Complications of Mesh Sacrocolpopexy and Rectopexy: Imaging Review.

Sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy are commonly used surgical options for treatment of patients with pelvic organ and rectal prolapse, respectively. These procedures involve surgical fixation of the vaginal vault or the rectum to the sacral promontory with mesh material and can be performed independently of each other or in a combined fashion and by using an open abdominal approach or laparoscopy with or without robotic assistance. Radiologists can be particularly helpful in cases where patients' surgical histories are unclear by identifying normal sacrocolpopexy or rectopexy mesh material and any associated complications. Acute complications such as bleeding or urinary tract injury or stricture are generally evaluated with CT. More chronic complications such as mesh extrusion or exposure with or without fistulization to surrounding structures are generally evaluated with MRI. Other complications can have a variable time of onset after surgery. Patients with suspected bowel obstruction are generally evaluated with CT. Those with suspected infection, abscess formation, and discitis or osteomyelitis may be evaluated with MRI, although CT evaluation may be appropriate in certain scenarios. The authors review the sacrocolpopexy and rectopexy surgical techniques, discuss appropriate imaging protocols for evaluation of patients with suspected complications, and illustrate the normal appearance and common complications of these procedures. © RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Dual-energy CT angiography reveals high prevalence of perfusion defects unrelated to pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 lesions.

BACKGROUND: Lung perfusion defects (PDs) have been described in COVID-19 using dual-energy computed tomography pulmonary angiography (DE-CTPA). We assessed the prevalence and characteristics of PDs in COVID-19 patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) and negative CTPA. METHODS: This retrospective study included COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 pneumonia groups of patients with DE-CTPA negative for PE. Two radiologists rated the presence of PD within the lung opacities and analyzed the type of lung opacities and PD pattern (i.e. homogeneous or heterogeneous). The clinical, biological, radiological characteristics including time from first symptoms and admission to DE-CTPA, oxygen requirements, CRP, D-dimer levels, duration of hospital admission and death were compared within the COVID-19 group between patients with (PD +) or without PD (PD-). RESULTS: 67 COVID-19 and 79 non-COVID-19 patients were included. PDs were more frequent in the COVID-19 than in the non-COVID-19 group (59.7% and 26.6% respectively, p < 0.001). Patterns of PDs were different, with COVID-19 patients exhibiting heterogenous PDs (38/40, 95%) whereas non-COVID-19 patients showed mostly homogeneous perfusion defects (7/21 heterogeneous PDs, 33%), p < 0.001. In COVID-19 patients, most consolidations (9/10, 90%) exhibited PDs while less than a third of consolidations (19/67, 28%) had PDs in non-COVID-19 patients. D-dimer, oxygen levels and outcome were similar between COVID-19 PD + and PD- patients; however, time between admission and DE-CTPA was longer in PD + patients (median [IQR], 1 [0-7] and 0 [0-2]; p = 0.045). CONCLUSION: Unlike in bacterial pneumonia, heterogeneous PDs within lung opacities are a frequent feature of COVID-19 pneumonia in PE-suspected patients.

Added Value of Contrast-Enhanced Spectral Mammography in Postscreening Assessment.

To assess the value on diagnostic and treatment management of contrast-enhanced spectral mammography (CESM), as adjunct to mammography (MG) and ultrasound (US) in postscreening in a breast cancer unit for patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer or with suspicious findings on conventional imaging. Retrospective review of routine use of bilateral CESM performed between September 2012 and September 2013 in 195 women with suspicious or undetermined findings on MG and/or US. CESM images were blindly reviewed by two radiologists for BI-RADS(®) assessment and probability of malignancy. Each lesion was definitely confirmed either with histopathology or follow-up. Two hundred and ninety-nine lesions were detected (221 malignant). CESM sensitivity, specificity, positive-predictive value and negative-predictive value were 94% (CI: 89-96%), 74% (CI: 63-83%), 91% (CI: 86-94%) and 81% (CI: 70-89%), respectively, with 18 false positive and 14 false negative. CESM changed diagnostic and treatment strategy in 41 (21%) patients either after detection of additional malignant lesions in 38 patients (19%)-with a more extensive surgery (n = 21) or neo-adjuvant chemotherapy (n = 1)-or avoiding further biopsy for 20 patients with negative CESM. CESM can be performed easily in a clinical assessment after positive breast cancer screening and may change significantly the diagnostic and treatment strategy through breast cancer staging.