A Novel Diagnostic Aid for Detection of Intra-Abdominal Adhesions to the Anterior Abdominal Wall Using Dynamic Magnetic Resonance Imaging

David Randall, John Fenner, Richard Gillott, Richard Ten Broek, Chema Strik, Paul Spencer, Karna Dev Bardhan, David Randall, John Fenner, Richard Gillott, Richard Ten Broek, Chema Strik, Paul Spencer, Karna Dev Bardhan

Abstract

Introduction. Abdominal adhesions can cause serious morbidity and complicate subsequent operations. Their diagnosis is often one of exclusion due to a lack of a reliable, non-invasive diagnostic technique. Development and testing of a candidate technique are described below. Method. During respiration, smooth visceral sliding motion occurs between the abdominal contents and the walls of the abdominal cavity. We describe a technique involving image segmentation and registration to calculate shear as an analogue for visceral slide based on the tracking of structures throughout the respiratory cycle. The presence of an adhesion is attributed to a resistance to visceral slide resulting in a discernible reduction in shear. The abdominal movement due to respiration is captured in sagittal dynamic MR images. Results. Clinical images were selected for analysis, including a patient with a surgically confirmed adhesion. Discernible reduction in shear was observed at the location of the adhesion while a consistent, gradually changing shear was observed in the healthy volunteers. Conclusion. The technique and its validation show encouraging results for adhesion detection but a larger study is now required to confirm its potential.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Schematic of the motion discontinuity in the abdomen during respiration. The horizontal green arrow indicates the predominant motion of the abdominal wall whilst the mostly vertical arrow represents the predominant motion of the abdominal contents. The dotted red line indicates the approximate location of the motion discontinuity.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Flow chart describing the methodology. Step  1: typical region drawn to separate (segment) the two regions of different motion; step 2: depiction of the mathematically quantified movement; step 3: depiction of the shear taking place along the boundary in a “sheargram”.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Comparison of the sheargrams from (a) a patient with an adhesion (arrow) and (b) and (c) two healthy volunteers.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Validation experiment 1 with an idealised stretch of the portion of a MR image shown in (a) and shear results compared to actual shear in the system in (b).
Figure 5
Figure 5
Syringe test object displaying (a) uncompressed sponge, (b) compressed sponge, (c) shear result without adhesive tape, and (d) shear result with adhesive tape (indicated by red block).

References

    1. Caprini J. A., Arcelus J. A., Swanson J., et al. The ultrasonic localization of abdominal wall adhesions. Surgical Endoscopy. 1995;9(3):283–285. doi: 10.1007/BF00187769.
    1. Sigel B., Golub R. M., Loiacono L. A., et al. Technique of ultrasonic detection and mapping of abdominal wall adhesions. Surgical Endoscopy. 1991;5(4):161–165. doi: 10.1007/BF02653253.
    1. Zinther N. B., Zeuten A., Marinovskij E., Haislund M., Friis-Andersen H. Detection of abdominal wall adhesions using visceral slide. Surgical Endoscopy. 2010;24(12):3161–3166. doi: 10.1007/s00464-010-1110-2.
    1. Lienemann A., Sprenger D., Steitz H. O., Korell M., Reiser M. Detection and mapping of intraabdominal adhesions by using functional cine MR imaging: preliminary results. Radiology. 2000;217(2):421–425. doi: 10.1148/radiology.217.2.r00oc23421.
    1. Lang R. A., Buhmann S., Hopman A., et al. Cine-MRI detection of intraabdominal adhesions: correlation with intraoperative findings in 89 consecutive cases. Surgical Endoscopy and Other Interventional Techniques. 2008;22(11):2455–2461. doi: 10.1007/s00464-008-9763-9.
    1. Fenner J., Wright B., Emberey J., et al. Towards radiological diagnosis of abdominal adhesions based on motion signatures derived from sequences of cine-MRI images. Physica Medica. 2014;30(4):437–447. doi: 10.1016/j.ejmp.2013.12.002.
    1. Vishnevskiy V., Gass T., Szekely G., Goksel O. Abdominal Imaging. Computational and Clinical Applications. Vol. 8676. Springer; 2014. Total variation regularization of displacements in parametric image registration; pp. 211–220. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science).
    1. Delmon V., Rit S., Pinho R., Sarrut D. Registration of sliding objects using direction dependent B-splines decomposition. Physics in Medicine and Biology. 2013;58(5):1303–1314. doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/58/5/1303.
    1. Pace D. F., Niethammer M., Aylward S. R. Abdominal Imaging. Computational and Clinical Applications. Vol. 7029. Berlin, Germany: Springer; 2012. Sliding geometries in deformable image registration; pp. 141–148. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science).
    1. Xie Y., Chao M., Xiong G. Deformable image registration of liver with consideration of lung sliding motion. Medical Physics. 2011;38(10):5351–5361. doi: 10.1118/1.3633902.
    1. Papiez B. W., Heinrich M. P., Fehrenbach J., Risser L., Schnabel J. A. An implicit sliding-motion preserving regularisation via bilateral filtering for deformable image registration. Medical Image Analysis. 2014;18(8):1299–1311. doi: 10.1016/j.media.2014.05.005.
    1. van Oudheusden T. R., Aerts B. A. C., de Hingh I. H. J. T., Luyer M. D. P. Challenges in diagnosing adhesive small bowel obstruction. World Journal of Gastroenterology. 2013;19(43):7489–7493. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i43.7489.
    1. Amzallag-Bellenger E., Oudjit A., Ruiz A., Cadiot G., Soyer P. A., Hoeffel C. C. Effectiveness of MR enterography for the assessment of small-bowel diseases beyond crohn disease. Radiographics. 2012;32(5):1423–1444. doi: 10.1148/rg.325115088.
    1. Beall D. P., Fortman B. J., Lawler B. C., Regan F. Imaging bowel obstruction: a comparison between fast magnetic resonance imaging and helical computed tomography. Clinical Radiology. 2002;57(8):719–724. doi: 10.1053/crad.2001.0735.
    1. Kumar A. S., Coralic J., Vegeler R., et al. Magnetic resonance enterography: the test of choice in diagnosing intestinal ‘Zebras’. Case Reports in Gastrointestinal Medicine. 2015;2015:8. doi: 10.1155/2015/206469.206469
    1. ten Broek R. P. G., Issa Y., van Santbrink E. J. P., et al. Burden of adhesions in abdominal and pelvic surgery: systematic review and met-analysis. British Medical Journal. 2013;347(7929) doi: 10.1136/bmj.f5588.f5588
    1. Tingstedt B., Isaksson J., Andersson R. Long-term follow-up and cost analysis following surgery for small bowel obstruction caused by intra-abdominal adhesions. British Journal of Surgery. 2007;94(6):743–748. doi: 10.1002/bjs.5634.
    1. Ray N. F., Denton W. G., Thamer M., Henderson S. C., Perry S. Abdominal adhesiolysis: inpatient care and expenditures in the United States in 1994. Journal of the American College of Surgeons. 1998;186(1):1–9. doi: 10.1016/s1072-7515(97)00127-0.
    1. Buhmann-Kirchhoff S., Lang R., Kirchhoff C., et al. Functional cine MR imaging for the detection and mapping of intraabdominal adhesions: method and surgical correlation. European Radiology. 2008;18(6):1215–1223. doi: 10.1007/s00330-008-0881-5.
    1. Kirchhoff S., Ladurner R., Kirchhoff C., Mussack T., Reiser M. F., Lienemann A. Detection of recurrent hernia and intraabdominal adhesions following incisional hernia repair: a Functional Cine MRI-Study. Abdominal Imaging. 2010;35(2):224–231. doi: 10.1007/s00261-009-9505-z.

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir