1
|
Ayoob AR, Lee JT, Herr K, LeBedis CA, Jain A, Soto JA, Lim J, Joshi G, Graves J, Hoff C, Hanna TN. Pancreatic Trauma: Imaging Review and Management Update. Radiographics 2020; 41:58-74. [PMID: 33245670 DOI: 10.1148/rg.2021200077] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
Traumatic injuries of the pancreas are uncommon and often difficult to diagnose owing to subtle imaging findings, confounding multiorgan injuries, and nonspecific clinical signs. Nonetheless, early diagnosis and treatment are critical, as delays increase morbidity and mortality. Imaging has a vital role in diagnosis and management. A high index of suspicion, as well as knowledge of the anatomy, mechanism of injury, injury grade, and role of available imaging modalities, is required for prompt accurate diagnosis. CT is the initial imaging modality of choice, although the severity of injury can be underestimated and assessment of the pancreatic duct is limited with this modality. The time from injury to definitive diagnosis and the treatment of potential pancreatic duct injury are the primary factors that determine outcome following pancreatic trauma. Disruption of the main pancreatic duct (MPD) is associated with higher rates of complications, such as abscess, fistula, and pseudoaneurysm, and is the primary cause of pancreatic injury-related mortality. Although CT findings can suggest pancreatic duct disruption according to the depth of parenchymal injury, MR cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography facilitate direct assessment of the MPD. Management of traumatic pancreatic injury depends on multiple factors, including mechanism of injury, injury grade, presence (or absence) of vascular injury, hemodynamic status of the patient, and associated organ damage. ©RSNA, 2020 See discussion on this article by Patlas.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andres R Ayoob
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Kentucky, 800 Rose St, MN 109-B, Lexington, KY 40536 (A.R.A., J.T.L.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Ga (K.H., J.L., G.J., J.G., C.H., T.N.H.); and Department of Radiology, Boston University, Boston, Mass (C.A.L., A.J., J.A.S.)
| | - James T Lee
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Kentucky, 800 Rose St, MN 109-B, Lexington, KY 40536 (A.R.A., J.T.L.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Ga (K.H., J.L., G.J., J.G., C.H., T.N.H.); and Department of Radiology, Boston University, Boston, Mass (C.A.L., A.J., J.A.S.)
| | - Keith Herr
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Kentucky, 800 Rose St, MN 109-B, Lexington, KY 40536 (A.R.A., J.T.L.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Ga (K.H., J.L., G.J., J.G., C.H., T.N.H.); and Department of Radiology, Boston University, Boston, Mass (C.A.L., A.J., J.A.S.)
| | - Christina A LeBedis
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Kentucky, 800 Rose St, MN 109-B, Lexington, KY 40536 (A.R.A., J.T.L.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Ga (K.H., J.L., G.J., J.G., C.H., T.N.H.); and Department of Radiology, Boston University, Boston, Mass (C.A.L., A.J., J.A.S.)
| | - Ashwin Jain
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Kentucky, 800 Rose St, MN 109-B, Lexington, KY 40536 (A.R.A., J.T.L.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Ga (K.H., J.L., G.J., J.G., C.H., T.N.H.); and Department of Radiology, Boston University, Boston, Mass (C.A.L., A.J., J.A.S.)
| | - Jorge A Soto
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Kentucky, 800 Rose St, MN 109-B, Lexington, KY 40536 (A.R.A., J.T.L.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Ga (K.H., J.L., G.J., J.G., C.H., T.N.H.); and Department of Radiology, Boston University, Boston, Mass (C.A.L., A.J., J.A.S.)
| | - Jihoon Lim
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Kentucky, 800 Rose St, MN 109-B, Lexington, KY 40536 (A.R.A., J.T.L.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Ga (K.H., J.L., G.J., J.G., C.H., T.N.H.); and Department of Radiology, Boston University, Boston, Mass (C.A.L., A.J., J.A.S.)
| | - Gayatri Joshi
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Kentucky, 800 Rose St, MN 109-B, Lexington, KY 40536 (A.R.A., J.T.L.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Ga (K.H., J.L., G.J., J.G., C.H., T.N.H.); and Department of Radiology, Boston University, Boston, Mass (C.A.L., A.J., J.A.S.)
| | - Joseph Graves
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Kentucky, 800 Rose St, MN 109-B, Lexington, KY 40536 (A.R.A., J.T.L.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Ga (K.H., J.L., G.J., J.G., C.H., T.N.H.); and Department of Radiology, Boston University, Boston, Mass (C.A.L., A.J., J.A.S.)
| | - Carrie Hoff
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Kentucky, 800 Rose St, MN 109-B, Lexington, KY 40536 (A.R.A., J.T.L.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Ga (K.H., J.L., G.J., J.G., C.H., T.N.H.); and Department of Radiology, Boston University, Boston, Mass (C.A.L., A.J., J.A.S.)
| | - Tarek N Hanna
- From the Department of Radiology, University of Kentucky, 800 Rose St, MN 109-B, Lexington, KY 40536 (A.R.A., J.T.L.); Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Ga (K.H., J.L., G.J., J.G., C.H., T.N.H.); and Department of Radiology, Boston University, Boston, Mass (C.A.L., A.J., J.A.S.)
| |
Collapse
|
14
|
Anderson SW, Soto JA. Pancreatic duct evaluation: accuracy of portal venous phase 64 MDCT. ACTA ACUST UNITED AC 2009; 34:55-63. [PMID: 18425544 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-008-9396-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Many patients presenting with nonspecific signs and symptoms often receive CT scans using general protocols, not optimized to evaluate for pancreatic pathology. Therefore the purpose of this study was to evaluate portal venous phase 64 multi-row detector CT (MDCT) scans for detecting pancreatic duct strictures, stones, pancreas divisum, and communication between pancreatic ducts and cystic pancreatic lesions. METHODS Institutional review board approval with waived informed consent was obtained for this HIPAA-compliant study. We included all patients that underwent abdominal, portal venous phase, intravenous contrast-enhanced 64 MDCT scans between 6/7/05 and 5/01/07 and MR cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) or endoscopic retrograde pancreatography (ERCP) within 2 months of the CT. This yielded 93 patients (42 males, 51 females) with a mean age of 59 years. In addition to CT, 75 patients underwent MRCP and 37 patients underwent ERCP. Two radiologists independently evaluated the CT images, including multiplanar and minimum intensity pixel projection reformations, for pancreatic duct strictures, stones, pancreas divisum, or cystic pancreatic lesions. The latter were classified as communicating or not communicating with the pancreatic ducts. Findings on ERCP or MRCP were used to calculate diagnostic performance parameters. RESULTS On standard of reference examinations, 15 (16%) of the 93 patients had a pancreatic duct stricture. The sensitivity and the specificity for Observer 1 were 87% and 100%, respectively; for Observer 2, 100% and 100%, respectively. Six (6%) of the 93 patients had main pancreatic duct stones. The sensitivity and the specificity for Observer 1 were 83% and 100%, respectively; for Observer 2, 100% and 99%, respectively. Five (5%) patients had pancreas divisum; Observer 1 correctly identified four and Observer 2 correctly identified three cases. Eleven (12%) patients had cystic pancreatic lesions. Observer 1 correctly determined whether or not there was communication between the cystic pancreatic lesion and the pancreatic duct in ten cases; Observer 2 correctly made this determination in nine cases. CONCLUSION Portal venous phase 64 MDCT images are moderately sensitive and highly specific for detecting pancreatic duct stricture, stones, and pancreas divisum and moderately accurate for detecting communication between pancreatic ducts and cystic pancreatic lesions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephan W Anderson
- Department of Radiology, Boston University Medical Center, Boston, MA 02215, USA.
| | | |
Collapse
|