Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

CT of Fundoplication

Authors: Reed P. Rice; Mark E. Baker; Richard A. Leder; Theodore N. Pappas; Richard H. Cohan; Charles H. McDonnell; Scott N. Nadel;

CT of Fundoplication

Abstract

To determine the CT findings postfundoplication, we retrospectively compared CT in 22 postfundoplication patients with CT in 22 patients with unrepaired hiatal hernias and gastroesophageal (GE) junction abnormalities and 24 patients with gastric or esophageal carcinoma involving the GE junction. Seventeen of the 22 postfundoplication patients had undergone a Nissen procedure. Of the 22 patients, 11 had esophageal dilatation, 14 had GE junction masses, 4 had esophageal wall thickening, 7 had surgical clips, and none had hepatic metastases or upper abdominal lymphadenopathy. Statistically, on CT, postfundoplication patients are more likely to have a GE junction mass (p = 0.023) and least likely to have wall thickening (p = 0.021). Nonetheless, because the findings occur frequently in each group, they are not diagnostic in the individual patient. However, 11 of 12 post-Nissen masses had the unique finding of an oval or linear central fat density within the mass. This finding was absent in the other postfundoplication masses and in those patients with repaired hiatal hernia or tumor. We conclude that pseudomasses occur on CT postfundoplication and can be indistinguishable from hiatal hernias and GE junction neoplasms unless a central fat density is present.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Adult, Male, Esophageal Neoplasms, Liver Neoplasms, Middle Aged, Esophageal Diseases, Diagnosis, Differential, Hernia, Hiatal, Postoperative Complications, Humans, Female, Esophagogastric Junction, Tomography, X-Ray Computed, Dilatation, Pathologic, Retrospective Studies

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    4
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
citations
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
4
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!