No abstract

Blunt popliteal vascular injury in the paediatric population is exceedingly rare and in advanced trauma centres the management can be challenging. A case of blunt popliteal artery trauma in a 5 years old requiring distal bypass using reversed saphenous vein is herein described. It is noteworthy to mention the difficulties experienced in a limited resource setting, including limitations in small rural hospitals, inefficient timely transfer to specialised centres, inadequate numbers of highly trained surgeons in subspecialities such as microvascular surgery and finally ineffective support and rehabilitative services.

An advanced abdominal pregnancy is defined as an extrauterine pregnancy over twenty weeks gestation with a fetus living, or showing evidence of having once lived, in the mother's abdominopelvic cavity. Our case is a 35-year-old patient with a 23-week extrauterine pregnancy, with a congenital head defect (scaphocephaly and hydrocephalus), located in the left side of the maternal abdomen with a period of gestation of 23 weeks, who underwent preoperative imaging with contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography (CE-MDCT). CT imaging provided significant information on the placenta and its arterial supply/venous drainage and confirmed the presence of an arteriovenous malformation of the right uterine artery. CT imaging also allowed planning of preoperative uterine artery coil embolization.

Background: In this case report, a calculus was seen at the vesicoureteric junction (VUJ) on computed tomography (CT), in an equivocal location. The subsequent urological management is based on the precise location of the calculus (ureteric orifice at the VUJ versus urinary bladder lumen). A simple manoeuvre of doing a limited prone CT rescan of the urinary bladder confirmed the location of the calculus within the urinary bladder, thus allowing conservative management. Case Presentation: A middle-aged male with known urolithiasis presented with right sided abdominal pain, nausea and vomiting. Differentials included a right ureteric calculus and appendicitis. A CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis in the supine position revealed a 0.4 cm calculus at the right VUJ with mild right hydronephrosis. It was not certain whether this calculus was impacted at the VUJ or within the bladder lumen. A limited prone CT re-scan of the pelvis was performed, which confirmed that the calculus was within the urinary bladder, as it migrated to a dependent position in the lumen of the bladder when in the prone position. Patient was managed conservatively and passed the calculus via the urethra the next day. Conclusion: Prone CT is the gold standard for the evaluation of stone disease and can differentiate a vesical calculus from a vesicoureteric junction calculus. In cases where a supine abdominopelvic CT is performed (e.g. in institutions which do not routinely scan in prone position or in cases where a supine scan is done to exclude other pathologies), an additional limited prone CT is needed in equivocal cases for a suspected VUJ calculus. This additional limited prone CT can prevent unnecessary urologic intervention.

No abstract