Small bowel faeces sign in patients without small bowel obstruction
Aim To evaluate frequency and clinical relevance of the ‘small bowel faeces’ sign (SBFS) on computed tomography (CT) in patients with and without small bowel obstruction (SBO) presenting with acute abdominal or acute abdominal and flank pain. Methods Abdominal CTs of consecutive patients presenting...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical radiology 2007-04, Vol.62 (4), p.353-357 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 357 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 353 |
| container_title | Clinical radiology |
| container_volume | 62 |
| creator | Jacobs, S.L Rozenblit, A Ricci, Z Roberts, J Milikow, D Chernyak, V Wolf, E |
| description | Aim To evaluate frequency and clinical relevance of the ‘small bowel faeces’ sign (SBFS) on computed tomography (CT) in patients with and without small bowel obstruction (SBO) presenting with acute abdominal or acute abdominal and flank pain. Methods Abdominal CTs of consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department with abdominal or flank pain over a 6 month period were retrospectively reviewed by six radiologists, independently, for the presence of the SBFS. Examinations with positive SBFS were further evaluated in consensus by three radiologists, blinded to the final diagnosis. The small bowel was graded as non-dilated (4 cm) dilated. The location of SBFS and presence of distal small bowel collapse indicative of SBO was recorded. Imaging findings were subsequently correlated with the final diagnosis via chart review and compared between patients with and without SBO. Results Of 1642 CT examinations, a positive SBFS was found in 100 (6%) studies. Of 100 patients with a positive SBFS, 32 (32%) had documented SBO. The remaining 68 patients had other non-obstructive diagnoses. SBFS was located in proximal, central, distal and multisegmental bowel loops in one (3.1%), eight (25.0%), 21 (65.6%) and two (6.3%) patients with SBO, and in zero (0%), 10 (14.7%), 53 (77.9%) and five (7.4%) of patients without SBO ( p < 0.273). The small bowel was non-dilated and mildly, moderately or severely dilated in one (3%), five (16%), 20 (62%) and six (19%) patients with SBO, and in 61(90%), seven (10%), zero (0%) and zero (0%) patients without SBO. Normal or mildly dilated small bowel was seen in all (100%) patients without SBO, but only in six (19%) of 32 patients with SBO ( p < 0.0001). Moderate or severe small bowel dilatation was seen in 26 (81%) patients with SBO ( p < 0.0001), but it was absent in patients without SBO. Distal small bowel collapse was found in 27 (84.4%) of 32 patients with SBO, but not in patients without SBO ( p < 0.0001). A combination of SBFS, moderate or severe small bowel distension and distal collapse was found in 23 (71.9%) patients with SBO ( p < 0.0001), but was not found in patients without SBO. Conclusion A SBFS is more frequent in patients presenting with acute abdominal/flank pain without bowel obstruction. When seen in association with moderate or severe small bowel dilatation, a SBFS is significantly more common in patients with SBO. When a SBFS is associated |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1016/j.crad.2006.11.007 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70231875</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0009926006004156</els_id><sourcerecordid>70231875</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c439t-3837eb70c18b4b0811f39dd80a7196df22a9a511e6b1afe1f6d07c1c3c5dd9ac3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1r3DAQhkVpaLZp_0APxZf2ZmdGsmUbSiEs_YJADkmhNyFL41Zbr7WV5Ib8-8rsQkoPBcEgeN4Z6RnGXiFUCCgvd5UJ2lYcQFaIFUD7hG1QyKbkvP_2lG0AoC97LuGcPY9xt15rXj9j59gKgR3vN2x7u9fTVAz-nqZi1GQoFtF9nws3FwedHM0pFvcu_fBLKuJfrB9iCotJzs8v2Nmop0gvT_WCff344W77uby--fRle3Vdmlr0qRSdaGlowWA31AN0iKPore1At9hLO3Kue90gkhxQj4SjtNAaNMI01vbaiAv29tj3EPyvhWJSexcNTZOeyS9RtcDzr9omg_wImuBjDDSqQ3B7HR4UglrVqZ1a1alVnUJUWV0OvT51X4Y92cfIyVUG3pwAHY2exqBn4-Ij10loQYjMvTtylF38dhRUNNmjIesCmaSsd_9_x_t_4mZys8sTf9IDxZ1fwpwtK1SRK1C361bXHUM-NTZS_AFHBqGH</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>70231875</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Small bowel faeces sign in patients without small bowel obstruction</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Jacobs, S.L ; Rozenblit, A ; Ricci, Z ; Roberts, J ; Milikow, D ; Chernyak, V ; Wolf, E</creator><creatorcontrib>Jacobs, S.L ; Rozenblit, A ; Ricci, Z ; Roberts, J ; Milikow, D ; Chernyak, V ; Wolf, E</creatorcontrib><description><![CDATA[Aim To evaluate frequency and clinical relevance of the ‘small bowel faeces’ sign (SBFS) on computed tomography (CT) in patients with and without small bowel obstruction (SBO) presenting with acute abdominal or acute abdominal and flank pain. Methods Abdominal CTs of consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department with abdominal or flank pain over a 6 month period were retrospectively reviewed by six radiologists, independently, for the presence of the SBFS. Examinations with positive SBFS were further evaluated in consensus by three radiologists, blinded to the final diagnosis. The small bowel was graded as non-dilated (<2.5 cm) and mildly (2.5–2.9 cm), moderately (3–4 cm) or severely (>4 cm) dilated. The location of SBFS and presence of distal small bowel collapse indicative of SBO was recorded. Imaging findings were subsequently correlated with the final diagnosis via chart review and compared between patients with and without SBO. Results Of 1642 CT examinations, a positive SBFS was found in 100 (6%) studies. Of 100 patients with a positive SBFS, 32 (32%) had documented SBO. The remaining 68 patients had other non-obstructive diagnoses. SBFS was located in proximal, central, distal and multisegmental bowel loops in one (3.1%), eight (25.0%), 21 (65.6%) and two (6.3%) patients with SBO, and in zero (0%), 10 (14.7%), 53 (77.9%) and five (7.4%) of patients without SBO ( p < 0.273). The small bowel was non-dilated and mildly, moderately or severely dilated in one (3%), five (16%), 20 (62%) and six (19%) patients with SBO, and in 61(90%), seven (10%), zero (0%) and zero (0%) patients without SBO. Normal or mildly dilated small bowel was seen in all (100%) patients without SBO, but only in six (19%) of 32 patients with SBO ( p < 0.0001). Moderate or severe small bowel dilatation was seen in 26 (81%) patients with SBO ( p < 0.0001), but it was absent in patients without SBO. Distal small bowel collapse was found in 27 (84.4%) of 32 patients with SBO, but not in patients without SBO ( p < 0.0001). A combination of SBFS, moderate or severe small bowel distension and distal collapse was found in 23 (71.9%) patients with SBO ( p < 0.0001), but was not found in patients without SBO. Conclusion A SBFS is more frequent in patients presenting with acute abdominal/flank pain without bowel obstruction. When seen in association with moderate or severe small bowel dilatation, a SBFS is significantly more common in patients with SBO. When a SBFS is associated with normal or mildly dilated small bowel, the majority of patients have no bowel obstruction.]]></description><identifier>ISSN: 0009-9260</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-229X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2006.11.007</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17331829</identifier><identifier>CODEN: CLRAAG</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Biological and medical sciences ; Dilatation, Pathologic - diagnostic imaging ; Feces ; Female ; Humans ; Intestinal Obstruction - diagnostic imaging ; Intestinal Obstruction - etiology ; Intestinal Obstruction - pathology ; Intestine, Small - diagnostic imaging ; Intestine, Small - pathology ; Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Radiology ; Retrospective Studies ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><ispartof>Clinical radiology, 2007-04, Vol.62 (4), p.353-357</ispartof><rights>The Royal College of Radiologists</rights><rights>2006 The Royal College of Radiologists</rights><rights>2007 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c439t-3837eb70c18b4b0811f39dd80a7196df22a9a511e6b1afe1f6d07c1c3c5dd9ac3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c439t-3837eb70c18b4b0811f39dd80a7196df22a9a511e6b1afe1f6d07c1c3c5dd9ac3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2006.11.007$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,3539,27907,27908,45978</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=18607033$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17331829$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Jacobs, S.L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rozenblit, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ricci, Z</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberts, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Milikow, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chernyak, V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wolf, E</creatorcontrib><title>Small bowel faeces sign in patients without small bowel obstruction</title><title>Clinical radiology</title><addtitle>Clin Radiol</addtitle><description><![CDATA[Aim To evaluate frequency and clinical relevance of the ‘small bowel faeces’ sign (SBFS) on computed tomography (CT) in patients with and without small bowel obstruction (SBO) presenting with acute abdominal or acute abdominal and flank pain. Methods Abdominal CTs of consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department with abdominal or flank pain over a 6 month period were retrospectively reviewed by six radiologists, independently, for the presence of the SBFS. Examinations with positive SBFS were further evaluated in consensus by three radiologists, blinded to the final diagnosis. The small bowel was graded as non-dilated (<2.5 cm) and mildly (2.5–2.9 cm), moderately (3–4 cm) or severely (>4 cm) dilated. The location of SBFS and presence of distal small bowel collapse indicative of SBO was recorded. Imaging findings were subsequently correlated with the final diagnosis via chart review and compared between patients with and without SBO. Results Of 1642 CT examinations, a positive SBFS was found in 100 (6%) studies. Of 100 patients with a positive SBFS, 32 (32%) had documented SBO. The remaining 68 patients had other non-obstructive diagnoses. SBFS was located in proximal, central, distal and multisegmental bowel loops in one (3.1%), eight (25.0%), 21 (65.6%) and two (6.3%) patients with SBO, and in zero (0%), 10 (14.7%), 53 (77.9%) and five (7.4%) of patients without SBO ( p < 0.273). The small bowel was non-dilated and mildly, moderately or severely dilated in one (3%), five (16%), 20 (62%) and six (19%) patients with SBO, and in 61(90%), seven (10%), zero (0%) and zero (0%) patients without SBO. Normal or mildly dilated small bowel was seen in all (100%) patients without SBO, but only in six (19%) of 32 patients with SBO ( p < 0.0001). Moderate or severe small bowel dilatation was seen in 26 (81%) patients with SBO ( p < 0.0001), but it was absent in patients without SBO. Distal small bowel collapse was found in 27 (84.4%) of 32 patients with SBO, but not in patients without SBO ( p < 0.0001). A combination of SBFS, moderate or severe small bowel distension and distal collapse was found in 23 (71.9%) patients with SBO ( p < 0.0001), but was not found in patients without SBO. Conclusion A SBFS is more frequent in patients presenting with acute abdominal/flank pain without bowel obstruction. When seen in association with moderate or severe small bowel dilatation, a SBFS is significantly more common in patients with SBO. When a SBFS is associated with normal or mildly dilated small bowel, the majority of patients have no bowel obstruction.]]></description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Dilatation, Pathologic - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Feces</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Intestinal Obstruction - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Intestinal Obstruction - etiology</subject><subject>Intestinal Obstruction - pathology</subject><subject>Intestine, Small - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Intestine, Small - pathology</subject><subject>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><issn>0009-9260</issn><issn>1365-229X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kU1r3DAQhkVpaLZp_0APxZf2ZmdGsmUbSiEs_YJADkmhNyFL41Zbr7WV5Ib8-8rsQkoPBcEgeN4Z6RnGXiFUCCgvd5UJ2lYcQFaIFUD7hG1QyKbkvP_2lG0AoC97LuGcPY9xt15rXj9j59gKgR3vN2x7u9fTVAz-nqZi1GQoFtF9nws3FwedHM0pFvcu_fBLKuJfrB9iCotJzs8v2Nmop0gvT_WCff344W77uby--fRle3Vdmlr0qRSdaGlowWA31AN0iKPore1At9hLO3Kue90gkhxQj4SjtNAaNMI01vbaiAv29tj3EPyvhWJSexcNTZOeyS9RtcDzr9omg_wImuBjDDSqQ3B7HR4UglrVqZ1a1alVnUJUWV0OvT51X4Y92cfIyVUG3pwAHY2exqBn4-Ij10loQYjMvTtylF38dhRUNNmjIesCmaSsd_9_x_t_4mZys8sTf9IDxZ1fwpwtK1SRK1C361bXHUM-NTZS_AFHBqGH</recordid><startdate>20070401</startdate><enddate>20070401</enddate><creator>Jacobs, S.L</creator><creator>Rozenblit, A</creator><creator>Ricci, Z</creator><creator>Roberts, J</creator><creator>Milikow, D</creator><creator>Chernyak, V</creator><creator>Wolf, E</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20070401</creationdate><title>Small bowel faeces sign in patients without small bowel obstruction</title><author>Jacobs, S.L ; Rozenblit, A ; Ricci, Z ; Roberts, J ; Milikow, D ; Chernyak, V ; Wolf, E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c439t-3837eb70c18b4b0811f39dd80a7196df22a9a511e6b1afe1f6d07c1c3c5dd9ac3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Dilatation, Pathologic - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Feces</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Intestinal Obstruction - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Intestinal Obstruction - etiology</topic><topic>Intestinal Obstruction - pathology</topic><topic>Intestine, Small - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Intestine, Small - pathology</topic><topic>Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects)</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Jacobs, S.L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rozenblit, A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ricci, Z</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberts, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Milikow, D</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chernyak, V</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wolf, E</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Clinical radiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Jacobs, S.L</au><au>Rozenblit, A</au><au>Ricci, Z</au><au>Roberts, J</au><au>Milikow, D</au><au>Chernyak, V</au><au>Wolf, E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Small bowel faeces sign in patients without small bowel obstruction</atitle><jtitle>Clinical radiology</jtitle><addtitle>Clin Radiol</addtitle><date>2007-04-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>62</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>353</spage><epage>357</epage><pages>353-357</pages><issn>0009-9260</issn><eissn>1365-229X</eissn><coden>CLRAAG</coden><abstract><![CDATA[Aim To evaluate frequency and clinical relevance of the ‘small bowel faeces’ sign (SBFS) on computed tomography (CT) in patients with and without small bowel obstruction (SBO) presenting with acute abdominal or acute abdominal and flank pain. Methods Abdominal CTs of consecutive patients presenting to the emergency department with abdominal or flank pain over a 6 month period were retrospectively reviewed by six radiologists, independently, for the presence of the SBFS. Examinations with positive SBFS were further evaluated in consensus by three radiologists, blinded to the final diagnosis. The small bowel was graded as non-dilated (<2.5 cm) and mildly (2.5–2.9 cm), moderately (3–4 cm) or severely (>4 cm) dilated. The location of SBFS and presence of distal small bowel collapse indicative of SBO was recorded. Imaging findings were subsequently correlated with the final diagnosis via chart review and compared between patients with and without SBO. Results Of 1642 CT examinations, a positive SBFS was found in 100 (6%) studies. Of 100 patients with a positive SBFS, 32 (32%) had documented SBO. The remaining 68 patients had other non-obstructive diagnoses. SBFS was located in proximal, central, distal and multisegmental bowel loops in one (3.1%), eight (25.0%), 21 (65.6%) and two (6.3%) patients with SBO, and in zero (0%), 10 (14.7%), 53 (77.9%) and five (7.4%) of patients without SBO ( p < 0.273). The small bowel was non-dilated and mildly, moderately or severely dilated in one (3%), five (16%), 20 (62%) and six (19%) patients with SBO, and in 61(90%), seven (10%), zero (0%) and zero (0%) patients without SBO. Normal or mildly dilated small bowel was seen in all (100%) patients without SBO, but only in six (19%) of 32 patients with SBO ( p < 0.0001). Moderate or severe small bowel dilatation was seen in 26 (81%) patients with SBO ( p < 0.0001), but it was absent in patients without SBO. Distal small bowel collapse was found in 27 (84.4%) of 32 patients with SBO, but not in patients without SBO ( p < 0.0001). A combination of SBFS, moderate or severe small bowel distension and distal collapse was found in 23 (71.9%) patients with SBO ( p < 0.0001), but was not found in patients without SBO. Conclusion A SBFS is more frequent in patients presenting with acute abdominal/flank pain without bowel obstruction. When seen in association with moderate or severe small bowel dilatation, a SBFS is significantly more common in patients with SBO. When a SBFS is associated with normal or mildly dilated small bowel, the majority of patients have no bowel obstruction.]]></abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>17331829</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.crad.2006.11.007</doi><tpages>5</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0009-9260 |
| ispartof | Clinical radiology, 2007-04, Vol.62 (4), p.353-357 |
| issn | 0009-9260 1365-229X |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70231875 |
| source | MEDLINE; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present) |
| subjects | Adolescent Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Biological and medical sciences Dilatation, Pathologic - diagnostic imaging Feces Female Humans Intestinal Obstruction - diagnostic imaging Intestinal Obstruction - etiology Intestinal Obstruction - pathology Intestine, Small - diagnostic imaging Intestine, Small - pathology Investigative techniques, diagnostic techniques (general aspects) Male Medical sciences Middle Aged Radiology Retrospective Studies Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods |
| title | Small bowel faeces sign in patients without small bowel obstruction |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T11%3A28%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Small%20bowel%20faeces%20sign%20in%20patients%20without%20small%20bowel%20obstruction&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20radiology&rft.au=Jacobs,%20S.L&rft.date=2007-04-01&rft.volume=62&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=353&rft.epage=357&rft.pages=353-357&rft.issn=0009-9260&rft.eissn=1365-229X&rft.coden=CLRAAG&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.crad.2006.11.007&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E70231875%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=70231875&rft_id=info:pmid/17331829&rft_els_id=S0009926006004156&rfr_iscdi=true |