CT image of the night

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

po' boy

Senior Member
15+ Year Member
20+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2001
Messages
224
Reaction score
4
20F rollover MVA restrained driver, 30wks pregnant, odor of etOH, hysterical and c/o low back pain. Ambulatory at scene. BIB EMS boarded and collared. Takes Xanax. ABCs intact, stable vitals, primary and secondary surveys significant for mid Tspine tenderness and a lower lip lac. Decided to CT after US showed fetal heart tones, etc.

Radiology calls me with an interesting finding. I've copied a crop of a sagittal reconstructive slice.

Any guesses as to what it is?

Members don't see this ad.
 

Attachments

  • untitled.JPG
    untitled.JPG
    12.3 KB · Views: 1,462
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
bottle of whiskey?
 
hair brush is my guess
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Yep, something packaged for distribution.
 
So what would of happened if she went to MRI b/c she's pregnant, and there is a metal perfume cap, or whatever stuck in there? Are there screens for this sort of thing? good pic though, thanks for the image.
 
Some would say the metal would get yanked out of her ***** and thrown against the magnet.

In reality probably nothing would happen. It is not likely to be a magnetized metal. Probably some cheap aluminum composite.
 
Crack pipe.
I hope you (or whoever admitted the momma) called child protective services for the developing babe. Cool pic of the babe too....
 
"So that's where I put that. You're not going to believe it, but I've been looking for that for weeks..."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Holy ****, you guys did a CT abdo on a pregnant woman?!

Wow! I know we hear a lot about how they scan more than us in the USA but holy crap, that would never ever ever happen in Europe...
 
Holy ****, you guys did a CT abdo on a pregnant woman?!

Wow! I know we hear a lot about how they scan more than us in the USA but holy crap, that would never ever ever happen in Europe...

The number I've always heard is <5 rads in pregnancy for having a negligible effect on the fetus (sorry, can't link the reference off the top of my head but it comes form some recs from the American College of Radiology). That said we obviously still try to avoid spinning pregnant patients but if you have to do it then you have to do it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
So what was it?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Holy ****, you guys did a CT abdo on a pregnant woman?!

Wow! I know we hear a lot about how they scan more than us in the USA but holy crap, that would never ever ever happen in Europe...

The worst part is you would not scan a pregnant woman at 34 weeks, but if she delivered you would then scan the baby if there was a problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I agree, but I'd avoid scanning a child at all costs anyway.

As for the CT Abdo, I know she was past the first trimester but that scan is the equivalent dose of 500 Chest X-rays... I'd hate to think of the radiographer pointing the tube at the mother's unshielded belly and pressing 'expose' five hundred times in a row...
 
Baby lotion. The trial size.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
My guess is an iPod...most likely playing Baby Got Back <<rimshot>>.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
What is it? I have seen CT scans of vibrators that look like this. Some of them only the motor shows up on the scan. Or was she doing her nails while driving and had the nail polish bottle between her legs when she rolled over?The suspense is killing me, what is it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
20F rollover MVA restrained driver, 30wks pregnant, odor of etOH, hysterical and c/o low back pain. Ambulatory at scene. BIB EMS boarded and collared. Takes Xanax. ABCs intact, stable vitals, primary and secondary surveys significant for mid Tspine tenderness and a lower lip lac. Decided to CT after US showed fetal heart tones, etc.

Radiology calls me with an interesting finding. I've copied a crop of a sagittal reconstructive slice.

Any guesses as to what it is?

I have to know what clinically lead to your decision to CT this patient. I am sure that you are leaving something out of the H and P that made the benefits of the CT outweigh the risk of scanning a stable pregnant individual with a negative fast and lower back pain for which a plain film would surely do just fine.

Please explain the rational for the CT. I ask because this CT disturbs me and it's not because of the foreign body.

(Did the patient get sent to OB for toco after you were done irradiating her and you removed the foreign body?)
 
I have to know what clinically lead to your decision to CT this patient. I am sure that you are leaving something out of the H and P that made the benefits of the CT outweigh the risk of scanning a stable pregnant individual with a negative fast and lower back pain for which a plane film would surely do just fine.

Please explain the rational for the CT. I ask because this CT disturbs me and it's not because of the foreign body.

(Did the patient get sent to OB for toco after you were done irradiating her and you removed the foreign body?)

The indications to do a trauma CT on a pregnant trauma patient are exactly the same as the non-pregnant trauma patient. If don't think you need to CT this patient, then you should also not CT a similar aged, drunk, s/p rollover MVA female.

Frankly, a CT is probably safer in this patient, when compared to the average woman of child bearing age, sinceyou already know how pregnant she is and that virtually all organogenasis has already occurred. Most of this time, they just go to the CT scanner and, as they have no visible signs of pregnancy, could be early/mid second trimester. The risk to the fetus from radiation is really more perception of ionizing radiation and fear on the part of the provider than from the actual of xrays. The real risk to the fetus is from the mother becoming unstable and having a potentially life threatening injury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
The indications to do a trauma CT on a pregnant trauma patient are exactly the same as the non-pregnant trauma patient. If don't think you need to CT this patient, then you should also not CT a similar aged, drunk, s/p rollover MVA female.

Given the clinical scenario above and all things being equal I don't see a need to CT either of these patients. What are you basing your need for CT on in an individual s/p MVC with stable vitals, normal FAST, presumably no abdominal tenderness, and isolated L/S spine tenderness? Why the need to rush to CT? For the L/S spine? If you are concerned about the abdomen why not observe? What are we trying to diagnose?

Frankly, a CT is probably safer in this patient, when compared to the average woman of child bearing age, sinceyou already know how pregnant she is and that virtually all organogenasis has already occurred. Most of this time, they just go to the CT scanner and, as they have no visible signs of pregnancy, could be early/mid second trimester. The risk to the fetus from radiation is really more perception of ionizing radiation and fear on the part of the provider than from the actual of xrays.

A CT is hardly "safe" in any patient given the literature demonstrating the very real oncogenic effects of ionizing radiation. What generation scanner is the trauma scanner? A 64? A 32? This will greatly alter the miliseverts delivered both to the fetus (we obviously do not care about organogensis but rather the oncogenic potential of the delivered radiation--not to mention the various effects on the developing brain) and the 20 year old female who has 60+ years ahead of her to potentially develop a malignancy associated with an unnecessary scan.

The real risk to the fetus is from the mother becoming unstable and having a potentially life threatening injury.

The real risk to this patient (accepting all things being true in the initial H and P and ignoring the foreign body) would be undiagnosed placental abruption which auscultating fetal heart tones does not reasonably exclude. A stable individual with this type of injury in the 3rd trimester deserves extended toco monitoring to r/o fetal distress/abruption.
 
Given the clinical scenario above and all things being equal I don't see a need to CT either of these patients. What are you basing your need for CT on in an individual s/p MVC with stable vitals, normal FAST, presumably no abdominal tenderness, and isolated L/S spine tenderness? Why the need to rush to CT? For the L/S spine? If you are concerned about the abdomen why not observe? What are we trying to diagnose?

You probably can observe this patient, assuming you are actually observing the patient and not sticking her away in a corner, hoping that L&D sends down a nurse for fetal monitoring. However, most trauma services won't want to observe any intoxicated patient who was involved in rollover MVA without imaging. Vital signs are notoriously inaccurate for determining if someone is actually in early shock. I haven't really reviewed the literature, but I don't think FAST has every been investigated in pregnant women, not to mention the technical difficulty of doing a FAST and a good abdominal exam with a significant amount of uterus sitting in the abdominal cavity.

A CT is hardly "safe" in any patient given the literature demonstrating the very real oncogenic effects of ionizing radiation... and the 20 year old female who has 60+ years ahead of her to potentially develop a malignancy associated with an unnecessary scan.

I guess I'm not that concerned with the stochastic effects since her risk will be increased by 1 in 1000 or so. I suspect I'll pick up more (insert injured organ here) than I will cause cancers by CTing what is a fairly high risk patient. If I think the patient would need a CT abd if they weren't pregnant, they need one if they are. We can argue about pretest probability and the utility of said scan, but the principle is the same: you need to evaluation mom the same way you would if she was non-pregnant.

The real risk to this patient (accepting all things being true in the initial H and P and ignoring the foreign body) would be undiagnosed placental abruption which auscultating fetal heart tones does not reasonably exclude. A stable individual with this type of injury in the 3rd trimester deserves extended toco monitoring to r/o fetal distress/abruption.

Sure, once you are convinced mom is stable, you can spirit her away to L&D for extended fetal monitoring. All the more reason to eliminate intra-abdominal injury rapidly.
 
You guys are clearly overthinking this issue. The risks of ionizing radiation vs hypovolemic insult could be debated later, whats important here is that THING shes got stuck up her Vah-G. Its crazy- its got metal densities, air densities, a string with more metal. Its either a bag of crack rocks with fishing lure and weights tied to it or some kick *** sex toy I cant even wrap my brains around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The ionizing radiation of the CT couldn't possibly cause more damage than the fetal alcohol syndrome this baby will already have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Looks like a crack pipe to me.

That's why I don't smoke crack with strangers...
 
You guys are clearly overthinking this issue. The risks of ionizing radiation vs hypovolemic insult could be debated later, whats important here is that THING shes got stuck up her Vah-G. Its crazy- its got metal densities, air densities, a string with more metal. Its either a bag of crack rocks with fishing lure and weights tied to it or some kick *** sex toy I cant even wrap my brains around.
:laugh:
I've gotta say I had just ground through several very academic and well reasoned but dry posts (including BADMD coming up with the word "stochastic," damn, back to Dorland's for me:confused:) when I just blasted right into this and it cracked me up.
 
Ok, allow me to don my flame-******ant suit.

This image has provoked an interesting discussion. As the above poster has stated, the rationale for scanning this patient was 1) her complaint of severe back pain and 2) her overall level of intoxication and hysteria, some of which was alcohol/drugs, and some of which was just her personality, but which we presumed could have been due in part to an acute traumatic injury. In the ED, I have Traumagram-d drunk folks for a lot less, and my attending and I both agreed that this was the best modality for rapidly assessing her injuries in her state. We recently did a study examining whether a Traumagram (a head to pelvis CT) picked up injuries that would have been missed by clinical exam and/or plain films plus FAST, and the answer was unequivocally yes.

In my department, it is possible to obtain an MRI 24/7 (albeit with a significant wait time), but in my experience, it is used less in trauma and more in the gravid R/O appy situation. One poster above asked whether the metal on the occult FB would have caused problems in an MRI, and the answer is that I don't know. I raised this question with one of my attendings, who admitted that he once accidentally MRI'd a patient with a pacemaker. He said all that happened was the wires heated up a little.

I suppose the teaching point of this case is the importance of a vaginal sweep in all trauma, even stable trauma. Rarely do we do this, though (see the "Sodomy in the ED" thread and extrapolate). I once had a female MVC brought in boarded and collared, c/o hip pain, and with a tampon in place. She stated she was on her period, so the scant vaginal oozing that was noted after the tampon was removed was thought to be menstrual blood. Turns out she had an open pelvic fracture with ramus extrusion into the vaginal vault, which was detected on digital vaginal exam after the CT showed the fracture.

The item in question was a pill bottle on a keychain. Here is the conversation with the patient, who I'll call Britney, that ensued:

ME
So we were reviewing your CT scans, and it looks like you have a foreign body in your vagina. Do you know what that might be?

BRITNEY
What, like a baby?

ME
Um, no. It looks like something you might have put there yourself.

BRITNEY
(squints eyes, feigns ignorance)

ME
Actually, it looks like a pill bottle.

BRITNEY
(eyes light up, reaches between legs)
Oh, you mean this?
(pulls out pill bottle, dangles it six inches from my face)
I just keep my Xanax and Lortab in here.

ME
In your vagina?

BRITNEY
(grabs my arm with hand that just extracted object)
No! I was just, you know, afraid that, uh, the cops were going to arrest me and stuff after the accident. So I put it there, for, like, safekeeping.

ME
Um...please don't touch me.

I spent the next half hour closing her lip lac, or rather, trying to get her to be quiet while I did so. She was admitted to L&D for fetal monitoring. BAL was 165, and UDS positive for benzos, opiates, and marijuana, which all told probably posed a far greater risk to her baby than the CT scan.

At the end, she told me that she was scared DCS might take her baby from her. She said she felt excited and happy that she was going to be a mother.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
At the end, she told me that she was scared DCS might take her baby from her. She said she felt excited and happy that she was going to be a mother.
Thanks for the info. Cool image and it did spark an interesting discussion. I am neither happy nor excited that she will be a mother.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
How long was the key chain? Or am I not viewing it correctly (possible the end of the key chain is the last of the bright densities)? Or maybe I'm viewing the distance to be longer than it actually is?
 
BRITNEY
(eyes light up, reaches between legs)
Oh, you mean this?
(pulls out pill bottle, dangles it six inches from my face)
I just keep my Xanax and Lortab in here.

I had a patient call that "my other purse" once. She kept her things, including her cash there, when she went clubbing.

Can you imagine the look on the Doorman's face when she went to pay her cover..?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Careful doing that vaginal sweep.. during residency had a female trauma patient with a syringe hiding in there.. don't prick yourself (no pun intended).

And yes, as far as this patient becoming a mother, it's job security, pure and simple.
 
Ok, allow me to don my flame-******ant suit.

This image has provoked an interesting discussion. As the above poster has stated, the rationale for scanning this patient was 1) her complaint of severe back pain and 2) her overall level of intoxication and hysteria, some of which was alcohol/drugs, and some of which was just her personality, but which we presumed could have been due in part to an acute traumatic injury. In the ED, I have Traumagram-d drunk folks for a lot less, and my attending and I both agreed that this was the best modality for rapidly assessing her injuries in her state. We recently did a study examining whether a Traumagram (a head to pelvis CT) picked up injuries that would have been missed by clinical exam and/or plain films plus FAST, and the answer was unequivocally yes.

In my department, it is possible to obtain an MRI 24/7 (albeit with a significant wait time), but in my experience, it is used less in trauma and more in the gravid R/O appy situation. One poster above asked whether the metal on the occult FB would have caused problems in an MRI, and the answer is that I don't know. I raised this question with one of my attendings, who admitted that he once accidentally MRI'd a patient with a pacemaker. He said all that happened was the wires heated up a little.

I suppose the teaching point of this case is the importance of a vaginal sweep in all trauma, even stable trauma. Rarely do we do this, though (see the "Sodomy in the ED" thread and extrapolate). I once had a female MVC brought in boarded and collared, c/o hip pain, and with a tampon in place. She stated she was on her period, so the scant vaginal oozing that was noted after the tampon was removed was thought to be menstrual blood. Turns out she had an open pelvic fracture with ramus extrusion into the vaginal vault, which was detected on digital vaginal exam after the CT showed the fracture.

The item in question was a pill bottle on a keychain. Here is the conversation with the patient, who I'll call Britney, that ensued:

ME
So we were reviewing your CT scans, and it looks like you have a foreign body in your vagina. Do you know what that might be?

BRITNEY
What, like a baby?

ME
Um, no. It looks like something you might have put there yourself.

BRITNEY
(squints eyes, feigns ignorance)

ME
Actually, it looks like a pill bottle.

BRITNEY
(eyes light up, reaches between legs)
Oh, you mean this?
(pulls out pill bottle, dangles it six inches from my face)
I just keep my Xanax and Lortab in here.

ME
In your vagina?

BRITNEY
(grabs my arm with hand that just extracted object)
No! I was just, you know, afraid that, uh, the cops were going to arrest me and stuff after the accident. So I put it there, for, like, safekeeping.

ME
Um...please don't touch me.

I spent the next half hour closing her lip lac, or rather, trying to get her to be quiet while I did so. She was admitted to L&D for fetal monitoring. BAL was 165, and UDS positive for benzos, opiates, and marijuana, which all told probably posed a far greater risk to her baby than the CT scan.

At the end, she told me that she was scared DCS might take her baby from her. She said she felt excited and happy that she was going to be a mother.

“Sadly, there is no standard in society which determines who is worthy of having a child. Those types of standards only apply to more important things like owning a gun or adopting a pet.”

– Sujay Kansagra, MD, Everything I Learned in Medical School Besides All the Book Stuff
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I suppose the teaching point of this case is the importance of a vaginal sweep in all trauma, even stable trauma. .

EDIT: (OOPS...didn't notice this thread was from 2008 until I read the other "pelvic" thread below; however, I'll leave my post even if I am unlikely to hear back from the OP)
----------------------------------
Whoa...what?!!

"Vaginal sweep" in all trauma? Do you mean digital exam? Or trans-abdominal ultrasound "sweeping" through the pelvis?

Please tell me you (or your attendings) are not advocating performing a digital vaginal exam in trauma ("all trauma, even stable trauma"). Please. Please.

Since I assume you mean ultrasound exam, I will not go on.
------------
Also, did you not see the giant foreign body on ultrasound before CT?

HH
 
Last edited:
EDIT: (OOPS...didn't notice this thread was from 2008 until I read the other "pelvic" thread below; however, I'll leave my post even if I am unlikely to hear back from the OP)
----------------------------------
Whoa...what?!!

"Vaginal sweep" in all trauma? Do you mean digital exam? Or trans-abdominal ultrasound "sweeping" through the pelvis?

Please tell me you (or your attendings) are not advocating performing a digital vaginal exam in trauma ("all trauma, even stable trauma"). Please. Please.

Since I assume you mean ultrasound exam, I will not go on.
------------
Also, did you not see the giant foreign body on ultrasound before CT?

HH

Clearly, the only way to be certain, is to perform the V-sweep in all patients. Even ones denying trauma. Or any complaints actually. Just to be safe. You wouldn't want to be unsafe, right?
 
Clearly, the only way to be certain, is to perform the V-sweep in all patients. Even ones denying trauma. Or any complaints actually. Just to be safe. You wouldn't want to be unsafe, right?
Just ask David Newman...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Saw a poster earlier saying we wouldn't CT abdo a pregnant woman in Europe.

I would. I wouldn't really hesitate if they need it, US has been studied in non pregnant trauma victims and is pretty useless for ruling things out. MRI is wonderful but the wrong investigation in trauma.

You have two patients, the only way you can support baby is by treating mum. Always.

re the rest of it: eye roll, shake head, how the other half live etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Saw a poster earlier saying we wouldn't CT abdo a pregnant woman in Europe.

I would. I wouldn't really hesitate if they need it, US has been studied in non pregnant trauma victims and is pretty useless for ruling things out. MRI is wonderful but the wrong investigation in trauma.

You have two patients, the only way you can support baby is by treating mum. Always.

re the rest of it: eye roll, shake head, how the other half live etc

Agreed. Radiation may be bad for baby, but so is a dead mom. Or placental hypo perfusion due to an occult bleed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Completely agree with (half of) the above posters. CT scans are rarely necessary in pregnant women in trauma. However, if you see enough trauma patients you will see a pregnant lady that needs an abdominal CT. In those cases I do not hesitate to order the necessary study. A dead mother gets you two dead patients. That said, I always (if they're conscious) will have a risk/benefit discussion with mother and have them sign a consent for use of ionizing radiation. Even though the dose is much lower, I will do the same thing in a pregnant CT-PE study.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Top