ArticleInsights into imaging2025
Diagnosis of adult midgut malrotation in CT: sign of absent retromesenteric duodenum reliable.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reversed intestinal malrotation with volvulus in an adult: A case report.Radiology case reports · 2026Article
- Intestinal Malrotation in Adults: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study Based on Computed Tomography Findings.Cureus · 2026Article
- Left-Sided Perforated Appendicitis in an Elderly Man with Intestinal Malrotation: A Case Report.The American journal of case reports · 2025Article
- Left-Sided Acute Appendicitis in an Adult With Intestinal Malrotation: A Case Report From Jordan.Cureus · 2025Article
- Case Report: Ultrasound "whirlpool sign" in fetal intestinal malrotation and torsion: a case-based approach to early diagnosis and intervention.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the incidence of absent retromesenteric duodenum with other radiological signs and to assess its diagnostic significance for midgut malrotation in adults.
methodsThis IRB-approved retrospective single-center study involved adult patients who underwent abdominal CT scans. Patients were screened for the presence of the absent retromesenteric duodenum sign. Signs observed included the position of the duodenal-jejunal junction (DJJ) and jejunum within the abdomen, the relationship between the superior mesenteric artery (SMA) and superior mesenteric vein (SMV), the locations of the ascending colon, cecum, and appendix, and the presence of intestinal volvulus.
resultsA total of 5594 patients were included. Seven patients exhibited the sign of absent retromesenteric duodenum. Four of these patients were identified as those diagnosed with midgut malrotation in the past five years. The common features observed in all 11 patients were: the horizontal segment of the duodenum did not traverse behind the SMA but instead curved rightwards and forwards adjacent to it; the DJJ and jejunum were positioned in the right abdomen; the SMV was anterior to the SMA. In 7 patients (7/11), the ascending colon, cecum, and appendix were located in the left abdomen. 5 patients (5/11) showed a high cecum position, and 2 patients (2/11) exhibited a pelvic appendix.
conclusionThe absent retromesenteric duodenum sign in CT diagnosis of adult midgut malrotation has proven to be more reliable. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Radiologists should routinely identify the course of the duodenum horizontal segment in CT images, to prevent misdiagnosis of adult midgut malrotation. KEY POINTS: CT is suitable for the diagnosis of adult midgut malrotation. Absent retromesenteric duodenum for diagnosing adult midgut malrotation is more reliable than other signs. Diagnostic CT criteria for adult midgut malrotation need updating.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.