|
|
||||||||
Review |
1 From the Departments of Radiology (D.D.T.M., F.M.K.), Surgery Education (M.G.R.), and Surgery (D.M.R.), Methodist Hospital of Indiana and Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis; and the Radiology-Pathology Division, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Washington, DC (G.N.B.). Received June 15, 1999; revision requested August 10; revision received September 29; accepted October 6. Address correspondence to D.D.T.M., Department of Radiology, Indiana University Hospital, 550 N University Blvd, Indianapolis, IN 46202-5253 (e-mail: dmaglint@iupui.edu).
Small-bowel obstruction is an old and common problem. Like most illnesses, its diagnosis and treatment continue to evolve. The radiologic approach to the investigation of small-bowel obstruction and the timing of surgical intervention have undergone considerable changes during the past decade. In this review, the authors analyze the recently described radiologic techniques used in the examination of patients with suspected mechanical small-bowel obstruction, revisit the controversy of the short versus long decompression tube, and provide insights on how to optimize the radiologic investigation and nonsurgical management of small-bowel obstruction.
Index terms: Abdomen, acute conditions, 74.723, 74.724 Abdomen, CT, 74.12112, 74.12119 Abdomen, radiography, 74.11 Enteroclysis, 74.1279 Intestines, stenosis or obstruction, 74.723, 74.724 Review
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
T. A. Jaffe, L. C. Martin, J. Thomas, A. R. Adamson, D. M. DeLong, and E. K. Paulson Small-Bowel Obstruction: Coronal Reformations from Isotropic Voxels at 16-Section Multi-Detector Row CT Radiology, December 1, 2005; 238(1): 135 - 142. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Sandrasegaran, D. D. Maglinte, J. C. Lappas, and T. J. Howard Small-Bowel Complications of Major Gastrointestinal Tract Surgery Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2005; 185(3): 671 - 681. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. B. Hunter and M. S. Taljanovic Medical Devices of the Abdomen and Pelvis RadioGraphics, March 1, 2005; 25(2): 503 - 523. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| RADIOLOGY | RADIOGRAPHICS | RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE |