Diagnostic imaging of mesenteric infarction.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the value of diagnostic imaging in the management of mesenteric infarction.


METHODS
Within 8 years, 54 patients with mesenteric infarction underwent diagnostic imaging before surgery, including plain radiography (n = 45), ultrasound (US) (n = 29), small bowel follow-through examination (n = 7), colon enema study (n = 7), angiography (n = 16), and computed tomography (CT) (n = 22). Clinical course, laboratory values, and imaging findings were considered in diagnosis.


RESULTS
Radiography and US allowed correct diagnoses in five of 18 cases (28%). Only one of 14 fluoroscopic examinations contributed to diagnosis. Fourteen of 16 angiography studies (sensitivity, 87.5%) and 18 of 22 CT examinations (82%) were correct. The difference in sensitivity between CT and angiography was not significant (P > .05).


CONCLUSIONS
CT and angiography are highly sensitive, but CT can also be used to rule out other causes of acute abdomen. Careful evaluation of patient history and clinical situation should lead to suspicion of mesenteric ischemia and early indication for CT.
Klein
H M
HM
Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Klinikum der RWTH Aachen, Germany.
Lensing
R
R
Klosterhalfen
B
B
Töns
C
C
Günther
R W
RW
D000368:Aged; D000792:Angiography; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007238:Infarction / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D007421:Intestine, Small / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D008297:Male; D008638:Mesenteric Arteries / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D008641:Mesenteric Vascular Occlusion / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D008642:Mesenteric Veins / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D008875:Middle Aged; D013927:Thrombosis / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging; D014463:Ultrasonography