Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMakhtoom Shahnazi
dc.contributor.authorHossein Hassanian-Moghaddam
dc.contributor.authorHossein Hassanian-Moghaddam
dc.contributor.authorLatif Gachkar
dc.contributor.authorNarjes Ahmadi
dc.contributor.authorNarjes Ahmadi
dc.contributor.authorNasim Zamani
dc.contributor.authorHooman Bahrami-Motlagh
dc.contributor.authorTaraneh Faghihi Langroudi
dc.contributor.authorAbbas Arjmand Shabestari
dc.contributor.authorAfshin Mohammad Alizadeh
dc.date.accessioned2017-09-18T10:50:01Z
dc.date.available2017-09-18T10:50:01Z
dc.date.issued2015-01-01
dc.identifier.issn15569519
dc.identifier.urihttp://dsp.sbmu.ac.ir/xmlui/handle/123456789/67278
dc.description.abstract© 2015 Informa Healthcare USA, Inc. Context. Toxicity due to body packing/pushing/stuffing is a major concern in many countries. Of different imaging techniques, computed tomography (CT) scan is described as the method of choice in detecting body couriers, but there is no study to concomitantly compare with- and without-contrast abdominopelvic CTs to determine the more accurate one for this purpose. Objective. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of abdominopelvic CT "with" and "without" oral contrast in diagnosis of existence, number, and type of packets in body packers/pushers and stuffers. Materials and methods. In a prospective observational case series, all suspected cases of body packing/stuffing were included and underwent abdominopelvic CT with and without oral contrast in a one-year period. CT scans were reported by three independent attending radiologists blind to the demographic and clinical results and compared to our defined "gold standard" which was surgery or expulsion of packets. The existence and number of packets detected by each method were compared to define the better method of diagnosis. Results. Of 11 suspect body packers/pushers, 10 carried packs. Abdominopelvic CT with and without oral contrast detected six and seven of them, respectively. In 24 body stuffers, CT without oral contrast was more accurate in diagnosis of existence (9/24 vs. 7/24, p = 0.003) and number (sensitivity and positive predictive values of 29.2% vs. 37.5% and 100% vs. 100% for CTs with and without oral contrast, respectively, p = 0.021). Discussion and conclusions. There is a remarkable gap between detection of existence and number of packets/baggies reported by the radiologists and the real condition of the patients. A close teamwork between radiologists and toxicologists is needed to manage these problematic cases.
dc.sourceClinical Toxicology
dc.subjectBody packer
dc.subjectBody pusher
dc.subjectBody stuffer
dc.subjectCT scan with and without oral contrast
dc.subjectDrug traffi cking
dc.subjectPoisoning
dc.titleComparison of abdominal computed tomography with and without oral contrast in diagnosis of body packers and body stuffers
dc.journal.volume53
dc.journal.issue7
dc.identifier.doi10.3109/15563650.2015.1054501
dc.journal.pages596-603
dc.contributor.authorid24071929700
dc.contributor.authorid15837130900
dc.contributor.authorid15837130900
dc.contributor.authorid8973424600
dc.contributor.authorid56763738000
dc.contributor.authorid56763738000
dc.contributor.authorid36864737700
dc.contributor.authorid55338940200
dc.contributor.authorid56492987900
dc.contributor.authorid55920401300
dc.contributor.authorid55886393900
dc.contributor.citation24071929700|60102239|Makhtoom Shahnazi
dc.contributor.citation15837130900|60102239|Hossein Hassanian-Moghaddam
dc.contributor.citation15837130900|60102239|Hossein Hassanian-Moghaddam
dc.contributor.citation8973424600|60018219|Latif Gachkar
dc.contributor.citation56763738000|60102239|Narjes Ahmadi
dc.contributor.citation56763738000|60102239|Narjes Ahmadi
dc.contributor.citation36864737700|60102239|Nasim Zamani
dc.contributor.citation55338940200|60102239|Hooman Bahrami-Motlagh
dc.contributor.citation56492987900|60089278|Taraneh Faghihi Langroudi
dc.contributor.citation55920401300|60089278|Abbas Arjmand Shabestari
dc.contributor.citation55886393900|60018934|Afshin Mohammad Alizadeh
dc.contributor.affiliationid60102239
dc.contributor.affiliationid60102239
dc.contributor.affiliationid60102239
dc.contributor.affiliationid60018219
dc.contributor.affiliationid60102239
dc.contributor.affiliationid60102239
dc.contributor.affiliationid60102239
dc.contributor.affiliationid60102239
dc.contributor.affiliationid60089278
dc.contributor.affiliationid60089278
dc.contributor.affiliationid60018934


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record