Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Mistakes in Emergency Imaging of Pregnant Patients

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Errors in Emergency and Trauma Radiology

  • 767 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pinto A, Brunese L. Spectrum of diagnostic errors in radiology. World J Radiol. 2010;2:377–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Foti PV, Attinà G, Spadola S, et al. MR imaging of ovarian masses: classification and differential diagnosis. Insights Imaging. 2016;7:21–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Petrides A, Dinglas C, Chavez M, et al. Revisiting ectopic pregnancy: a pictorial essay. J Clin Imaging Sci. 2014;4:37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lipscomb GH, Stovall TG, Ling FW. Nonsurgical treatment of ectopic pregnancy. N Engl J Med. 2000;343:1325–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. RCOG. RCOG guidelines. Diagnosis and management of ectopic pregnancy (green-top guideline no. 21). London: RCOG; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Brown DL, Doubilet PM. Transvaginal sonography for diagnosing ectopic pregnancy: positivity criteria and performance characteristics. J Ultrasound Med. 1994;13:259–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tamai K, Koyama T, Togashi K, et al. MR features of ectopic pregnancy. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:3236–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jaffe MH, Schoen WC, Silver TM, et al. Sonography of abruptio placentae. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1981;137:1049–54.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Harris RD, Cho C, Wells WA. Sonography of the placenta with emphasis on pathological correlation. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 1996;17:66–89.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. Wu S, Kocherginsky M, Hibbard JU. Abnormal placentation: twenty-year analysis. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2005;192:1458–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Comstock CH, Bronsteen RA. The antenatal diagnosis of placenta accreta. BJOG. 2014;121:171–81.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Derman AY, Nikac V, Haberman S, et al. MRI of placenta accreta: a new imaging perspective. Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197:1514–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Radiology Dea Department, Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Gabriele Masselli

  2. Department of Gynaecological, Obstetrical and Urological Sciences, Umberto I Hospital, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy

    Martina Derme

Authors
  1. Gabriele Masselli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martina Derme
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriele Masselli .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

    Michael N. Patlas

  2. Department of Radiology, NYU Winthrop Hospital, Mineola, NY, USA

    Douglas S. Katz

  3. Department of Imaging, Pineta Grande Medical Center, Castel Volturno, Caserta, Italy

    Mariano Scaglione

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Masselli, G., Derme, M. (2019). Mistakes in Emergency Imaging of Pregnant Patients. In: Patlas, M., Katz, D., Scaglione, M. (eds) Errors in Emergency and Trauma Radiology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05548-6_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05548-6_10

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-05547-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-05548-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation