Abstract
Objective
This article reviews the causes, clinical presentation, and CT diagnosis of superior mesenteric artery (SMA) syndrome.
Conclusion
In conjunction with an appropriate clinical history, several CT findings can suggest the diagnosis of SMA syndrome. These findings include narrowing of the aortomesenteric angle and distance, distension of the stomach and duodenum, and dilatation of the left renal vein with left-sided venous collaterals.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
An entity first described almost 150 years ago, “superior mesenteric artery (SMA) syndrome” represents a unique set of clinical symptoms caused by compression of the duodenum between the aorta and SMA [1, 2]. Classically described in young women, patients experience early post-prandial satiety, abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting, often resulting in chronic anorexia and weight loss [2]. Many have historically been skeptical as to the true existence of this syndrome, partly because of its rarity, but also because of the difficulty in definitively proving the presence of true duodenal obstruction with any imaging modality [3]. Nevertheless, the development of multidetector CT (MDCT) with multiplanar reformats and 3-D technique has shown that certain CT findings can be extremely suggestive, especially in the setting of an appropriate clinical history. In this pictorial essay we present 10 cases with classic CT findings and suggestive clinical histories, some of whom had their symptoms resolve following operative intervention.
Background
SMA syndrome is thought to result from an abnormally short distance between the aorta and SMA, which results in compression of the duodenum. Patients with SMA syndrome usually present with nonspecific symptoms, making diagnosis extremely difficult. Typically seen in young women, their chronic anorexia, nausea, vomiting, and post-prandial abdominal pain are often blamed on non-anatomic, psychosocial causes, resulting in a delayed diagnosis [4]. Nevertheless, when carefully questioned, these patients often have a characteristic history, with their symptoms relieved by changes in posture, such as turning to their left side, bringing their knees up to their chest, or the prone position [4, 5]. Because of its infrequency, the exact incidence of SMA syndrome is unknown, although estimates based on fluoroscopic studies have suggested it may be as low as 0.01% [6].
It is believed that the cause of this anatomic compression is loss of intra-abdominal fat, which normally separates the SMA from the aorta. As a result, SMA syndrome has primarily been described in two patient populations: (1) Patients who have undergone surgery, resulting in loss or distortion of the normal retroperitoneal fat (such as scoliosis surgery, aortic aneurysm repairs, or any abdominal gastrointestinal surgery), and (2) Patients who have had severe, rapid weight loss for any number of reasons, including bariatric surgery, cancer, chronic immobilization, major burns, etc. [1, 2, 4, 6]. Many of these patients may be congenitally predisposed to this condition by a lean body habitus, a short ligament of Trietz, or a low take-off of the SMA [7].
Treatment
Treatment for SMA syndrome is typically conservative, including placement of a nasogastric tube to decompress the duodenum, placing the patient in positions which minimize duodenal compression (left decubitus, prone, knees to chest), and the use of tube feeds and total parenteral nutrition (TPN) to improve nutrition. The ultimate goal of conservative therapy is to increase body weight, hopefully restoring the aortomesenteric distance to a normal value, thereby relieving the patient’s obstruction [1].
In those patients in whom conservative methods have failed, surgical intervention has been advocated, including the use of a duodenojejunostomy to bypass the obstructed portion of the duodenum [1]. A historical alternative was the “Strong’s Operation,” where the ligament of Trietz is severed, and the bowel is repositioned to alleviate duodenal compression [7]. Although most studies of surgical intervention have been in small series, the success rates have been reported to be between 75% and 100% [8, 9].
CT diagnosis
In a normal patient, the distance between the aorta and SMA (“aortomesenteric distance”) should range from 10 to 34 mm, and the normal angle between the aorta and SMA (“aortomesenteric angle”) should be between 28° to 65° (Fig. 1) [6]. Angiographic studies have shown that patients with SMA syndrome clearly have an abnormal aortomesenteric angle (6°–22°), and a shortened aortomesenteric distance (2–8 mm) compared to normal patients (Figs. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11) [10]. In another study utilizing MDCT, the mean aortomesentric angle in SMA syndrome patients was 13.5°, with an aortomesenteric distance of 4.4 mm [6]. Clearly, any absolute numerical cut-off is arbitrary, but some have advocated that an aortomesenteric distance <8 mm and an angle <22° should be suggestive of the diagnosis in the right clinical setting [6]. In our experience, because the SMA is often anterolateral relative to the aorta, simply using sagittal multiplanar reformats can result in erroneous measurements. Therefore, 3-D reconstructions are helpful in providing the most accurate measurements by placing the aorta and SMA in a parallel plane [11].
Despite some studies suggesting that these numerical cut-offs are relatively specific for the diagnosis, a great deal of caution should be used before using these measurements in isolation [6]. Ancillary findings of duodenal obstruction should be sought, including distension of the stomach and proximal duodenum, with abrupt narrowing of the duodenum at the level of the SMA [10]. Some have observed that in true cases of duodenal obstruction, the gastric antrum is often displaced anterosuperiorly relative to the main portal vein, up into the porta hepatis [11]. At the same time, duodenal distension alone is not diagnostic—a “megaduodenum” can be idiopathic, or can be secondary to diabetes, pancreatitis, peptic ulcer disease, neoplasm, or a number of other chronic underlying disorders [10].
In addition to narrowing of the duodenum, a small aortomesenteric distance can result in compression of the left renal vein between the aorta and SMA. Patients can present with isolated left renal vein thrombosis, or alternatively, enlargement of the left gonadal vein or other left-sided venous collaterals as a result of chronic renal vein compression (“nutcracker phenomenon”) (Figs. 2, 6, 7, 10) [6]. This finding can be an important clue that a narrowed aortomesenteric distance is physiologically significant, rather than an incidental finding.
In our experience, multiplanar reconstructions and 3-D technique are critical in best delineating many of these ancillary findings of SMA syndrome—the presence of a large venous collateral, or the asymmetric dilatation of the left renal vein, are often more apparent with 3-D technique (Figs. 2, 6, 7, 10). Moreover, the full extent of duodenal obstruction is often best appreciated with multiplanar reformations.
Ultimately, it is dangerous to make the diagnosis of SMA syndrome based on CT imaging features alone. The CT findings can certainly be suggestive, but can be present in normal subjects as well. CT findings, even when severe, must be interpreted in the context of the patient’s symptoms, given the rarity of the disorder. SMA syndrome is not simply a constellation of CT findings, but rather, represents a group of distinct clinical symptoms.
Conclusion
SMA syndrome can present with a number of characteristic findings on CT. While none of these findings are absolutely specific, their presence in the setting of a classic clinical history can strongly suggest the diagnosis of SMA syndrome.
References
Welsch T, Buchler MW, Kienle P (2007) Recalling mesenteric artery syndrome. Dig Surg 24:149–156
Applegate GR, Cohen AJ (1988) Dynamic CT in superior mesenteric artery syndrome. J Comput Assist Tomogr 12(6):976–980
Neri S, Signorelli S, Mondati E, et al. (2005) Ultrasound imaging in diagnosis of superior mesenteric artery syndrome. J Intern Med 257:346–351
Merrett ND, Wilson RB, Cosman P, et al. (2009) Superior mesenteric artery syndrome: diagnosis and treatment strategies. J Gastrointest Surg 13:287–292
Lippl F, Hannig C, Weib W, et al. (2002) Superior mesenteric artery syndrome: diagnosis and treatment from the gastroenterologist’s view. J Gastroenterol 37:640–643
Agrawal GA, Johnson PT, Fishman EK (2007) Multidetector row CT of superior mesenteric artery syndrome. J Clin Gastroenterol 41(1):62–65
Jain R (2007) Superior mesenteric artery syndrome. Curr Treat Options Gastroenterol 10:24–27
Munene G, Knab M, Parag B (2010) Laparoscopic duodenojejunostomy for superior mesenteric artery syndrome. Am Surg 76:321–324
Fraser JD, Peter S, Hughes J, et al. (2009) Laparoscopic duodenojejunostomy for superior mesenteric artery syndrome. JSLS 13:254–259
Konen E, Amitai M, Apter S, et al. (1998) CT angiography of superior mesenteric artery syndrome. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171:1279–1281
Unal B, Aktas A, Kemal G, et al. (2005) Superior mesenteric artery syndrome: CT and ultrasonography findings. Diagn Interv Radiol 11:90–95
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Raman, S.P., Neyman, E.G., Horton, K.M. et al. Superior mesenteric artery syndrome: spectrum of CT findings with multiplanar reconstructions and 3-D imaging. Abdom Imaging 37, 1079–1088 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-012-9852-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-012-9852-z