Pyloric stenosis ultrasound

Revision as of 18:30, 12 July 2016 by Anthony Gallo (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Pyloric stenosis Microchapters

Home

Patient Information

Overview

Historical Perspective

Classification

Pathophysiology

Causes

Differentiating Pyloric stenosis from other Diseases

Epidemiology and Demographics

Risk Factors

Screening

Natural History, Complications and Prognosis

Diagnosis

Diagnostic study of choice

History and Symptoms

Physical Examination

Laboratory Findings

Electrocardiogram

X Ray

CT

MRI

Ultrasound

Other Imaging Findings

Other Diagnostic Studies

Treatment

Medical Therapy

Surgery

Primary Prevention

Secondary Prevention

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy

Future or Investigational Therapies

Case Studies

Case #1

Pyloric stenosis ultrasound On the Web

Most recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Images

American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Pyloric stenosis ultrasound

All Images
X-rays
Echo & Ultrasound
CT Images
MRI

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

FDA on Pyloric stenosis ultrasound

CDC on Pyloric stenosis ultrasound

Pyloric stenosis ultrasound in the news

Blogs on Pyloric stenosis ultrasound

Directions to Hospitals Treating Pyloric stenosis

Risk calculators and risk factors for Pyloric stenosis ultrasound

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1] Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief:

Overview

Ultrasound

  • USG demonstrates the thickened prepyloric antrum bridging the duodenal bulb and distended stomach.
  • Demonstration of the pylorus is achieved by identifying the duodenal cap, distended stomach, and intervening pyloric channel.
  • In patients with IHPS, the muscle is hypertrophied to a variable degree, and the intervening mucosa is crowded, thickened to a variable degree, and protrudes into the distended portion of the antrum (nipple sign) and can be seen filling the lumen on transverse sections.
  • The length of the hypertrophied canal is variable and may range from as little as 14 mm to more than 20 mm.
  • The numeric value for the lower limit of muscle thickness has varied in reports in the literature, ranging between 3.0 and 4.5 mm.
  • The actual numeric value is less important than the overall morphology of the canal and the real-time observations.

(Images courtesy of RadsWiki)

References

Template:WH Template:WS