Advertisement

Mistakes in Emergency Imaging of Pregnant Patients

  • Gabriele MasselliEmail author
  • Martina Derme
Chapter

Abstract

Radiologists play an important role in the diagnostic assessment of patients in the emergency setting. An acute abdomen in pregnancy represents one of the most challenging diagnostic and therapeutic dilemmas. The difficulty is due to the anatomical and pathophysiological changes related to pregnancy, including the different locations of abdominal and pelvic structures, displaced by the uterus, altered laboratory tests, difficult abdominal/pelvic physical examination, and non-specific symptoms. Physicians have to choose the appropriate imaging techniques in order to avoid, as much as possible, the use of ionizing radiation due to the potential risk for the fetus. Ultrasound is widely considered to be the first imaging examination that should be performed. Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography are used when ultrasound diagnosis is uncertain. In general, they are more accurate than ultrasound in the second and third trimesters. Magnetic resonance imaging is preferable to avoid ionizing radiation.

Keywords

Pregnancy Emergency Acute abdomen Ultrasound Computed tomography Magnetic resonance imaging 

References

  1. 1.
    Casciani E, De Vincentiis C, Mazzei MA, et al. Errors in imaging the pregnant patient with acute abdomen. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40:2112–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Patlas MN, Dreizin D, Menias CO, et al. Abdominal and pelvic trauma: misses and misinterpretations at multidetector CT: trauma/emergency radiology. Radiographics. 2017;37:703–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pinto A, Brunese L. Spectrum of diagnostic errors in radiology. World J Radiol. 2010;2:377–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chang SD, Yen CF, Lo LM, et al. Surgical intervention for maternal ovarian torsion in pregnancy. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2011;50:458–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Masselli G, Derme M, Laghi F, et al. Evaluating the acute abdomen in the pregnant patient. Radiol Clin N Am. 2015;53:1309–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lourenco AP, Swenson D, Tubbs RJ, et al. Ovarian and tubal torsion: imaging findings on US, CT, and MRI. Emerg Radiol. 2014;21:179–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rothmund R, Taran FA, Boeer B, et al. Surgical and conservative management of symptomatic leiomyomas during pregnancy: a retrospective pilot study. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2013;73:330–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sohn GS, Cho S, Kim YM, et al. Working Group of Society of Uterine Leiomyoma. Current medical treatment of uterine fibroids. Obstet Gynecol Sci. 2018;61:192–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sarkodie BD, Botwe BO, Ofori EK. Uterine fibroid characteristics and sonographic pattern among Ghanaian females undergoing pelvic ultrasound scan: a study at 3-major centres. BMC Womens Health. 2016;16:10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Foti PV, Attinà G, Spadola S, et al. MR imaging of ovarian masses: classification and differential diagnosis. Insights Imaging. 2016;7:21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anthoulakis C, Nikoloudis N. Pelvic MRI as the “gold standard” in the subsequent evaluation of ultrasound-indeterminate adnexal lesions: a systematic review. Gynecol Oncol. 2014;132:661–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mavromatidis G, Karavas G, Margioula-Siarkou C, et al. Spontaneous postpartum rupture of an intact uterus: a case report. J Clin Med Res. 2015;7:56–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moini A, Hosseini R, Jahangiri N, et al. Risk factors for ectopic pregnancy: a case-control study. J Res Med Sci. 2014;19:844–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Petrides A, Dinglas C, Chavez M, et al. Revisiting ectopic pregnancy: a pictorial essay. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2014;4:37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lipscomb GH, Stovall TG, Ling FW. Nonsurgical treatment of ectopic pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1325–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    RCOG. RCOG guidelines. Diagnosis and management of ectopic pregnancy (green-top guideline no. 21). London: RCOG; 2016.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cacciatore B. Can the status of tubal pregnancy be predicted with transvaginal sonography? A prospective comparison of sonographic, surgical, and serum hCG findings. Radiology. 1990;177:481–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Brown DL, Doubilet PM. Transvaginal sonography for diagnosing ectopic pregnancy: positivity criteria and performance characteristics. J Ultrasound Med. 1994;13:259–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nyberg DA, Mack LA, Jeffrey RB Jr, et al. Endovaginal sonographic evaluation of ectopic pregnancy: a prospective study. Am J Roentgenol. 1987;149:1181–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Masselli G, Derme M, Piccioni MG, et al. To evaluate the feasibility of magnetic resonance imaging in predicting unusual site ectopic pregnancy: a retrospective cohort study. Eur Radiol. 2018;28:2444–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tamai K, Koyama T, Togashi K, et al. MR features of ectopic pregnancy. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:3236–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Leunen K, Hall DR, Odendaal HJ, et al. The profile and complications of women with placental abruption and intrauterine death. J Trop Pediatr. 2003;49:231–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Denis M, Enquobahrie DA, Tadesse MG, et al. Placental genome and maternal-placental genetic interactions: a genome-wide and candidate gene association study of placental abruption. PLoS One. 2014;9:e116346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jaffe MH, Schoen WC, Silver TM, et al. Sonography of abruptio placentae. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1981;137:1049–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Harris RD, Cho C, Wells WA. Sonography of the placenta with emphasis on pathological correlation. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 1996;17:66–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Yeo L, Ananth C, Vintzileos A. Placenta abruption. In: Sciarra J, editor. Gynecology and obstetrics. Hagerstown, MD: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Masselli G, Brunelli R, Di Tola M, et al. MR imaging in the evaluation of placental abruption: correlation with sonographic findings. Radiology. 2011;259:222–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Verswijvel G, Grieten M, Gyselaers W, et al. MRI in the assessment of pregnancy related intrauterine bleeding: a valuable adjunct to ultrasound? JBR-BTR. 2002;85:189–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Atlas SW, Thulborn KR. Intracranial hemorrhage. In: Atlas SW, editor. Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain and of the spine. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009. p. 644–94.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wu S, Kocherginsky M, Hibbard JU. Abnormal placentation: twenty-year analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1458–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Comstock CH, Love JJ, Bronsteen RA, et al. Sonographic detection of placenta accrete in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2004;190:1135–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Comstock CH, Bronsteen RA. The antenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta. BJOG. 2014;121:171–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lim PS, Greenberg M, Edelson MI, et al. Utility of ultrasound and MRI in prenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta: a pilot study. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:1506–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Derman AY, Nikac V, Haberman S, et al. MRI of placenta accreta: a new imaging perspective. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:1514–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Radiology Dea Department, Umberto I HospitalSapienza University of RomeRomeItaly
  2. 2.Department of Gynaecological, Obstetrical and Urological Sciences, Umberto I HospitalSapienza University of RomeRomeItaly

Personalised recommendations