Abstract
Background
Intestinal malrotation and particularly volvulus are potentially devastating conditions. Upper gastrointestinal (UGI) contrast studies have been considered the gold standard for diagnosis. However the use of ultrasonography (US) has been increasingly described. We describe a method for delineating the duodenal anatomy with US as a means to exclude malrotation.
Objective
To report our experience using US to assess intestinal rotation.
Materials and methods
We conducted a retrospective audit of US scans performed at a tertiary referral centre to exclude malrotation for paediatric surgery between 2008 and 2011.
Results
One hundred thirty-nine infants were included, of whom 114 had a normal US scan. Of the 114, nine had subsequent upper gastrointestinal contrast studies that confirmed the initial results; there were no false-negatives. There were abnormal US scans in four infants associated with midgut volvulus and malrotation; there were no false-positives. The other 21 US scans were equivocal, and 11 of these had a confirmatory UGI contrast study; only one required surgery to correct malrotation.
Conclusion
US has been a safe and effective tool in the assessment of intestinal rotation at our institution. The main advantages of US imaging are its lack of ionising radiation and its rapid and accurate diagnosis of volvulus.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Sadler TW (2009) Langman’s medical embryology. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, New York
Applegate KE (2009) Evidence-based diagnosis of malrotation and volvulus. Pediatr Radiol 2:S161–S163
Applegate KE, Anderson JM, Klatte EC (2006) Intestinal malrotation in children: a problem-solving approach to the upper gastrointestinal series. Radiographics 26:1485–1500
Lin JN, Lou CC, Wang KL (1995) Intestinal malrotation and midgut volvulus: a 15-year review. J Formos Med Assoc 94:178–181
Sizemore AW, Rabbani KZ, Ladd A et al (2008) Diagnostic performance of the upper gastrointestinal series in the evaluation of children with clinically suspected malrotation. Pediatr Radiol 38:518–528
Dufour D, Delaet MH, Dassonville M et al (1992) Midgut malrotation, the reliability of sonographic diagnosis. Pediatr Radiol 22:21–23
Yousefzadeh DK (2009) The position of the duodenojejunal junction: the wrong horse to bet on in diagnosing or excluding malrotation. Pediatr Radiol 2:S172–S177
Weinberger E, Winters WD, Liddell RM et al (1992) Sonographic diagnosis of intestinal malrotation in infants: importance of the relative positions of the superior mesenteric vein and artery. AJR Am J Roentgenol 159:825–828
Orzech N, Navarro O, Langer JC (2006) Is ultrasonography a good screening test for intestinal malrotation? J Pediatr Surg 41:1005–1009
Quail MA (2011) Question 2. Is Doppler ultrasound superior to upper gastrointestinal contrast study for the diagnosis of malrotation? Arch Dis Child 96:317–318
Menten R, Reding R (2012) Sonographic assessment of the retroperitoneal position of the third portion of the duodenum: an indicator of normal intestinal rotation. Pediatr Radiol 42:941–945
Dekker G, Andronikou S, Greyling J et al (2012) Contrast meals and malrotation in children—metal markers for improved accuracy. Pediatr Radiol 43:115–118
Yousefzadeh DK, Kang L, Tessicini L (2010) Assessment of retromesenteric position of the third portion of the duodenum: an US feasibility study in 33 newborns. Pediatr Radiol 40:1476–1484
Taylor G (2011) CT appearance of the duodenum and mesenteric vessels in children with normal and abnormal bowel rotation. Pediatr Radiol 41:1378–1383
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
(MPG 18264 kb)
(MPG 12464 kb)
(MPG 14000 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hennessey, I., John, R., Gent, R. et al. Utility of sonographic assessment of the position of the third part of the duodenum using water instillation in intestinal malrotation: a single-center retrospective audit. Pediatr Radiol 44, 387–391 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-013-2839-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-013-2839-2