THE VALUE OF COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY IN DIAGNOSING AND GRADING PANCREATIC TRAUMA

Thị Nguyệt Nguyễn, Thanh Dũng Lê, Duy Hùng Nguyễn

Main Article Content

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the role of computed tomography (CT) in the diagnosis and grading of pancreatic trauma. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional descriptive study was conducted on 70 patients aged ≥18 years with CT-confirmed pancreatic trauma, treated at Viet Duc University Hospital from January 2022 to July 2025. Clinical, laboratory, and CT imaging data were collected and compared with surgical findings when available. Results: Males accounted for 78.6% of cases, with a mean age of 37.7 ± 15.69 years. Road traffic accidents were the most common cause (84.3%). The predominant symptom was abdominal pain (100%), with elevated serum amylase in 88.1% of cases. CT findings included: ascites (100%), peripancreatic fluid (97.1%), parenchymal contusion (91.4%), parenchymal laceration (85.7%), intraparenchymal hematoma (20%), and suspected pancreatic duct injury (52.9%). Among 46 patients who underwent surgery, 40 (87.0%) were confirmed to have pancreatic injury. Diagnostic performance of CT signs compared to surgery was as follows: peripancreatic fluid (sensitivity 97.5%, specificity 16.7%), pancreatic contusion (97.4%; 25%), intraparenchymal hematoma (85.7%; 100%), pancreatic laceration (97.1%; 72.7%), transection (52%; 95.2%), suspected ductal injury (93.8%; 64.3%). CT accurately identified the injury location in 100% of cases (head, neck, body, and tail of the pancreas). Grading comparison revealed that CT tended to underestimate the severity, particularly in grade I and III injuries; higher grades (IV, V) were generally consistent with surgical findings. Conclusion: CT is a highly valuable imaging modality for early detection, precise localization, and grading of pancreatic trauma, particularly in identifying pancreatic duct injuries, thereby supporting treatment planning and surgical decision-making.

Article Details

References

Petrone P, Moral Álvarez S, González Pérez M, Ceballos Esparragón J, Marini CP. Management of pancreatic trauma: a literature review. Cir Esp Engl Ed. 2017;95(3):123-130. doi:10.1016/j.cireng.2016.05.012
2. Gupta A, Stuhlfaut JW, Fleming KW, Lucey BC, Soto JA. Blunt Trauma of the Pancreas and Biliary Tract: A Multimodality Imaging Approach to Diagnosis. RadioGraphics. 2004;24(5):1381-1395. doi:10.1148/rg.245045002
3. Bradley EL, Young PR, Chang MC, et al. Diagnosis and initial management of blunt pancreatic trauma: guidelines from a multiinstitutional review. Ann Surg. 1998;227(6): 861-869. doi:10.1097/00000658-199806000-00009
4. Anderson SW, Soto JA. Pancreatic duct evaluation: accuracy of portal venous phase 64 MDCT. Abdom Imaging. 2009;34(1):55-63. doi:10.1007/s00261-008-9396-4
5. Ayoob AR, Lee JT, Herr K, et al. Pancreatic Trauma: Imaging Review and Management Update. RadioGraphics. 2021;41(1):58-74. doi:10. 1148/rg.2021200077
6. Gordon RW, Anderson SW, Ozonoff A, Rekhi S, Soto JA. Blunt pancreatic trauma: evaluation with MDCT technology. Emerg Radiol. 2013; 20(4):259-266. doi:10.1007/s10140-013-1114-z
7. Panda A, Kumar A, Gamanagatti S, et al. Evaluation of diagnostic utility of multidetector computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in blunt pancreatic trauma: a prospective study. Acta Radiol Stockh Swed 1987. 2015; 56(4): 387-396. doi:10.1177/ 0284185114529949
8. Hamidi MI, Aldaoud KM, Qtaish I. The Role of Computed Tomography in Blunt Abdominal Trauma. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J. 2007; 7(1):41-46.
9. Braden LA, Minas-Alexander R, Love A, Hashem E, Karuman P, Jones AL. Traumatic pancreatic injuries and treatment outcomes: An observational retrospective study from a high-volume tertiary trauma center. Am J Surg. 2025;242. doi:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2024.116142
10. Debi U, Kaur R, Prasad KK, Sinha SK, Sinha A, Singh K. Pancreatic trauma: A concise review. World J Gastroenterol WJG. 2013;19(47):9003-9011. doi:10.3748/wjg.v19.i47.9003