title: Contrast-enhanced sonography in blunt scrotal trauma().
abstract: The scope of this study was to determine whether contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS), compared with basic US, can increase diagnostic confidence and provide relevant information on blunt scrotal trauma. Over a period of 75 months we examined 40 patients seen consecutively for blunt scrotal trauma using high-resolution US, color-power Doppler, low mechanical index CEUS, and power Doppler after IV administration of contrast medium (SonoVue(®)). In the 24 cases that were positive, concordance between basal US and CEUS findings was grade 0 (absent) in 4 cases, grade 1 (low) in 3, grade 2 (moderate) in 8, and grade 3 (high) in 9. The relevance of the additional information provided by CEUS was classified as follows: high in 4/40 (10%), moderate 7/40 (17,5%), low 13/40 (32,5%), none in 14/40 (35%). Our findings demonstrate that CEUS is appreciably more sensitive in detecting damage caused by blunt scrotal trauma, particularly small lesions. It is also useful for differential diagnosis and marginalization of corpuscular fluid collections, fractures, and above all ruptures, which require immediate surgery. In our series 2 out of 3 (67%) patients with testicular rupture were diagnosed only by CEUS. We feel that the use of CEUS can significantly improve diagnostic confidence in cases of closed scrotal trauma although these conclusions need to be confirmed in larger case series.
authors: Radiology Department, Santa Maria delle Grazie Hospital, Pozzuoli, Naples, Italy.
authors: R
authors: R
authors: Lobianco
authors: R
authors: R
authors: Regine
authors: M
authors: M
authors: De Siero
authors: O
authors: O
authors: Catalano
authors: C
authors: C
authors: Caiazzo
authors: A
authors: A
authors: Ragozzino
keywords: Acute scrotum; Contrast media; Contrast-enhanced sonography; Scrotal trauma; Sonography
references: Radiology. 2006 Jun;239(3):718-29
references: 16641337
references: Radiographics. 2008 Oct;28(6):1617-29
references: 18936025
references: Abdom Imaging. 2006 Jan-Feb;31(1):9-16
references: 16317492
references: J Ultrasound Med. 2005 Mar;24(3):299-310
references: 15723842
references: Radiol Med. 2004 Nov-Dec;108(5-6):454-69
references: 15722992
references: Radiographics. 2007 Mar-Apr;27(2):357-69
references: 17374858
references: Radiol Clin North Am. 1985 Mar;23(1):121-39
references: 2858113
references: Eur Radiol. 2011 Sep;21(9):1831-40
references: 21633826
references: Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2009 Feb;15(2):115-21
references: 19323369
references: J Ultrasound Med. 1997 May;16(5):317-24; quiz 325-6
references: 9315169
references: J Urol. 2010 Jan;183(1):263-9
references: 19942233
references: Radiol Med. 2009 Oct;114(7):1080-93
references: 19774445
references: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009 May;144 Suppl 1:S192-8
references: 19303691
references: Ultraschall Med. 2008 Feb;29(1):28-44
references: 18270887
references: Int J Urol. 2005 Sep;12(9):849-51
references: 16201986
references: Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2006 Jan-Feb;35(1):12-21
references: 16399236
references: Acad Emerg Med. 1995 Jul;2(7):639-43
references: 8521212
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1983 Nov;141(5):993-5
references: 6605076
references: Abdom Imaging. 2009 Mar-Apr;34(2):225-34
references: 18682877
references: Eur J Radiol. 2006 Oct;60(1):120-4
references: 16730939
references: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 Apr;196(4):834-41
references: 21427332
references: Int Braz J Urol. 2009 Nov-Dec;35(6):692-702; discussion 702-5
references: 20028575
references: Clin Radiol. 2000 Aug;55(8):595-601
references: 10964729
references: Urology. 1991 Jun;37(6):528-30
references: 2038785
references: J Urol. 1969 Feb;101(2):196-7
references: 5765482
references: J Ultrasound Med. 2003 May;22(5):467-77
references: 12751858
references: J Urol. 2006 Jan;175(1):175-8
references: 16406902
references: J Clin Ultrasound. 1996 Oct;24(8):405-21
references: 8884519
references: Urol Clin North Am. 1989 May;16(2):377-85
references: 2652862