostic results, and there is an urgent need for better diagnostic tests. In the absence of such tests, preliminary criteria and a diagnosis ex juvantibus must be relied upon. Diagnostic imaging methods are critical stages in the diagnostic workflow, with sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy serving as the primary criteria for evaluating clinical, laboratory, and instrumental symptoms. A comprehensive evaluation of all available diagnostic data guarantees an accurate diagnosis. The “gold standard” for diagnosis is typically established through either the results of a pathological autopsy or a lifetime diagnosis resulting from a thorough examination using all diagnostic methods.

The role of radiology in diagnosing gastrointestinal tract perforation

Spontaneous, iatrogenic or surgical perforation of the whole gastrointestinal wall can lead to serious complications, resulting in increased morbidity and mortality. Optimal patient management requires early clinical appraisal and prompt imaging evaluation. Both radiologists and referring clinicians should recognize the importance of choosing the ideal imaging modality and the usefulness of oral and rectal contrast medium. Surgeons and radiologists should be familiar with CT and fluoroscopy findings of the normal and pathologic anatomy after esophageal, stomach or colon surgery. Specifically, they should be able to differentiate innocuous from clinically-relevant, life-threatening postoperative complications to guide appropriate treatment. Advantages of esophagram, CT-esophagram, CT after rectal contrast enema and other imaging modalities are discussed.

CT esophagogram in the emergency setting: typical findings and suggested workflow

PURPOSE

Esophageal perforation (EP) can be a diagnostic challenge. Computed tomography (CT) and CT esophagography (CTE) are often used to rule out EP in the emergency setting with promising diagnostic performance, but the standard of care remains fluoroscopic esophagography (FE). We assess the diagnostic performance of CT and CTE when interpreted by expert and generalist radiologists and created an imaging workflow guide.

METHODS

Retrospective study of patients presenting with suspected EP. Two expert radiologists independently reviewed blinded CT/CTE studies, recorded CT findings, and assigned an esophageal injury grade. We also collected initial (general radiologist) CT findings and interpretation and FE diagnoses. We assessed inter-reader reliability and diagnostic performance.

RESULTS

EP was diagnosed in 46/139 (33%) encounters. The most common CT/CTE findings in EP were esophageal wall thickening (46/46, 100%), pneumomediastinum (42/46, 91%), and mediastinal stranding (39/46, 85%). CT and CTE sensitivity for detecting EP was 89% and 89% for expert radiologists, respectively, and 79% and 82% for general radiologists, compared with 46% for FE. Inter-reader agreement for detecting EP by CT and CTE was kappa 0.35 and 0.42 (both p < .001) between expert and generalist radiologists. We present radiographic images for key CT/CTE findings and a suggested workflow for the evaluation of possible EP.

CONCLUSION

CT and CTE are more sensitive than FE for EP in the emergency setting. Due to the rarity of EP and current wide variability in imaging interpretation, an imaging workflow and injury grading system based on esophageal and mediastinal CT findings are offered to help guide management.

Utility of fluoroscopic oesophagography in the setting of spontaneous and blunt traumatic pneumomediastinum

AIM

To determine the incidence of positive fluoroscopic oesophagography in patients presenting with spontaneous or blunt traumatic pneumomediastinum.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Retrospective chart review was performed on patients who underwent fluoroscopic oesophagography for spontaneous or blunt traumatic pneumomediastinum between 2001-2019. Patients were excluded for history of oesophageal surgery, penetrating trauma, oesophageal cancer, or tracheal/oesophageal instrumentation.

RESULTS

Two hundred and fifty-two patients met the inclusion criteria; 170 presented with spontaneous pneumomediastinum and 82 presented with blunt traumatic pneumomediastinum. Fluoroscopic oesophagography was positive in eight patients with spontaneous pneumomediastinum, for a positivity rate of 4.7% (8/170). There was one false-negative case in a patient who presented with spontaneous pneumomediastinum and was found to have a non-full-thickness oesophageal injury on endoscopy. Fluoroscopic oesophagography was negative in all patients with blunt traumatic pneumomediastinum (0/82). The sensitivity and specificity of fluoroscopic oesophagography were 88.9% (8/9) and 100% (243/243), respectively. Oesophageal injury was more common in patients with spontaneous pneumomediastinum and a pleural effusion (5/11, 45.4%) than in patients with spontaneous pneumomediastinum and no pleural effusion (4/159, 2.5%, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The present findings do not support routine oesophagography in patients with blunt traumatic pneumomediastinum. Conversely, a positivity rate of 4.7% in patients with spontaneous pneumomediastinum suggests oesophagography may be warranted in this population, particularly if an associated pleural effusion is present.

Blunt thoracic trauma: role of chest radiography and comparison with CT - findings and literature review

In the setting of acute trauma where identification of critical injuries is time-sensitive, a portable chest radiograph is broadly accepted as an initial diagnostic test for identifying benign and life-threatening pathologies and guiding further imaging and interventions. This article describes chest radiographic findings associated with various injuries resulting from blunt chest trauma and compares the efficacy of the chest radiograph in these settings with computed tomography (CT). Common chest radiographic findings in blunt thoracic injuries will be reviewed to improve radiologic identification, expedite management, and improve trauma morbidity and mortality. This article discusses demographic information, mechanism of specific injuries, common imaging findings, imaging pearls, and pitfalls and exhibits several classic imaging findings in blunt chest trauma. Thoracic structures commonly injured in blunt trauma that will be discussed in this article include vasculature structures (aortic trauma), the heart (cardiac contusion, pericardial effusion), the esophagus (esophageal perforation), pleural space and airways (pneumothorax, hemothorax, bronchial injury), lungs (pulmonary contusion), the diaphragm (diaphragmatic rupture), and the chest wall (flail chest). Chest radiography plays an important role in the initial evaluation of blunt chest trauma. While CT imaging has a higher sensitivity than chest radiography, it remains a valuable tool due to its ability to provide rapid diagnostic information in time-sensitive trauma situations and is ubiquitously available in the trauma bay. Familiarity with the gamut of injuries that may occur as well as identification of the associated chest radiograph findings can aid in timely diagnoses and prompt management in the setting of acute blunt chest trauma.

High risk and low prevalence diseases: Esophageal perforation

INTRODUCTION

Esophageal perforation is a rare but serious condition associated with a high rate of morbidity and mortality.

OBJECTIVE

This article highlights the pearls and pitfalls of esophageal perforation, including diagnosis, initial resuscitation, and management in the emergency department based on current evidence.

DISCUSSION

Esophageal perforation occurs with injury to the layers of the esophagus, resulting in mediastinal contamination and sepsis. While aspects of the history and physical examination may prompt consideration of the diagnosis, the lack of classic signs and symptoms cannot be used to rule out esophageal perforation. Chest radiograph often exhibits indirect findings suggestive of esophageal perforation, but these are rarely diagnostic. Advanced imaging is necessary to make the diagnosis, evaluate the severity of the injury, and guide appropriate management. Management focuses on hemodynamic stabilization with intravenous fluids and vasopressors if needed, gastric decompression, broad-spectrum antibiotics, and a thoughtful approach to airway management. Proton pump inhibitors and antifungals may be used as adjunctive therapies. Current available evidence for various treatment options (conservative, endoscopic, and surgical interventions) for esophageal perforation and resulting patient outcomes are limited. A multidisciplinary team approach with input from thoracic surgery, interventional radiology, gastroenterology, and critical care is recommended, with admission to the intensive care setting.

CONCLUSIONS

An understanding of esophageal perforation can assist emergency physicians in diagnosing and managing this deadly disease.

CT Esophagography for Evaluation of Esophageal Perforation

Esophageal emergencies such as rupture or postoperative leak are uncommon but may be life threatening when they occur. Delay in their diagnosis and treatment may significantly increase morbidity and mortality. Causes of esophageal injury include iatrogenic (including esophagogastroduodenoscopy and stent placement), foreign body ingestion, blunt or penetrating trauma to the chest or abdomen, and forceful retching, also called Boerhaave syndrome. Although fluoroscopic esophagography remains the imaging study of choice according the American College of Radiology appropriateness criteria, CT esophagography has been shown to be at least equal to if not superior to fluoroscopic evaluation for esophageal injury. In addition, CT esophagography allows diagnosis of extraesophageal abnormalities, both as the cause of the patient's symptoms as well as incidental findings. CT esophagography also allows rapid diagnosis since the examination can be readily performed in most clinical settings and requires no direct radiologist supervision, requiring only properly trained technologists and a CT scanner. Multiple prior studies have shown the limited utility of fluoroscopic esophagography after a negative chest CT scan and the increase in accuracy after adding oral contrast agent to CT examinations, although there is considerable variability of CT esophagography protocols among institutions. Development of a CT esophagography program, utilizing a well-defined protocol with input from staff from the radiology, gastroenterology, emergency, and general surgery departments, can facilitate more rapid diagnosis and patient care, especially in overnight and emergency settings. The purpose of this article is to familiarize radiologists with CT esophagography techniques and imaging findings of emergent esophageal conditions. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ^©RSNA, 2021.

Heterogeneous Presentations of Pharyngoesophageal Diverticula Occurring after Cervical Spine Surgery

Dysphagia after anterior cervical spine surgery (ACSS) may be secondary to pharyngoesophageal diverticulum. Our objectives are to (1) highlight the heterogeneity in clinical presentation, (2) discuss pathophysiology and management, and (3) present a comprehensive literature review of these diverticula. All patients undergoing pharyngoesophageal diverticulum repair between 2013 and 2019 were identified. Cases with ACSS history underwent detailed review of clinical presentation, assessment, and management. Literature review and analysis of all reported ACSS-associated pharyngoesophageal diverticula was performed. Two hundred forty-three cases of pharyngoesophageal diverticulum repair were performed during the study period; 13 cases were ACSS-associated. Four types of clinical presentation were identified: (Type A) Spinal hardware present, with videofluoroscopic evidence of exposed hardware; (Type B) Spinal hardware present, without videofluoroscopic evidence of exposed hardware; (Type C) Spinal hardware absent due to prior spinal hardware removal or ACSS performed without hardware; and (Type D) Concurrent esophago-esophageal fistula (EEF) present. All of our cases were evaluated using modified barium swallow study and esophagoscopy and definitively managed with endoscopic diverticulotomy. Literature review identified 21 cases of ACSS-associated pharyngoesophageal diverticulum repair from 18 publications. The majority of cases were identified using barium esophagram (N = 18, 86%) and managed with open diverticulectomy (N = 19, 90%). There were no reports of EEF. ACSS-associated pharyngoesophageal diverticulum must be evaluated with fluoroscopy and endoscopy, which determine presentation type. Presentation type guides management. Esophageal perforation requires hardware removal and perforation repair with flap placement. Endoscopic diverticulotomy was found essential to definitive management.Level of Evidence: 4.