CT of blunt pancreatic trauma: a pictorial essay

From surveillance to surgery: The delayed implications of non-operative and operative management of pancreatic injuries

BACKGROUND

Our study compares the delayed outcomes of operative versus nonoperative management of pancreatic injuries.

METHODS

We analyzed the 2017 Nationwide Readmissions Database on adult (≥18 years) trauma patients with pancreatic injuries. Patients who died on index admission were excluded. Patients were stratified into operative (OP) and non-operative (NOP) groups and compared for outcomes within 90 days of discharge. Multivariable regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

We identified 1553 patients (NOP ​= ​1092; OP ​= ​461). The Mean (SD) age was 39 (17.0) years, 31% of patients were female, and 77% had blunt injuries. Median ISS was 17 [9-25] and 74% had concomitant non-pancreatic intraabdominal injuries. On multivariable analysis, operative management was independently associated with increased odds of 90-day readmissions (aOR ​= ​1.47; p ​= ​0.03), intraabdominal abscesses (aOR ​= ​2.7; p ​< ​0.01), pancreatic pseudocyst (aOR ​= ​2.4; p ​= ​0.04), and need for percutaneous or endoscopic management (aOR ​= ​5.8; p ​< ​0.001).

CONCLUSION

Operative management of pancreatic injuries is associated with higher rates of delayed complications compared to non-operative management. Surgically treated pancreatic trauma patients may need close surveillance even after discharge.

Resection versus drainage in the management of patients with AAST-OIS grade IV blunt pancreatic injury: A single trauma centre experience

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to compare outcomes of pancreatic resection with that of peripancreatic drainage for American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-Organ Injury Scale (AAST-OIS) grade IV blunt pancreatic injury in order to determine the optimal treatment method.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nineteen surgical patients with AAST-OIS grade IV blunt pancreatic injury between 1994 and 2016 were retrospectively studied.

RESULTS

Among the 19 patients, 14 were men and 5 were women (median age: 33 years). Twelve patients underwent pancreatic resection (spleen-sacrificing distal pancreatectomy, n = 6; spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy, n = 3; and central pancreatectomy with Roux-en-Y anastomosis, n = 3), and seven underwent peripancreatic drainage. After comparing these two groups, no significant differences were found in terms of gender, shock at triage, laboratory data, injury severity score, associated injury, length of hospital stay, and complication. The only significant difference was that in the drainage group, the duration from injury to surgery was longer than that from injury to resection (median, 48 hours vs. 24 hours; P = 0.036). In the drainage group, three patients required reoperation, and another three required further pancreatic duct stent therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In the surgery of the grade IV blunt pancreatic injury, pancreatic resection is warranted in early, conclusive MPD injury; if surgery is delayed or MPD injury has not been clearly assessed, peripancreatic drainage is an alternative method. However, peripancreatic drainage alone is not adequate and further pancreatic duct stent or reoperation is required. Further studies should be conducted to confirm our conclusions.

Missed pancreatic injury in patients undergoing conservative management of blunt abdominal trauma: Causes, sequelae and management

Objective: Pancreas is a less commonly injured organ in blunt abdominal trauma. This study aimed to analyze the management and outcomes of patients in whom the pancreatic injury was missed during the initial evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma.

Material and Methods: We retrospectively (2009-2019) analyzed the details and outcome of patients who underwent conservative management of blunt abdominal trauma, where the diagnosis of pancreatic injury was missed for at least 72 hours following trauma.

Results: A total of 31 patients with missed pancreatic injury were identified. All patients were hemodynamically stable following trauma and most (21) were initially assessed only by an ultrasound. A delayed diagnosis of pancreatic injury was made at a mean of 28 (4 to 60) days after trauma when patients developed abdominal pain (31), distension (18), fever (10) or vomiting (8). On repeat imaging, 18 (58.1%) patients had high grade pancreatic injuries including complete transection or pancreatic duct injury. Seven (22.5%) patients were managed conservatively, seventeen (54.8%) underwent percutaneous drainage of intra-abdominal collections, seven (22.5%) underwent endoscopic or surgical drainage procedure for symptomatic pseudocyst. Eleven (35.4%) patients needed readmissions to manage recurrent pancreatitis, intra-abdominal abscess and pancreatic fistula. Three patients required pancreatic duct stenting for pancreatic fistula. There was no mortality.

Conclusion: Pancreatic injury may be missed in patients who remain hemodynamically stable with minimal clinical symptoms after abdominal trauma, especially if screened only by an ultrasound. In our series, there was significant morbidity of missed pancreatic injury.

Curiosity or Underdiagnosed? Injuries to Thoracolumbar Spine with Concomitant Trauma to Pancreas

The pancreas is at risk of damage as a consequence of thoracolumbar spine injury. However, there are no studies providing prevalence data to support this assumption. Data from European hospitals documented in the TraumaRegister DGU^® (TR-DGU) between 2008–2017 were analyzed to estimate the prevalence of this correlation and to determine the impact on clinical outcome. A total of 44,279 patients with significant thoracolumbar trauma, defined on Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) as ≥2, were included. Patients transferred to another hospital within 48 h were excluded to prevent double counting. A total of 135,567 patients without thoracolumbar injuries (AIS ≤ 1) were used as control group. Four-hundred patients with thoracolumbar trauma had a pancreatic injury. Pancreatic injuries were more common after thoracolumbar trauma (0.90% versus (vs.) 0.51%, odds ratio (OR) 1.78; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 1.57–2.01). Patients with pancreatic injuries were more likely to be male (68%) and had a higher mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) than those without (35.7 ± 16.0 vs. 23.8 ± 12.4). Mean length of stay (LOS) in intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital was longer with pancreatic injury. In-hospital mortality was 17.5% with and 9.7% without pancreatic injury, respectively. Although uncommon, concurrent pancreatic injury in the setting of thoracolumbar trauma can portend a much more serious injury.

Pancreatic Trauma: Imaging Review and Management Update

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.

Intimate Partner Violence: A Primer for Radiologists to Make the "Invisible" Visible

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is the physical, sexual, or emotional violence between current or former partners. It is a major public health issue that affects nearly one out of four women. Nonetheless, IPV is greatly underdiagnosed. Imaging has played a significant role in identifying cases of nonaccidental trauma in children, and similarly, it has the potential to enable the identification of injuries resulting from IPV. Radiologists have early access to the radiologic history of such victims and may be the first to diagnose IPV on the basis of the distribution and imaging appearance of the patient's currrent and past injuries. Radiologists must be familiar with the imaging findings that are suggestive of injuries resulting from IPV. Special attention should be given to cases in which there are multiple visits for injury care; coexistent fractures at different stages of healing, which may help differentiate injuries related to IPV from those caused by a stranger; and injuries in defensive locations and target areas such as the face and upper extremities. The authors provide an overview of current methods for diagnosing IPV and define the role of the radiologist in cases of IPV. They also describe a successful diagnostic imaging-based approach for helping to identify IPV, with a specific focus on the associated imaging findings and mechanisms of injuries. In addition, current needs and future perspectives for improving the diagnosis of this hidden epidemic are identified. This information is intended to raise awareness among radiologists, with the ultimate goal of improving the diagnosis of IPV and thus reducing the devastating effects on victims' lives. ^©RSNA, 2020.

Traumatic pancreatitis

Post-traumatic pancreatitis can develop secondary to blunt or penetrating abdominal trauma, post-endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, or following pancreatic surgery. Clinical findings are often nonspecific, and imaging findings can be subtle on presentation. Early diagnosis of pancreatic duct injury is critical and informs management strategy; imaging plays important role in diagnosis of ductal injury and identification of delayed complications such as retroperitoneal fluid collections, pancreatic fistula, ductal strictures, and recurrent pancreatitis. Delayed diagnosis of pancreatic injury is associated with high mortality and morbidity, and therefore, heightened clinical suspicion is important in order for the radiologist to effectively impact patient care. There are accepted scoring systems for classification of post-traumatic pancreatic injuries and these should be included in radiology reports. Pancreatitis following ERCP appears similar on imaging to other causes of acute pancreatitis unless concomitant perforation occurs. Postoperative pancreatitis may be difficult to diagnose given associated or overlapping expected postoperative findings. Postoperative pancreatic fistulas typically arise from either a leaking pancreatic resection surface or the pancreatoenteric anastomosis and are more common in patients with a "soft" pancreas. Preoperative imaging biomarkers like duct diameter, pancreatic glandular steatosis and parenchymal fibrosis can help predict risk of development of postoperative pancreatic fistula. This review will illustrate the imaging features and the most important imaging findings in patients with post-traumatic pancreatitis.

Dual-Energy CT: A Paradigm Shift in Acute Traumatic Abdomen

Abdominal trauma, one of the leading causes of death under the age of 45, can be broadly classified into blunt and penetrating trauma, based on the mechanism of injury. Blunt abdominal trauma usually results from motor vehicle collisions, fall from heights, assaults, and sports and is more common than penetrating abdominal trauma, which is usually seen in firearm injuries and stab wounds. In both blunt and penetrating abdominal trauma, an optimized imaging approach is mandatory to exclude life-threatening injuries. Easy availability of the portable ultrasound in the emergency department and trauma bay makes it one of the most commonly used screening imaging modalities in the abdominal trauma, especially to exclude hemoperitoneum. Evaluation of the visceral and vascular injuries in a hemodynamically stable patient, however, warrants intravenous contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography scan. Dual-energy computed tomography with its postprocessing applications such as iodine selective imaging and virtual monoenergetic imaging can reliably depict the conspicuity of traumatic solid and hollow visceral and vascular injuries.

Duodeno-pancreatic and extrahepatic biliary tree trauma: WSES-AAST guidelines

Duodeno-pancreatic and extrahepatic biliary tree injuries are rare in both adult and pediatric trauma patients, and due to their anatomical location, associated injuries are very common. Mortality is primarily related to associated injuries, but morbidity remains high even in isolated injuries. Optimal management of duodeno-bilio-pancreatic injuries is dictated primarily by hemodynamic stability, clinical presentation, and grade of injury. Endoscopic and percutaneous interventions have increased the ability to non-operatively manage these injuries. Late diagnosis and treatment are both associated to increased morbidity and mortality. Sequelae of late presentations of pancreatic injury and complications of severe pancreatic trauma are also increasingly addressed endoscopically and with interventional radiology procedures. However, for moderate and severe extrahepatic biliary and severe duodeno-pancreatic injuries, immediate operative intervention is preferred as associated injuries are frequent and commonly present with hemodynamic instability or peritonitis. The aim of this paper is to present the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) and American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST) duodenal, pancreatic, and extrahepatic biliary tree trauma management guidelines.

Operative versus non-operative management of blunt pancreatic trauma: A systematic review

Introduction

Motor vehicle crashes are common causes of blunt abdominal trauma in the 21st century. While splenic trauma occurs very frequently and thus there is a well-established treatment paradigm, traumatic pancreatic injuries are relatively infrequent, occurring in only 3–5% of traumas. This low incidence means physicians have reduced experience with this condition and there is still ongoing debate with regards to the best practice in managing pancreatic trauma. During severe trauma, the pancreas can be injured as a consequence of blunt and penetrating injury. This has an estimated mortality rate ranging from 9 to 34%.

Methods

A systematic review was performed using three scientific databases: Embase, Medline and Cochrane and in-line with the PRISMA statement. We included only articles published in English, available as full text and describing only adults. Keywords included: pancrea*, trauma, blunt, operative management and non-operative management.

Results

Three studies were found that directly compared operative versus non-operative management in blunt pancreatic trauma. Length of stay, mortality and rate of re-intervention were lower in the non-operative group compared to the operative group. However, the average grade of pancreatic injury was lower in the non-operative group compared to the operative group.

Discussion

Our results revealed that patients who undergo non-operative management tend to have lower grade of injuries and patients with higher grade of injury tend to be managed in an operative fashion. This could be likely due to the fact that higher grade of pancreatic injuries is often accompanied by other injuries such as hollow viscus injury and therefore require operative intervention.

Conclusion

Non-operative management is a safe approach for low-grade blunt pancreatic trauma without ductal injuries. However, more evidence is required to improve our understanding and treatment plans. We suggest a large international multicentre study combining data from multiple international trauma centres to collect adequate data.

Lessons learned from isolated blunt major pancreatic injury: Surgical experience in one trauma centre

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to present our surgical experience of isolated blunt major pancreatic injury (IBMPI), and to compare its characteristic outcomes with that of multi-organ injury.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 1994-2015, 31 patients with IBMPI and 54 patients with multi-organ injury, who underwent surgery, were retrospectively studied.

RESULTS

Of the 31 patients with IBMPI, 22 were male and 9 were female. The median age was 30 years (interquartile range, 20-38). Twenty-one patients were classified as the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma-Organ Injury Scale Grade III, and 10 patients as Grade IV. Patients with IBMPI had significantly lower shock-at-triage rates, lower injury severity scores, longer injury-to-surgery time, and shorter length of hospital stay than those with multi-organ injury. There were no statistically significant differences in sex, age, trauma mechanism, laboratory data, surgical procedures, and complications between the two groups. Eight patients with IBMPI underwent endoscopic retrograde pancreatography, and 5 patients with complete major pancreatic duct (MPD) disruption underwent pancreatectomy eventually. The remaining 3 patients had partial MPD injury and two of them received a pancreatic duct stent for the treatment of existing postoperative pancreatic fistula. Spleen-sacrificing distal pancreatectomy (SSDP) was performed in 13 patient with IBMPI, followed by spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy (n = 12), peripancreatic drainage (n = 4), and central pancreatectomy with Roux-en-Y reconstruction (n = 2). The overall complication rates, related to the SSDP, SPDP, peripancreatic drainage, and central pancreatectomy, were 10/13 (77%), 4/12 (33%), 3/4 (75%), and 2/2 (100%), respectively. Three patients died resulting in a 10% mortality rate, and the other 16 patients developed intra-abdominal complications resulting in a 52% morbidity rate. In the subgroup analysis of the 25 patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy, SPDP was associated with a shorter injury-to-surgery time than SSDP.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with IBMPI have longer injury-to-surgery times, compared to those with multi-organ injury. Of the distal pancreatectomy patients, the time interval from injury to surgery was a significant associated factor in preserving or sacrificing the spleen.

Comparison of diagnostic imaging modalities for the evaluation of pancreatic duct injury in children: a multi-institutional analysis from the Pancreatic Trauma Study Group

PURPOSE

Determining the integrity of the pancreatic duct is important in high-grade pancreatic trauma to guide decision making for operative vs non-operative management. Computed tomography (CT) is generally an inadequate study for this purpose, and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) is sometimes obtained to gain additional information regarding the duct. The purpose of this multi-institutional study was to directly compare the results from CT and MRCP for evaluating pancreatic duct disruption in children with these rare injuries.

METHODS

Retrospective study of data obtained from eleven pediatric trauma centers from 2010 to 2015. Children up to age 18 with suspected blunt pancreatic duct injury who had both CT and MRCP within 1 week of injury were included. Imaging findings of both studies were directly compared and analyzed using descriptive statistics, Chi square, Wilcoxon rank-sum, and McNemar's tests.

RESULTS

Data were collected for 21 patients (mean age 7.8 years). The duct was visualized more often on MRCP than CT (48 vs 5%, p < 0.05). Duct disruption was confirmed more often on MRCP than CT (24 vs 0%), suspected based on secondary findings equally (38 vs 38%), and more often indeterminate on CT (62 vs 38%). Overall, MRCP was not superior to CT for determining duct integrity (62 vs 38%, p = 0.28).

CONCLUSIONS

In children with blunt pancreatic injury, MRCP is more useful than CT for identifying the pancreatic duct but may not be superior for confirmation of duct integrity. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiogram (ERCP) may be necessary to confirm duct disruption when considering pancreatic resection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Spleen-preserving versus spleen-sacrificing distal pancreatectomy in adults with blunt major pancreatic injury

Background

The aim of this study was to analyse outcomes of spleen‐preserving (SPDP) and spleen‐sacrificing (SSDP) distal pancreatectomy in adults with severe blunt pancreatic injuries.

Methods

This was an observational study of adult patients who underwent distal pancreatectomy for grade III or IV blunt pancreatic injury between 1991 and 2015. Outcomes of SPDP and SSDP were compared.

Results

Fifty‐one patients were included, of whom 23 underwent SPDP and 28 SSDP. The median Injury Severity Score (ISS) was 13·0 (i.q.r. 9·0–18·0). No significant differences were observed between the groups regarding sex, trauma mechanism, shock at triage, laboratory data, location, ISS, associated injury, length of stay, mortality or morbidity. Age (27·0 versus 36·5 years; P = 0·012) and time interval from injury to distal pancreatectomy (15·0 versus 44·0 h; P = 0·022) differed significantly between SPDP and SSDP groups respectively. The mortality rate was 4 per cent (1 of 23) versus 11 per cent (3 of 28) respectively (P = 0·617). Nine patients (39 per cent) developed abdominal morbidity after SPDP, compared with 17 (61 per cent) after SSPD (P = 0·125). In the SPDP group, eight patients had grade B postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), two of whom required further intervention. In the SSDP group, six of ten patients with grade B POPF required CT‐guided drainage, and a further five patients required reoperation for other causes. There were more reinterventions after SSDP: 11 of 28 (39 per cent) versus 3 of 23 (13 per cent) in the SPDP group (P = 0·037).

Conclusion

SPDP was performed more often in younger patients and at a shorter interval after severe blunt pancreatic injury. SPDP was associated with fewer reinterventions.

Incidence and Risk Factors of Acute Pancreatitis After Scoliosis Surgery: A Prospective Study

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective study.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the incidence and risk factors of acute pancreatitis after scoliosis surgery.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Pancreatitis has been recognized as a possible complication of extra-abdominal surgeries. However, there were few reports on the incidence and risk factors of acute pancreatitis after scoliosis surgery.

METHODS

A prospective clinical study was performed at our center from September 2014 to October 2015. One hundred seventy-six patients undergoing posterior spinal correction surgery were enrolled. The diagnosis of acute pancreatitis was based on their clinical manifestations combined with laboratory examination. Demographic, intraoperative, and radiological parameters were evaluated to identify the risk factors of acute pancreatitis after scoliosis surgery.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients (7.4%) were diagnosed with acute pancreatitis. Compared with patients without pancreatitis, pancreatitis patients had lower body mass index (BMI) (15.5 vs. 19.5, P = 0.001), larger preoperative Cobb angle of major curve (87.5° vs. 59.2°, P < 0.001), lower correction rate (57.4% vs. 69.0%, P = 0.045), lower intraoperative mean arterial pressure (57.9 mmHg vs. 66.1 mmHg, P < 0.001), and longer fusion levels (13.3 vs. 10.1, P < 0.001). No significant differences were noted with respect to operation time, intraoperative blood loss, or the amount of sagittal profile correction. Furthermore, multivariate logistic analysis revealed that BMI (odds ratio [OR] = 1.542, P = 0.009), lowest intraoperative mean arterial pressure (OR = 1.126, P = 0.039), and segments of fusion (OR = 0.551, P = 0.025) were independent risk factors for postoperative acute pancreatitis. All cases were treated with bowel rest, intravenous fluids, and fasting and completely recovered with 3.3 (2-5) days.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of postoperative acute pancreatitis after scoliosis surgery was 7.4%. The low BMI, lowest intraoperative mean arterial pressure, and long segments of fusion were independent risk factors for acute pancreatitis after scoliosis surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

Conservative treatment using an endoscopic pancreatic stent in a patient with delayed diagnosis of pancreatic injury after blunt trauma: A case report

The diagnostic evaluation of pancreatic injuries has improved dramatically in recent years. However, it is sometimes difficult to diagnose pancreatic injuries. Surgical treatment after delayed diagnosis is associated with increased risks of mortality and morbidity. A 47-year-old man was referred to our emergency department after experiencing blunt abdominal trauma 5 d earlier. The patient was diagnosed with a grade-III pancreatic injury. His hemodynamic status remained stable. He was managed successfully using endoscopic pancreatic stenting and percutaneous drainage catheter insertion.

Blunt pancreatic trauma: A persistent diagnostic conundrum?

Blunt pancreatic trauma is an uncommon injury but has high morbidity and mortality. In modern era of trauma care, pancreatic trauma remains a persistent challenge to radiologists and surgeons alike. Early detection of pancreatic trauma is essential to prevent subsequent complications. However early pancreatic injury is often subtle on computed tomography (CT) and can be missed unless specifically looked for. Signs of pancreatic injury on CT include laceration, transection, bulky pancreas, heterogeneous enhancement, peripancreatic fluid and signs of pancreatitis. Pan-creatic ductal injury is a vital decision-making parameter as ductal injury is an indication for laparotomy. While lacerations involving more than half of pancreatic parenchyma are suggestive of ductal injury on CT, ductal injuries can be directly assessed on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or encoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography. Pancreatic trauma also shows temporal evolution with increase in extent of injury with time. Hence early CT scans may underestimate the extent of injures and sequential imaging with CT or MRI is important in pancreatic trauma. Sequential imaging is also needed for successful non-operative management of pancreatic injury. Accurate early detection on initial CT and adopting a multimodality and sequential imaging strategy can improve outcome in pancreatic trauma.

Pancreatic trauma: The role of computed tomography for guiding therapeutic approach

AIM: To evaluate the role of computed tomography (CT) for diagnosing traumatic injuries of the pancreas and guiding the therapeutic approach.

METHODS: CT exams of 6740 patients admitted to our Emergency Department between May 2005 and January 2013 for abdominal trauma were retrospectively evaluated. Patients were identified through a search of our electronic archive system by using such terms as “pancreatic injury”, “pancreatic contusion”, “pancreatic laceration”, “peri-pancreatic fluid”, “pancreatic active bleeding”. All CT examinations were performed before and after the intravenous injection of contrast material using a 16-slice multidetector row computed tomography scanner. The data sets were retrospectively analyzed by two radiologists in consensus searching for specific signs of pancreatic injury (parenchymal fracture and laceration, focal or diffuse pancreatic enlargement/edema, pancreatic hematoma, active bleeding, fluid between splenic vein and pancreas) and non-specific signs (inflammatory changes in peri-pancreatic fat and mesentery, fluid surrounding the superior mesenteric artery, thickening of the left anterior renal fascia, pancreatic ductal dilatation, acute pseudocyst formation/peri-pancreatic fluid collection, fluid in the anterior and posterior pararenal spaces, fluid in transverse mesocolon and lesser sac, hemorrhage into peri-pancreatic fat, mesocolon and mesentery, extraperitoneal fluid, intra-peritoneal fluid).

RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-six/Six thousand seven hundred and forty (2%) patients showed CT signs of pancreatic trauma. Eight/one hundred and thirty-six (6%) patients underwent surgical treatment and the pancreatic injures were confirmed in all cases. Only in 6/8 patients treated with surgical approach, pancreatic duct damage was suggested in the radiological reports and surgically confirmed in all cases. In 128/136 (94%) patients who underwent non-operative treatment CT images showed pancreatic edema in 97 patients, hematoma in 31 patients, fluid between splenic vein and pancreas in 113 patients. Non-specific CT signs of pancreatic injuries were represented by peri-pancreatic fat stranding and mesentery fluid in 89% of cases, thickening of the left anterior renal fascia in 65%, pancreatic ductal dilatation in 18%, acute pseudocyst/peri-pancreatic fluid collection in 57%, fluid in the pararenal spaces in 45%, fluid in transverse mesocolon and lesser sac in 29%, hemorrhage into peri-pancreatic fat, mesocolon and mesentery in 66%, extraperitoneal fluid in 66%, intra-peritoneal fluid in 41% cases.

CONCLUSION: CT represents an accurate tool for diagnosing pancreatic trauma, provides useful information to plan therapeutic approach with a detection rate of 75% for recognizing ductal lesions.

Evaluation of diagnostic utility of multidetector computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in blunt pancreatic trauma: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

Blunt pancreatic trauma is an uncommon injury with high morbidity and mortality. Retrospective analyses of computed tomography (CT) performance report CT to have variable sensitivity in diagnosing pancreatic injury. Both a prospective analysis of multidetector CT (MDCT) performance and diagnostic utility of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in acute blunt pancreatic injury remain unexplored.

PURPOSE

To prospectively evaluate the utility of MDCT with MRI correlation in patients with blunt pancreatic trauma using intraoperative findings as the gold standard for analysis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) scans of patients admitted with blunt abdominal trauma were prospectively evaluated for CT signs of pancreatic injury. Patients detected to have pancreatic injury on CT were assigned a CT grade of injury according to American Association for Surgery of Trauma classification. MRI was performed in patients not undergoing immediate laparotomy and MRI grade independent of CT grade was assigned. Surgical grade was taken as gold standard and accuracy of CT and MRI for grading pancreatic injury and pancreatic ductal injury (PDI) was calculated. A quantitative and qualitative comparison of MRI was also done with CT to determine the performance of MRI in acute pancreatic injury.

RESULTS

Thirty out of 1198 patients with blunt trauma abdomen were detected to have pancreatic injury on CT, which was surgically confirmed in 24 patients. Seventeen underwent MRI and surgical correlation was available in 14 patients. CT and MRI correctly identified the grade of pancreatic injury in 91.7% (22/24) and 92.86% (13/14) patients, respectively. Both CT and MRI correctly identified PDI in 18/19 and 11/12 patients, respectively, with good inter-modality agreement of 88.9% (kappa value of 0.78). MRI also qualitatively added to the information provided by CT and increased diagnostic confidence in 58.8% of patients.

CONCLUSION

MDCT performs well in grading pancreatic injury and evaluating pancreatic ductal injury. MRI is useful in evaluation of acute pancreatic trauma as it can increase diagnostic confidence and provide more qualitative information regarding the extent of injury.

Intra-abdominal Solid Organ Injuries: An Enhanced Management Algorithm

The organ injury scale grading system proposed by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma provides guidelines for operative versus nonoperative management in solid organ injuries; however, major shortcomings of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma injury scale may become apparent with low-grade injuries, in which conservative management may fail. Nonoperative management of common intra-abdominal solid organ injuries relies increasingly on computed tomographic findings and other clinical factors, including patient age, presence of concurrent injuries, and serial clinical assessments. Familiarity with characteristic imaging features is essential for the prompt diagnosis and appropriate treatment of blunt abdominal trauma. In this pictorial essay, the spectrum of the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma organ injury scale grading system is illustrated, and a multidisciplinary management algorithm for common intra-abdominal solid organ injuries is proposed.

Pseudopancreatitis on computed tomography in a patient with isolated blunt head trauma: a case report

INTRODUCTION

Computed tomography is commonly used to exclude occult injuries in patients with trauma, but imaging can reveal findings that are of uncertain etiology or clinical significance. We present a case of unsuspected pancreatic abnormality in a female patient with trauma who sustained an isolated blunt head injury.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 25-year-old female Caucasian patient sustained massive blunt and penetrating head trauma, secondary to a large object penetrating through the vehicle windshield. Based on the mechanism of injury and clinical evaluation, it was felt to be an isolated head injury. However, computed tomography of her abdomen revealed an occult, intra-abdominal finding of significant pancreatic enlargement and peripancreatic fluid. There was no computed tomography evidence of parenchymal pancreatic laceration. The appearance of her pancreas on computed tomography was identical to that of acute pancreatitis or low-grade pancreatic injury, but her clinical history and laboratory values were not consistent with this, hence the term 'pseudopancreatitis'. Later surgery for organ donation confirmed diffuse pancreatic and peripancreatic edema, but no hematoma, contusion or other evidence for direct traumatic injury. This was an isolated intra-abdominal abnormality.

CONCLUSION

The routine use of computed tomography in patients who have sustained trauma has led to increasing detection of unexpected findings. Clinical information such as mechanism of injury and blood work, along with careful evaluation of ancillary imaging findings (or lack of), is important for the provision of an appropriate differential diagnosis. We discuss the possible mechanism and differential diagnosis of an isolated pancreatic abnormality in the setting of non-abdominal trauma, which includes shock pancreas, overhydration, traumatic pancreatic injury and pancreatitis secondary to other etiologies.

Diagnosis and treatment of traumatic pancreatic injuries

Pancreatic trauma accounted for 1%-5% of all blunt abdominal injuries and 12% of penetrating abdominal injuries. Although pancreatic trauma is uncommon, its mortality is high. Early accurate diagnosis, selection of suitable means of treatment based on the degree of injury, and management of complications are issues that should be stressed in the treatment of pancreatic trauma. This article discusses the clinical diagnosis, treatment and complications of pancreatic trauma.

Pancreatic trauma

INTRODUCTION

Pancreatic trauma occurs in approximately 4% of all patients sustaining abdominal injuries. The pancreas has an intimate relationship with the major upper abdominal vessels, and there is significant morbidity and mortality associated with severe pancreatic injury. Immediate resuscitation and investigations are essential to delineate the nature of the injury, and to plan further management. If main pancreatic duct injuries are identified, specialised input from a tertiary hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) team is advised.

METHODS

A comprehensive online literature search was performed using PubMed. Relevant articles from international journals were selected. The search terms used were: 'pancreatic trauma', 'pancreatic duct injury', 'radiology AND pancreas injury', 'diagnosis of pancreatic trauma', and 'management AND surgery'. Articles that were not published in English were excluded. All articles used were selected on relevance to this review and read by both authors.

RESULTS

Pancreatic trauma is rare and associated with injury to other upper abdominal viscera. Patients present with non-specific abdominal findings and serum amylase is of little use in diagnosis. Computed tomography is effective in diagnosing pancreatic injury but not duct disruption, which is most easily seen on endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreaticography or operative pancreatography. If pancreatic injury is suspected, inspection of the entire pancreas and duodenum is required to ensure full evaluation at laparotomy. The operative management of pancreatic injury depends on the grade of injury found at laparotomy. The most important prognostic factor is main duct disruption and, if found, reconstructive options should be determined by an experienced HPB surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnosis of pancreatic trauma requires a high index of suspicion and detailed imaging studies. Grading pancreatic injury is important to guide operative management. The most important prognostic factor is pancreatic duct disruption and in these cases, experienced HPB surgeons should be involved. Complications following pancreatic trauma are common and the majority can be managed without further surgery.

Blunt pancreatic trauma: evaluation with MDCT technology

The purpose of this paper is to determine the relative frequency of multi-detector CT (MDCT) findings of pancreatic injury in blunt trauma and to determine their diagnostic accuracy in predicting main pancreatic duct injury. Fifty-three patients (31 male, 22 female; mean 44.1 years) with blunt trauma and admission MDCT findings suspicious for pancreatic injury or who underwent MDCT and had a discharge diagnosis of pancreatic trauma were included in this study. Two radiologists reviewed all images and recorded findings suspicious for pancreatic injury, which were subsequently compared to surgical findings to generate diagnostic accuracy. MDCT imaging findings suggestive of pancreatic injury included low attenuation peripancreatic fluid (n = 51), hyperattenuating peripancreatic fluid (n = 13), pancreatic contusion (n = 7), active hemorrhage (n = 2), and pancreatic laceration (n = 16). Diagnostic accuracy of the various imaging findings varied for diagnosing main duct injury; there were highly sensitive, nonspecific imaging findings such as the presence of low attenuation peripancreatic fluid (sensitivity, 100 %; specificity 4.9 %) as well as insensitive, specific findings such as visualizing a pancreatic laceration involving >50 % of the parenchymal width (sensitivity, 50 %; specificity, 95.1 %). In the setting of blunt abdominal trauma, MDCT imaging findings can be grouped into two categories for determining integrity of the main pancreatic duct: indirect, highly sensitive but nonspecific findings and direct, specific but insensitive findings. Awareness of the clinical implications of the various MDCT imaging findings of pancreatic trauma is useful in interpreting their significance.

Evaluation of blunt pancreatic injury with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in comparison with contrast-enhanced computed tomography

The aim of the present study was to evaluate acute blunt pancreatic injury using contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) in comparison with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT). Superficial and deep lesions were established by blunt pancreatic injury in 40 Chinese Guangxi Bama miniature pigs. Conventional ultrasound (US), CEUS and CECT were performed to detect traumatic lesions in the pancreas. A total of 40 lesions were established, including 20 deep lesions and 20 superficial lesions. US identified 21 of the 40 lesions, including 7 of the 20 superficial and 14 of the 20 deep lesions. CEUS identified 34 of the 40 lesions, including 14 of the 20 superficial and 20 of the 20 deep lesions. CECT identified 33 of the 40 lesions, including 13 of the 20 superficial and 20 of the 20 deep lesions. The detection rate of acute blunt pancreatic injury using CEUS was significantly higher compared with that using US (85 vs. 52.5%, P<0.05), however there was no significant difference in the detection rate of pancreatic lesions between CEUS and CECT (85 vs. 82.5%, P>0.05). CEUS improves the diagnostic levels of conventional US and is comparable with CECT scans in the diagnosis of blunt pancreatic injury.

Outcomes of hemodynamically stable patients with pancreatic injury after blunt abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

To date there is no systematical report about blunt pancreatic injury focused on hemodynamically stable patients. This study reports on our experience in this rare subgroup at a tertiary referral hospital.

METHODS

A total of 58 adult patients were identified during a 10-year period and their clinical data were analyzed. Injury to the main pancreatic duct (MPD) was basically confirmed by pancreatography or surgical findings.

RESULTS

MPD disruption was confirmed in 36 patients (62%) and was more frequent in the pancreatic neck and body. The median time from trauma to confirmation was 14 days [interquartile range (IQR) 3-23 days] including time from admission to confirmation of 10.5 days [IQR 3-20 days]. Patients with MPD injury showed higher injury severity score, more frequent pancreas-specific complications and longer hospital stays. The sensitivity and specificity of initial computed tomography (CT) for MPD injury were 63.9% (23/36) and 81.8% (18/22), respectively. The mortality rate was 7%, and all deaths were directly attributed to pancreatic injury. Complications occurred in 22 patients (37%) and 17 developed during hospitalization. Time from trauma to confirmation of MPD disruption (odds ratio 1.132; 95% confidence interval 1.021-1.255, P=0.019) was the only independent factor associated with unfavorable events among patients with high-grade injury.

CONCLUSIONS

MPD injury was not infrequent in hemodynamically stable patients. Physicians were more responsible for the delay in diagnosis of MPD disruption, which was primarily associated with adverse outcomes. A rapid, multidisciplinary approach may lead to better outcomes in hemodynamically stable patients with blunt pancreatic injury.

Blunt polytrauma: evaluation with 64-section whole-body CT angiography

Blunt polytrauma remains a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. With the major advances in computed tomography (CT) technology over the past decade, whole-body CT is increasingly recognized as the emerging standard for providing rapid and accurate diagnoses within the narrow therapeutic window afforded to trauma victims with multiple severe injuries. With a single continuous acquisition, whole-body CT angiography is able to demonstrate all potentially injured organs, as well as vascular and bone structures, from the circle of Willis to the symphysis pubis. As its use becomes more widespread, the large volume of information inherent to whole-body CT poses new challenges to radiologists in providing efficient and timely interpretation. An awareness of trauma scoring systems and injury mechanisms is essential to maintain an appropriate level of suspicion in the search for multiple injuries, and the use of multiplanar reformation and three-dimensional postprocessing techniques is important to maximize efficiency in the search. Knowledge of the key injuries that require urgent surgical or percutaneous intervention, including major vascular injuries and active hemorrhage, diaphragmatic rupture, unstable spinal fractures, pancreatic injuries with ductal involvement, and injuries to the mesentery and hollow viscera, is also necessary.

Imaging of miscellaneous pancreatic pathology (trauma, transplant, infections, and deposition)

In this article's coverage of miscellaneous pancreatic topics, a brief review of pancreatic trauma; pancreatic transplantation; rare infections, such as tuberculosis; deposition disorders, including fatty replacement and hemochromatosis; cystic fibrosis; and others are discussed with pertinent case examples.

Evolving management of pancreatic injury

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this study we present a concise review of the evolving management of traumatic injury to the pancreas, including diagnostic approaches and options for operative and nonoperative intervention.

RECENT FINDINGS

New diagnostic adjuncts can be used for the evaluation of injury to the pancreas and pancreatic duct. Magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) are used as diagnostic modalities for duct evaluation. ERCP can be therapeutic with sphincterotomy and/or stenting for duct disruption. Computed tomography scan is the initial imaging study of choice for pancreatic injury, but is also used for drainage of pancreatic abscesses or pseudocysts.

SUMMARY

Nonoperative management of solid organ injuries is the recommended treatment in hemodynamically stable patients. This strategy is now being successfully applied to pancreatic injuries in specific situations. However, the mainstays of pancreatic injury remain the same. The identification of pancreatic duct injury is the top priority. Management includes distal resection, debridement, and closed suction drainage of pancreatic injuries.

Blunt pancreatic trauma in children

PURPOSE

To report our experience with blunt pancreatic trauma in pediatric patients and evaluate several various management strategies.

METHODS

Ten children admitted over the last 10 years with pancreatic blunt trauma were included in the present series.

RESULTS

The average time from injury to hospital admission was 2.4 days. All injuries resulted from accidents: bicycle handlebar injuries (5), being kicked by a horse (2), falls from a height (2), and injury sustained during closure of an electric gate (1). Additional systemic and abdominal injuries were recorded in 7 patients. The amylase levels at the time of patient admission were normal in 3 patients, mildly raised in 4 patients, and elevated in 3 patients. Abdominal computed tomography was performed in 10 patients, ultrasonography in 5, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) in 4. Pancreatic injuries comprised 4 grade I, 3 grade II, and 3 grade III injuries. Grade I and II injuries were successfully managed by conservative treatment. The 3 children with grade III trauma and pancreatic ductal injury in the neck (1), body (1), and tail (1) of the gland were surgically treated, having an uneventful postoperative stay of 8-14 days and no complications during the 1-year follow-up period.

CONCLUSION

The present study supports early ERCP as an essential part of the initial patient evaluation when pancreatic transection is highly suspected.

Article Commentary: Management of Left Pancreatic Trauma

Left pancreatic traumas (LPTs) are rare but serious lesions occurring in 1 to 6 per cent of abdominal trauma patients and mainly resulting from blunt traumas. LPT severity is primarily dependent on the associated injuries and secondarily related to main pancreatic duct injury responsible for complications: acute pancreatitis, pseudocysts, pancreatic fistulas, or abscesses. The guidelines for blunt LPT management can be presented as follows. In case of emergency laparotomy, pancreas exploration is mandatory to detect pancreatic duct lesions. In the absence of main pancreatic duct lesions, simple drainage is advocated. In case of distal injury to the main pancreatic duct, a left pancreatectomy is mandatory. In the absence of initial laparotomy, the diagnosis is more and more based on CT and magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography, which tend to replace endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) as a first-intent diagnostic modality. In case of distal injury to the main pancreatic duct, spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy is recommended. In the absence of main pancreatic duct lesions, nonoperative treatment is advocated. When LPTs are discovered at the time of complications, pancreatic fistulas and/or pseudocysts are associated with main pancreatic lesions, which can be treated by pancreatic duct stenting at ERCP and/or internal endoscopic cystogastrostomy. However, in such cases, spleen-preserving distal pancreatectomy remains the treatment of choice. Pancreatic ductal lesions resulting from LPT have to be diagnosed early to avoid late complications. Distal pancreatectomy remains the treatment of choice in case of severe pancreatic ductal lesions because the role of ERCP stenting and endoscopic techniques needs further evaluation.

MR imaging for blunt pancreatic injury

OBJECTIVE

To study the MR imaging features of blunt pancreatic injury.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nine patients with pancreatic injury related to blunt abdominal trauma confirmed by surgery performed MR imaging. Two abdominal radiologists conducted a review of the MR images to assess pancreatic parenchymal and pancreatic duct injury, and associated complications.

RESULT

Diagnostic quality MR images were obtained in each of the nine patients. In the nine patients, pancreatic fracture, laceration and contusion were depicted on MR imaging in five, one and three patients, respectively. There were six patients with pancreatic duct disruption, eight patients with peripancreatic fluid collections, and four patients with peripancreatic pseudocyst or hematoma, respectively. All of the MR imaging findings was corresponded to surgical findings.

CONCLUSION

MR imaging is an effective method to detect blunt pancreatic injury and may provide information to guide management decisions.

Imaging of blunt pancreatic trauma

Blunt pancreatic trauma is an exceedingly rare but life-threatening injury with significant mortality. Computed tomography (CT) is commonly employed as the initial imaging modality in blunt trauma patients and affords a timely diagnosis of pancreatic trauma. The CT findings of pancreatic trauma can be broadly categorized as direct signs, such as a pancreatic laceration, which tend to be specific but lack sensitivity and indirect signs, such as peripancreatic fluid, which tend to be sensitive but lack specificity. In patients with equivocal CT findings or ongoing clinical suspicion of pancreatic trauma, magnetic resonance cholangiopancreatography (MRCP) may be employed for further evaluation. The integrity of the main pancreatic duct is of crucial importance, and though injury of the duct may be strongly suggested upon initial CT, MRCP provides clear delineation of the duct and any potential injuries. This article aims to review and illustrate the CT and magnetic resonance imaging findings of blunt pancreatic trauma and delineate the integration of these modalities into the appropriate imaging triage of severely injured blunt trauma patients.