Utility of extended FAST in blunt chest trauma: is it the time to be used in the ATLS algorithm?

Accuracy, reliability, and utility of the extended focused assessment with sonography in trauma examination in the setting of thoracic gunshot wounds

BACKGROUND

The extended focused assessment with sonography in trauma (eFAST) examination includes additional thoracic views beyond the standard focused assessment with sonography in trauma examination. Its validation has predominantly been conducted in blunt trauma cases. Our aim was to evaluate the eFAST examination in a targeted population with penetrating thoracic trauma.

METHODS

Patients with thoracic gunshot wounds who underwent eFAST between 2017 and 2021 were included from a local trauma registry. Performance metrics for each component of eFAST in each window and pathological condition were analyzed across the entire population, as well as within two cohorts: survived and deceased patients. Chest tube placement rates were compared within true-positive and false-negative (FN) eFAST results for subgroups with pneumothorax or hemothorax.

RESULTS

A total of 288 patients were included (male, 91% male; Injury Severity Score ≥15, 48%; and died, 17%). Thirty-nine percent required chest tube, and 18% required urgent thoracic surgical intervention. Although specificity was high (91-100%) for all components, the sensitivity was less than 50% for all thoracic views, except for "no cardiac motion" (100% sensitivity). Sensitivity for pericardial fluid was 47%; for pneumothorax, 22%; for hemothorax, 36%; and for peritoneal fluid, 51% in the total population. Comparing survived versus deceased cohort, the eFAST sensitivity was higher among deaths for all components. The majority of patients (>70%) with a FN eFAST for pneumothorax or hemothorax received chest tube.

CONCLUSION

The eFAST examination showed highly variable performance metrics among patients with penetrating thoracic trauma, with all thoracic components demonstrating high specificity but low overall sensitivity. Urgent interventions were frequently received in patients with FN studies.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic Test/Criteria; Level III.

Lung ultrasonography underdiagnoses clinically significant pneumothorax

BACKGROUND

Ultrasonography for trauma is an integral part of the Advanced Trauma Life Support algorithm and supported extensively in the literature. The reliability of chest ultrasonography as a screening examination for pneumothorax during initial trauma evaluation is unclear. We performed a prospective study where we hypothesized that chest ultrasonography would have low sensitivity for detecting clinically significant pneumothorax.

METHODS

A prospective observational analysis of patients with blunt chest trauma at a level 1 trauma center was performed. Patients included had supine chest radiography and chest ultrasonography performed prior to intervention as well as confirmatory computed tomographic imaging. All chest ultrasonography was performed in the trauma bay by a registered sonographer. All imaging was evaluated by an attending trauma surgeon and radiologist in real time.

RESULTS

Of 2,185 patients screened with a diagnosis of blunt thoracic trauma, 1,489 patients had chest radiography, chest ultrasonography, and confirmatory computed tomography and were included for analysis. Patients were 71% male, with median age of 42 years, and mean Injury Severity Score of 6. The sensitivity of chest ultrasonography to detect pneumothorax was low. Chest ultrasonography had a false negative rate of 72% (n = 58), with 22% (n = 13) undergoing tube thoracostomy. Patients with false negative examinations had lower initial O2 saturation and systolic blood pressure and were more likely to have rib fractures compared with true negative chest ultrasonography examinations.

CONCLUSION

Chest ultrasonography performed on initial trauma evaluation has low sensitivity with a high rate of false negative examinations. Because many of these false negative results are clinically significant requiring thoracostomy, using chest ultrasonography alone to screen for pneumothorax should be done with caution.

Comparing the Diagnostic Performance of Lung Ultrasonography and Chest Radiography for Detecting Pneumothorax in Patients with Trauma: A Meta-Analysis

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of ultrasonography (US) and chest radiography for detecting pneumothorax in patients with trauma using a meta-analytic approach.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to identify eligible studies until March 2023. The diagnostic performance of US and chest radiography was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic score, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

RESULTS

Overall, 21 studies involving 4,087 patients with trauma were included. The overall sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, diagnostic score, DOR, and AUC of US for detecting pneumothorax were 0.83, 0.99, 73.72, 0.17, 6.06, 427.80, and 0.99, respectively. The corresponding values of chest radiography for detecting pneumothorax were 0.37, 1.00, 175.59, 0.63, 5.63, 279.97, and 0.86. US was associated with a higher sensitivity (ratio: 2.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.70-2.95; p < 0.001) or AUC (ratio: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.11-1.19; p < 0.001) and lower NLR (ratio: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.17-0.43; p < 0.001) compared with chest radiography.

CONCLUSION

Lung US was associated with better diagnostic performance than chest radiography for detecting pneumothorax in patients with trauma.

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of ultrasonography (US) and chest radiography for detecting pneumothorax in patients with trauma using a meta-analytic approach.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched to identify eligible studies until March 2023. The diagnostic performance of US and chest radiography was assessed using sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic score, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC).

RESULTS

Overall, 21 studies involving 4,087 patients with trauma were included. The overall sensitivity, specificity, PLR, NLR, diagnostic score, DOR, and AUC of US for detecting pneumothorax were 0.83, 0.99, 73.72, 0.17, 6.06, 427.80, and 0.99, respectively. The corresponding values of chest radiography for detecting pneumothorax were 0.37, 1.00, 175.59, 0.63, 5.63, 279.97, and 0.86. US was associated with a higher sensitivity (ratio: 2.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.70-2.95; p < 0.001) or AUC (ratio: 1.15; 95% CI: 1.11-1.19; p < 0.001) and lower NLR (ratio: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.17-0.43; p < 0.001) compared with chest radiography.

CONCLUSION

Lung US was associated with better diagnostic performance than chest radiography for detecting pneumothorax in patients with trauma.

Trauma Bay Evaluation and Resuscitative Decision-Making

The reader of this article will now have the ability to reflect on all aspects of high-quality trauma bay care, from resuscitation to diagnosis and leadership to debriefing. Although there is no replacement for experience, both clinically and in a simulation environment, trauma clinicians are encouraged to make use of this article both as a primer at the beginning of a trauma rotation and a reference text to revisit after difficult cases in the trauma bay. Also, periods of reflection seem appropriate in the busy but, of course, rewarding career in trauma care.

[Clavicle fractures: practical approach in clinical routine]

Fractures of the clavicle are among the most common fractures. They typically result from a fall onto the lateral shoulder or the extended arm and are often related to sports and bicycle accidents. Obtaining the exact trauma mechanism, proper clinical findings and adequate X‑rays usually lead to the correct diagnosis. Non-displacement fractures can be treated conservatively with good results. Unstable and displaced fractures should be treated operatively. Open fractures or looming penetration are emergencies und should be treated immediately. In addition to fracture classification and morphology, other factors such as additional injuries and patient-related factors need to be considered in order to make an individualized therapy decision. In operative treatment, angular stable plating is the therapy of choice, and in most cases early functional aftercare is possible.

Comparative study of National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) chest algorithm and extended focused assessment with sonography for trauma (E-FAST) in the early detection of blunt chest injuries in polytrauma patients

Introduction

Chest imaging plays a prominent role in the assessment of patients with blunt trauma. Selection of the right approach at the right time is fundamental in the management of patients with blunt chest trauma.[1] A reliable, economic, bedside, and rapidly accomplished screening test can be pivotal. [2].

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of extended- focused assessment with sonography for trauma (E-FAST) to that of the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilisation Study (NEXUS) chest algorithm in detecting blunt chest injuries.

Methods

This descriptive cross-sectional study included 50 polytrauma patients with blunt chest trauma from the emergency centre of Suez Canal University Hospital. E-FAST and computed tomography (CT) were conducted, followed by reporting of NEXUS criteria for all patients. Blinding of the E-FAST performer and CT reporter were confirmed. The results of both the NEXUS algorithm and E-FAST were compared with CT chest results.

Results

The NEXUS algorithm had 100% sensitivity and 15.3% specificity, and E-FAST had 70% sensitivity and 96.7% specificity, in the detection of pneumothorax.In the detection of hemothorax, the sensitivity and specificity of the NEXUS algorithm were 90% and 7.5%, respectively, whereas E-FAST had a lower sensitivity of 80% and a higher specificity of 97.5%.

Conclusion

E-FAST is highly specific for the detection of hemothorax, pneumothorax, and chest injuries compared with the NEXUS chest algorithm, which demonstrated the lowest specificity. However, the NEXUS chest algorithm showed a higher sensitivity than E-FAST and hence can be used effectively to rule out thoracic injury.

Air Medical Ultrasound: Looking Back to See What We Have Learned for the Future

OBJECTIVE

This study attempts to replicate data from a similar study performed 5 years ago by comparing point-of-care (POCUS) extended focused abdominal sonography in trauma (eFAST) examinations performed by an air medical flight crew with those performed by a trauma team at a level 1 trauma center.

METHODS

This prospective observational study evaluated 174 trauma patients over a 12-month period in southeastern Virginia and northeastern North Carolina.

RESULTS

For 101 trauma patients who had a POCUS evaluation completed by the flight crews, a positive predictive value of 100% was obtained with a negative predictive value of 96.63% for pneumothorax, hemothorax, and free abdominal fluid. This showed no significant difference in that of the trauma team's POCUS studies or that of the data from the 2017 study. Early recognition of life-threatening injury continues to be a priority during the assessment of traumatically injured patients. In conjunction with a thorough history and physical examination, POCUS is a very effective method to identify these potentially devastating injuries, especially in the air medical community. When we compared this study's results with those of our study from 2017, the data were very similar, showing that flight crews can conduct POCUS examinations effectively in the austere prehospital environment.

CONCLUSION

By replicating this study, we have shown the validity and continued quality, accuracy, and benefits of the POCUS eFAST examination of trauma patients in the air medical environment. The validity of our previous and now current research suggests that some current standard trauma protocol revisions are indicated (ie, the initiation of air medical trauma resuscitation with blood products, preferably whole blood, and the transport of critically injured patients with a positive POCUS examination for free abdominal fluid directly to the operating room should be closely evaluated).

Impact of implementation of sequential trauma education programs (STEPs) course on missed injuries in emergency polytrauma patients, Ismailia, Egypt

INTRODUCTION

Trauma deaths account for 8% of all deaths in Egypt. Patients with multiple injuries are at high risk but may be saved with a good triage system and a well-trained trauma team in dedicated institutions. The incidence of missed injuries in the Emergency Centre (EC) of Suez Canal University Hospital (SCUH) was found to be 9.0% after applying Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) guidelines. However, this rate is still high compared with many trauma centers.

AIM

Improve the quality of management of polytrauma patients by decreasing the incidence of missed injuries by implementing the Sequential Trauma Education Programs (STEPs) course in the EC at SCUH.

METHODS

This interventional training study was conducted in the SCUH EC that adheres to CONSORT guidelines. The study was conducted during the one month precourse and for 6 months after the implementation of the STEPs course for EC physicians. Overall, 458 polytrauma patients were randomly selected, of which 45 were found to have missed injuries after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. We assessed the clinical relevance of these cases for missed injuries before and after the STEPs course.

RESULTS

Overall, 45 patients were found to have missed injuries, of which 15 (12%) were pre-STEPs and 30 (9%) were post-STEPs course. The STEPs course significantly increased adherence to vital data recording, but the reduction of missed injuries (3.0%) was not statistically significant in relation to demographic and trauma findings. However, the decrease in missed injuries in the post-STEPs course group was an essential clinically significant finding.

CONCLUSION

STEPs course implementation decreased the incidence of missed injuries in polytrauma patients. Thus, the STEPs course can be considered at the same level of other advanced trauma courses as a training skills program or possibly better in dealing with trauma patients. Repetition of this course by physicians should be mandatory to prevent more missed injuries. Therefore, the validation of STEPs course certification should be completed at least every two years to help decrease the number of missed injuries, especially in low-income countries and low-resource settings.

Diagnostic value of chest radiography in the early management of severely injured patients with mediastinal vascular injury

Introduction

Time is of the essence in the management of severely injured patients. This is especially true in patients with mediastinal vascular injury (MVI). This rare, yet life threatening injury needs early detection and immediate decision making. According to the ATLS guidelines [American College of Surgeon Committee on Trauma in Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS^®), 10th edn, 2018], chest radiography (CXR) is one of the first-line imaging examinations in the Trauma Resuscitation Unit (TRU), especially in patients with MVI. Yet thorough interpretation and the competence of identifying pathological findings are essential for accurate diagnosis and drawing appropriate conclusion for further management. The present study evaluates the role of CXR in detecting MVI in the early management of severely injured patients.

Method

We addressed the question in two ways. (1) We performed a retrospective, observational, single-center study and included all primary blunt trauma patients over a period of 2 years that had been admitted to the TRU of a Level-I Trauma Center. Mediastinal/chest (M/C) ratio measurements were calculated from CXRs at three different levels of the mediastinum to identify MVI. Two groups were built: with MVI (VThx) and without MVI (control). The accuracy of the CXR findings were compared with the results of whole-body computed tomography scans (WBCT). (2) We performed another retrospective study and evaluated the usage of sonography, CXR and WBCT over 15 years (2005–2019) in level-I–III Trauma Centers in Germany as documented in the TraumaRegister DGU^® (TR-DGU).

Results

Study I showed that in 2 years 267 patients suffered from a significant blunt thoracic trauma (AIS ≥ 3) and met the inclusion criteria. 27 (10%) of them suffered MVI (VThx). Through the initial CXR in a supine position, MVI was detected in 56–92.6% at aortic arch level and in 44.4–100% at valve level, depending on different M/C-ratios (2.0–3.0). The specificity at different thresholds of M/C ratio was 63.3–2.9% at aortic arch level and 52.9–0.4% at valve level. The ROC curve showed a statistically random process. No significant differences of the cardiac silhouette were observed between VThx and Control (mean cardiac width was 136.5 mm, p = 0.44). Study II included 251,095 patients from the TR-DGU. A continuous reduction of the usage of CXR in the TRU could be observed from 75% in 2005 to 25% in 2019. WBCT usage increased from 35% in 2005 to 80% in 2019. This development was observed in all trauma centers independently from their designated level of care.

Conclusion

According to the TRU management guidelines (American College of Surgeon Committee on Trauma in Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS®), 10th edn, 2018; Reissig and Kroegel in Eur J Radiol 53:463–470, 2005) CXR in supine position is performed to detect pneumothorax, hemothorax and MVI. Our study showed that sensitivity and specificity of CXR in detecting MVI was statistically and clinically not reliable. Previous studies have already shown that CXR is inferior to sonography in detecting pneumothorax and hemothorax. Therefore, we challenge the guidelines and suggest that the use of CXR in the early management of severely injured patients should be individualized. If sonography and WBCT are available and reasonable, CXR is unnecessary and time consuming. The clinical reality reflected in the usage of CXR and WBCT over time, as documented in the TR-DGU, seems to support our statement.

Not so FAST-Chest ultrasound underdiagnoses traumatic pneumothorax

BACKGROUND

Ultrasonography for trauma is a widely used tool in the initial evaluation of trauma patients with complete ultrasonography of trauma (CUST) demonstrating equivalence to computed tomography (CT) for detecting clinically significant abdominal hemorrhage. Initial reports demonstrated high sensitivity of CUST for the bedside diagnosis of pneumothorax. We hypothesized that the sensitivity of CUST would be greater than initial supine chest radiograph (CXR) for detecting pneumothorax.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with pneumothorax from 2018 through 2020 at a Level I trauma center was performed. Patients included had routine supine CXR and CUST performed prior to intervention as well as confirmatory CT imaging. All CUST were performed during the initial evaluation in the trauma bay by a registered sonographer. All imaging was evaluated by an attending radiologist. Subgroup analysis was performed after excluding occult pneumothorax. Immediate tube thoracostomy was defined as tube placement with confirmatory CXR within 8 hours of admission.

RESULTS

There were 568 patients screened with a diagnosis of pneumothorax, identifying 362 patients with a confirmed pneumothorax in addition to CXR, CUST, and confirmatory CT imaging. The population was 83% male, had a mean age of 45 years, with 85% presenting due to blunt trauma. Sensitivity of CXR for detecting pneumothorax was 43%, while the sensitivity of CUST was 35%. After removal of occult pneumothorax (n = 171), CXR was 78% sensitive, while CUST was 65% sensitive (p < 0.01). In this subgroup, CUST had a false-negative rate of 36% (n = 62). Of those patients with a false-negative CUST, 50% (n = 31) underwent tube thoracostomy, with 85% requiring immediate placement.

CONCLUSION

Complete ultrasonography of trauma performed on initial trauma evaluation had lower sensitivity than CXR for identification of pneumothorax including clinically significant pneumothorax requiring tube thoracostomy. Using CUST as the primary imaging modality in the initial evaluation of chest trauma should be considered with caution.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic Test study, Level IV.

The Future of Virtual Sports Ultrasound Education and Collaboration

ABSTRACT

Sports ultrasound (US) is a rapidly advancing and expanding field, where "hands-on" education and real-time instructor feedback are paramount in developing this skill. In light of a global pandemic and limited access to instructors and educational conferences, sports US education must adapt to continue to teach future ultrasonographers. Virtual US education, conducted using various virtual meeting platforms not only allows for continued didactic education but also can virtually recreate the "hands-on" training sessions with live, immediate instructor feedback that is necessary for acquiring competence. Additionally, using these methods, sports US conferences can continue in a virtual manner, sports US education can expand remote areas, and collaboration among distant experts may increase, all without the cost of travel and extended time away from work. While immediately relevant because of the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual US methods may continue to be beneficial as sports US education and collaboration continue to expand.

European Society of Emergency Radiology: guideline on radiological polytrauma imaging and service (short version)

BACKGROUND

Although some national recommendations for the role of radiology in a polytrauma service exist, there are no European guidelines to date. Additionally, for many interdisciplinary guidelines, radiology tends to be under-represented. These factors motivated the European Society of Emergency Radiology (ESER) to develop radiologically-centred polytrauma guidelines.

RESULTS

Evidence-based decisions were made on 68 individual aspects of polytrauma imaging at two ESER consensus conferences. For severely injured patients, whole-body CT (WBCT) has been shown to significantly reduce mortality when compared to targeted, selective CT. However, this advantage must be balanced against the radiation risk of performing more WBCTs, especially in less severely injured patients. For this reason, we recommend a second lower dose WBCT protocol as an alternative in certain clinical scenarios. The ESER Guideline on Radiological Polytrauma Imaging and Service is published in two versions: a full version (download from the ESER homepage, https://www.eser-society.org ) and a short version also covering all recommendations (this article).

CONCLUSIONS

Once a patient has been accurately classified as polytrauma, each institution should be able to choose from at least two WBCT protocols. One protocol should be optimised regarding time and precision, and is already used by most institutions (variant A). The second protocol should be dose reduced and used for clinically stable and oriented patients who nonetheless require a CT because the history suggests possible serious injury (variant B). Reading, interpretation and communication of the report should be structured clinically following the ABCDE format, i.e. diagnose first what kills first.

Chest ultrasonography versus supine chest radiography for diagnosis of pneumothorax in trauma patients in the emergency department

BACKGROUND

Chest X-ray (CXR) is a longstanding method for the diagnosis of pneumothorax but chest ultrasonography (CUS) may be a safer, more rapid, and more accurate modality in trauma patients at the bedside that does not expose the patient to ionizing radiation. This may lead to improved and expedited management of traumatic pneumothorax and improved patient safety and clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of chest ultrasonography (CUS) by frontline non-radiologist physicians versus chest X-ray (CXR) for diagnosis of pneumothorax in trauma patients in the emergency department (ED). To investigate the effects of potential sources of heterogeneity such as type of CUS operator (frontline non-radiologist physicians), type of trauma (blunt vs penetrating), and type of US probe on test accuracy.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of the following electronic databases from database inception to 10 April 2020: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Plus, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Web of Science Core Collection and Clinicaltrials.gov. We handsearched reference lists of included articles and reviews retrieved via electronic searching; and we carried out forward citation searching of relevant articles in Google Scholar and looked at the "Related articles" on PubMed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included prospective, paired comparative accuracy studies comparing CUS performed by frontline non-radiologist physicians to supine CXR in trauma patients in the emergency department (ED) suspected of having pneumothorax, and with computed tomography (CT) of the chest or tube thoracostomy as the reference standard.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data from each included study using a data extraction form. We included studies using patients as the unit of analysis in the main analysis and we included those using lung fields in the secondary analysis. We performed meta-analyses by using a bivariate model to estimate and compare summary sensitivities and specificities.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies of which nine (410 traumatic pneumothorax patients out of 1271 patients) used patients as the unit of analysis; we thus included them in the primary analysis. The remaining four studies used lung field as the unit of analysis and we included them in the secondary analysis. We judged all studies to be at high or unclear risk of bias in one or more domains, with most studies (11/13, 85%) being judged at high or unclear risk of bias in the patient selection domain. There was substantial heterogeneity in the sensitivity of supine CXR amongst the included studies. In the primary analysis, the summary sensitivity and specificity of CUS were 0.91 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 0.94) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00); and the summary sensitivity and specificity of supine CXR were 0.47 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.63) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00). There was a significant difference in the sensitivity of CUS compared to CXR with an absolute difference in sensitivity of 0.44 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.61; P < 0.001). In contrast, CUS and CXR had similar specificities: comparing CUS to CXR, the absolute difference in specificity was -0.007 (95% CI -0.018 to 0.005, P = 0.35). The findings imply that in a hypothetical cohort of 100 patients if 30 patients have traumatic pneumothorax (i.e. prevalence of 30%), CUS would miss 3 (95% CI 2 to 4) cases (false negatives) and overdiagnose 1 (95% CI 0 to 2) of those without pneumothorax (false positives); while CXR would miss 16 (95% CI 11 to 21) cases with 0 (95% CI 0 to 2) overdiagnosis of those who do not have pneumothorax.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic accuracy of CUS performed by frontline non-radiologist physicians for the diagnosis of pneumothorax in ED trauma patients is superior to supine CXR, independent of the type of trauma, type of CUS operator, or type of CUS probe used. These findings suggest that CUS for the diagnosis of traumatic pneumothorax should be incorporated into trauma protocols and algorithms in future medical training programmes; and that CUS may beneficially change routine management of trauma.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Major Blunt Trauma

This review assesses the appropriateness of various imaging studies for adult major blunt trauma or polytrauma in the acute setting. Trauma is the leading cause of mortality for people in the United States <45 years of age, and the fourth leading cause of death overall. Imaging, in particular CT, plays a critical role in the management of these patients, and a number of indications are discussed in this publication, including patients who are hemodynamically stable or unstable; patients with additional injuries to the face, extremities, chest, bowel, or urinary system; and pregnant patients. Excluded from consideration in this review are penetrating traumatic injuries, burns, and injuries to pediatric patients. Patients with suspected injury to the head and spine are also discussed more specifically in other appropriateness criteria documents. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Extended-FAST plus MDCT in pneumothorax diagnosis of major trauma: time to revisit ATLS imaging approach?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Pneumothorax (PNX) detection is of the utmost clinical relevance because it may quickly progress to cause hemodynamic instability as a consequence of invasive ventilation. Radiography is characterized by a low sensitivity to detect this disease; in recent years, chest ultrasound (US) has gained increased visibility in the diagnosis of acute respiratory emergencies including PNX. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical impact of extended focused assessment with sonography in trauma (E-FAST) during the past 6 years of experience with this technique in our Level I trauma center.

METHODS

Between January 2013 and December 2018, we performed a retrospective case-series study including 3320 consecutive patients admitted to the emergency department of our hospital because of major trauma. Extended-US was always performed and reported immediately after FAST during primary survey and before multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) scans. The presence of PNX was determined using the well-known accepted US criteria. US findings were compared with computed tomography (CT) findings, the reference standard for PNX detection.

RESULTS

Of the 6640 lungs observed with E-FAST, there were 1244 PNX cases, while 1328 PNX cases were detected either on the basis of MDCT or on the basis of the presence of air flush during the thoracic decompression in the emergency room. Among the 84 false negatives, 12 patients had subcutaneous emphysema, 38 had a body mass index higher than 27, 6 had a thoracic wall hematoma, and 4 had chest penetrating trauma. There were 10 false positives in the diagnosis of PNX at US examination, with mild extension and not clinically significant. The overall sensitivity of E-FAST for PNX detection was 93.6% (1244/1328), the specificity of E-FAST was 99.8% (5312/5322), the negative predictive value (NPV) was 98.4% (5312/5396), and the positive predictive value (PPV) was 99.2% (1328/1338).

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate that bedside thoracic US is characterized by a very good accuracy in the diagnostic work-up of major trauma patients, even in difficult conditions, allowing rapid diagnosis of PNX.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

The novelty of this research lies in the possibility of diagnosing potential life-threatening conditions in a very short time by means of US, thus proposing a revision of the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) guidelines in order to incorporate it in the work-up of high-energy injured patients.

Clinical Utility of Routine Chest X-Rays During the Initial Stabilization of Trauma Patients

OBJECTIVES

The Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) course encourages the use of chest x-ray (CXR) to identify injuries that may change clinical management during the initial stage of trauma resuscitations. Several studies have failed to show benefit for the routine use of CXR without a clinical indication, however. We sought to validate these findings by determining the incidence of clinically significant findings discovered on a portable single-view CXR during the initial stabilization of trauma patients at a Level 1 trauma center.

METHODS

Using our electronic medical record system, we searched for all of the patients who were brought in as a trauma activation that had a portable single-view CXR performed in the emergency department. We used a selected sampling of available subjects for inclusion into the study. We reviewed the staff radiologist reports for positive findings and reviewed the physician and nursing flow sheets for procedural interventions occurring after the CXR was performed but before leaving the resuscitation area. Subjects who were transferred from another facility, had a thoracic procedure performed before CXR or underwent computed tomography before CXRs were excluded.

RESULTS

From 2011 through 2012, we found 2101 subjects who had a portable CXR performed in the emergency department. We reviewed the first 400 subjects' records, with 33 (8.3%) subjects having positive findings on CXR. Of those 33, 8 met inclusion criteria and the remainder met exclusion criteria. The most common findings were pneumothorax (n = 4), clavicle fracture (n = 3), and rib fracture (n = 2). No subjects received a procedural intervention before leaving the resuscitation bay to be transported to the operating room or the computed tomography suite.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed a low incidence of abnormal findings on portable CXR during the initial stabilization of trauma patients, none of whom received an immediate procedural intervention. This dataset supports previously published reports that suggest that a more targeted approach to CXR use may reduce resource utilization.

Diagnostic accuracy of eFAST in the trauma patient: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

Performing an extended Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (eFAST) exam is common practice in the initial assessment of trauma patients. The objective of this study was to systematically review the published literature on diagnostic accuracy of all components of the eFAST exam.

Methods

We searched Medline and Embase from inception through October 2018, for diagnostic studies examining the sensitivity and specificity of the eFAST exam. After removal of duplicates, 767 records remained for screening, of which 119 underwent full text review. Meta-DiSc™ software was used to create pooled sensitivities and specificities for included studies. Study quality was assessed using the Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUADAS-2) tool.

Results

Seventy-five studies representing 24,350 patients satisfied our selection criteria. Studies were published between 1989 and 2017. Pooled sensitivities and specificities were calculated for the detection of pneumothorax (69% and 99% respectively), pericardial effusion (91% and 94% respectively), and intra-abdominal free fluid (74% and 98% respectively). Sub-group analysis was completed for detection of intra-abdominal free fluid in hypotensive (sensitivity 74% and specificity 95%), adult normotensive (sensitivity 76% and specificity 98%) and pediatric patients (sensitivity 71% and specificity 95%).

Conclusions

Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that e-FAST is a useful bedside tool for ruling in pneumothorax, pericardial effusion, and intra-abdominal free fluid in the trauma setting. Its usefulness as a rule-out tool is not supported by these results.

The Role of Ultrasonography in Patients Referring to the Emergency Department with Acute Abdominal Pain

CONTEXT

Acute abdominal pain is a common clinical problem in emergency and non-emergency cases accounting for 5 to 10% of all referrals to the emergency department. Studies have indicated that these widely differentiated diagnoses are common to these complaints. Considering the high prevalence of this complaint in the patients and the wide range of its differential diagnosis, this review study was designed and evaluated aiming at investigating the causes of acute abdominal pain with a focus on assessing the position of ultrasound as a diagnostic tool in the emergency department.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

This article was conducted as a narrative review of selected articles from 2005 through 2019. By comparing them, a comprehensive review of ultrasound role was conducted in patients with acute abdominal pain referring to the emergency department.

RESULTS

In this review study, we attempted to use the articles of the clinical approach, the required laboratory tests, the disadvantages and advantages of each imaging technique, the differential diagnosis for acute abdominal pain according to the location of the pain, and the position of ultrasound as a diagnostic aid tool. Eventually, the proposed protrusion will be considered in dealing with a patient with acute abdominal pain.

CONCLUSION

Regarding the wide range of causes providing multiple differential diagnosis, as well as the limited time of the health team in the emergency department for diagnostic and therapeutic measures, particularly in time-sensitive clinical conditions, ultrasound offered by emergency medicine specialists as a diagnostic aid is considered to improve the overall diagnosis and treatment of patients, thereby reducing complications.

Point-of-care ultrasonography for diagnosing thoracoabdominal injuries in patients with blunt trauma

BACKGROUND

Point-of-care sonography (POCS) has emerged as the screening modality of choice for suspected body trauma in many emergency departments worldwide. Its best known application is FAST (focused abdominal sonography for trauma). The technology is almost ubiquitously available, can be performed during resuscitation, and does not expose patients or staff to radiation. While many authors have stressed the high specificity of POCS, its sensitivity varied markedly across studies. This review aimed to compile the current best evidence about the diagnostic accuracy of POCS imaging protocols in the setting of blunt thoracoabdominal trauma.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of POCS for detecting and excluding free fluid, organ injuries, vascular lesions, and other injuries (e.g. pneumothorax) compared to a diagnostic reference standard (i.e. computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), thoracoscopy or thoracotomy, laparoscopy or laparotomy, autopsy, or any combination of these) in patients with blunt trauma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 2017) and Ovid Embase (1974 to July 2017), as well as PubMed (1947 to July 2017), employing a prospectively defined literature and data retrieval strategy. We also screened the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and BIOSIS for potentially relevant citations, and scanned the reference lists of full-text papers for articles missed by the electronic search. We performed a top-up search on 6 December 2018, and identified eight new studies which may be incorporated into the first update of this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We assessed studies for eligibility using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We included either prospective or retrospective diagnostic cohort studies that enrolled patients of any age and gender who sustained any type of blunt injury in a civilian scenario. Eligible studies had to provide sufficient information to construct a 2 x 2 table of diagnostic accuracy to allow for calculating sensitivity, specificity, and other indices of diagnostic test accuracy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts of reports using a prespecified data extraction form. Methodological quality of individual studies was rated by the QUADAS-2 instrument (the revised and updated version of the original Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies list of items). We calculated sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI), tabulated the pairs of sensitivity and specificity with CI, and depicted these estimates by coupled forest plots using Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). For pooling summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity, and investigating heterogeneity across studies, we fitted a bivariate model using Stata 14.0.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 studies with 8635 participants in this review. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were 0.74 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.81) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.98). Pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios were estimated at 18.5 (95% CI 10.8 to 40.5) and 0.27 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.37), respectively. There was substantial heterogeneity across studies, and the reported accuracy of POCS strongly depended on the population and affected body area. In children, pooled sensitivity of POCS was 0.63 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.77), as compared to 0.78 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.84) in an adult or mixed population. Associated specificity in children was 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.96) and in an adult or mixed population 0.97 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.99). For abdominal trauma, POCS had a sensitivity of 0.68 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.75) and a specificity of 0.95 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.97). For chest injuries, sensitivity and specificity were calculated at 0.96 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00). If we consider the results of all 34 included studies in a virtual population of 1000 patients, based on the observed median prevalence (pretest probability) of thoracoabdominal trauma of 28%, POCS would miss 73 patients with injuries and falsely suggest the presence of injuries in another 29 patients. Furthermore, in a virtual population of 1000 children, based on the observed median prevalence (pretest probability) of thoracoabdominal trauma of 31%, POCS would miss 118 children with injuries and falsely suggest the presence of injuries in another 62 children.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In patients with suspected blunt thoracoabdominal trauma, positive POCS findings are helpful for guiding treatment decisions. However, with regard to abdominal trauma, a negative POCS exam does not rule out injuries and must be verified by a reference test such as CT. This is of particular importance in paediatric trauma, where the sensitivity of POCS is poor. Based on a small number of studies in a mixed population, POCS may have a higher sensitivity in chest injuries. This warrants larger, confirmatory trials to affirm the accuracy of POCS for diagnosing thoracic trauma.

Prospective Evaluation of Point-of-Care Ultrasound at a Remote, Multi-Day Music Festival

Introduction

Point-of-Care Ultrasound (POCUS) has become an important diagnostic tool for hospital-based clinicians. This study assesses the role of POCUS at Pemberton Music Festival 2016 (Pemberton, British Columbia [BC], Canada), a remote mass gathering where physicians face limited resources, complex disposition decisions, and a dynamic clinical environment.

Objectives

This study prospectively evaluated the impact of POCUS on patient diagnosis, management, and disposition based on the self-report of the study physicians. The authors hypothesized that having ultrasound available for use would aid in diagnostic and management decisions and would reduce the need to transfer patients off-site to other health care facilities, reducing impact on the acute health services in the host community.

Methods

A handheld ultrasound was available for use by physicians in the main medical tent. All participating physicians self-reported their training and comfort using POCUS. After each POCUS scan, physicians completed a survey and recorded the indication for use, scans performed, and impact on patient diagnosis, management, and disposition.

Results

In total, POCUS was used on 28 of the 686 patients treated in the main medical tent; POCUS was reported to narrow the differential diagnosis in 64% of cases and altered the working diagnosis in 21% of cases. Its use changed the management plan in 39% of patients. Its use was reported to reduce the burden on broader health care resource utilization in 46% of cases and prevented ambulance transport off-site in 32% of cases (nine cases in total). This corresponded to an absolute risk reduction of 1.3% for the percentage of patients transferred to hospital (PPTH; relative risk reduction of 53%).

Conclusion:

Physicians reported that POCUS improved the diagnosis, management, and disposition of select patients at a remote, multi-day music festival. Also, POCUS reduced ambulance transfers off-site and reduced the perceived burden on broader health care utilization.

PragerR, SedgwickC, LundA, KimD, HoB, StachuraM, GutmanS. Prospective evaluation of point-of-care ultrasound at a remote, multi-day music festival. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2018;33(5):484–489.

Ultrasound and Other Innovations for Fluid Management in the ICU

Ultrasound is a user-dependent tool that can help guide therapy. The use of ultrasound to guide central line placement decreases complication rates. Cardiac ultrasound can help with the diagnosis of cases of hypotension. Lung and pleura ultrasound is a useful adjunct for diagnosis causes of desaturation. Abdominal ultrasound can help in rapid visitation of fluid and intra-abdominal structures.

Resuscitation Resequenced: A Rational Approach to Patients with Trauma in Shock

Trauma resuscitation is a complex and dynamic process that requires a high-performing team to optimize patient outcomes. More than 30 years ago, Advanced Trauma Life Support was developed to formalize and standardize trauma care; however, the sequential nature of the algorithm that is used can lead to ineffective prioritization. An improved understanding of shock mandates an updated approach to trauma resuscitation. This article proposes a resequenced approach that (1) addresses immediate threats to life and (2) targets strategies for the diagnosis and management of shock causes. This updated approach emphasizes evidence-based resuscitation principles that align with physiologic priorities.

Diagnostic accuracy of the Extended Focused Abdominal Sonography for Trauma (E-FAST) performed by emergency physicians compared to CT

INTRODUCTION

The diagnostic accuracy of the FAST exam performed by EM residents were shown to be similar to radiology residents. However, in the last 2 decades, an extended-FAST (E-FAST) protocol including thoracic examination to exclude pneumo- and hemothorax was introduced. The accuracy of emergency physicians (EPs) while performing E-FAST is a less studied area, especially in Europe. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of the E-FAST exam performed by EM residents with the results of CT scan as a gold standard.

METHODS

This was a prospective, observational, diagnostic accuracy study conducted at the ED of a Level 1 Trauma Center. All consecutive adult multiple trauma patients were eligible, and any patient in whom thoraco-abdominal CT was ordered were recruited. Unstable and unavailable patients were excluded. E-FAST examination was performed by EPs as the index test, and CT examinations reported by a blinded academic radiology faculty was the gold standard.

RESULTS

A total of 140 patients were recruited from eligible 144 patients. The final study population was 132 for abdominal and 130 for thorax examinations. In this study, AUC of E-FAST was 0.71 for abdominal free fluid, 0.87 for pneumothorax and 1.00 for pleural effusion. The sensitivity was 42.9% and specificity was 98.4%. The +LR for abdominal free fluid was 26.8 and -LR was 0.58.

CONCLUSION

E-FAST examination has an excellent specificity. However, the sensitivity of the test is not high enough to rule-out thoraco-abdominal injuries in trauma patients when performed by EPs.

Detection of pneumothoraces in patients with multiple blunt trauma: use and limitations of eFAST

Background

Extended focused assessment with sonography for trauma (eFAST) has been shown to have moderate sensitivity for detection of pneumothorax in trauma. Little is known about the location or size of missed pneumothoraces or clinical predictors of pneumothoraces in patients with false-negative eFAST.

Methods

This retrospective cross-sectional study includes all patients with multiple blunt trauma diagnosed with pneumothorax who underwent both eFAST and CT performed in the ED of a level 1 trauma centre in Switzerland between 1 June 2012 and 30 September 2014. Sensitivity of eFAST for pneumothorax was determined using CT as the gold standard. Demographic and clinical characteristics of those who had a pneumothorax detected by eFAST and those who did not were compared using the Mann-Whitney U or Pearson’s χ² tests. Univariate binary logistic regression models were used to identify predictors for pneumothoraces in patients with negative eFAST examination.

Results

The study included 109 patients. Overall sensitivity for pneumothorax on eFAST was 0.59 and 0.81 for pneumothoraces requiring treatment. Compared with those detected by eFAST, missed pneumothoraces were less likely to be ventral (30 (47.6%) vs 4 (9.3%), p <0.001) and more likely to be apical and basal (7 (11.1%) vs 15 (34.9%), p=0.003; 11 (17.5%) vs 18 (41.9%), p=0.008, respectively). The missed pneumothoraces were smaller than the detected pneumothoraces (left side: 30.7±17.4 vs 12.1±13.9 mm; right side: 30.2±10.1 vs 6.9±10.2 mm, both p <0.001). No clinical variables were identified which predicted pneumothoraces in falsely negative eFAST. Among those pneumothoraces missed by eFAST, 30% required tube thoracostomy compared with 88.9% of those detected with eFAST.

Conclusion

In our study, pneumothoraces missed by eFAST were smaller and in atypical locations compared with those detected by eFAST and needed thoracic drainage less often.

Diagnostic performance of the cardiac FAST in a high-volume Australian trauma centre

Background: Cardiac injury is uncommon, but it is important to diagnose, in order to prevent subsequent complications. Extended focused assessment with sonography in trauma (eFAST) allows rapid evaluation of the pericardium and thorax. The objective of this study was to describe cardiac injuries presenting to a major trauma centre and the diagnostic performance of eFAST in detecting haemopericardium as well as broader cardiac injuries. Methods: Data of patients with severe injuries and diagnosed cardiac injuries (Injury Severity Score >12 and AIS 2008 codes for cardiac injuries) were extracted from The Alfred Trauma Registry over a four-year period from July 2010 to June 2014. The initial eFAST results were compared to those of the final diagnosis, which were determined after analysing imaging results and intraoperative findings. Results: Thirty patients who were identified with cardiac injuries met the inclusion criteria. Among these, 22 patients sustained injuries under the scope of eFAST, of which a positive eFAST scan in the pericardium was reported in 13 (59%) patients, while nine (41%) patients had a negative scan. This resulted in a sensitivity of 59% (95% CI: 36.7%–78.5%). The sensitivity of detecting any cardiac injuries was lower at 43.3% (95% CI: 26.0–62.3). Conclusions: The low sensitivities of eFAST for detecting cardiac injuries and haemopericardium demonstrate that a negative result cannot be used in isolation to exclude cardiac injuries. A high index of suspicion for cardiac injury remains essential. Adjunct diagnostic modalities are indicated for the diagnosis of cardiac injury following major trauma.

Aeromedical Ultrasound: The Evaluation of Point-of-care Ultrasound During Helicopter Transport

INTRODUCTION

This study correlated the eFAST findings performed in-flight by the flight crew with the findings obtained by the trauma team upon initial evaluation at a level 1 trauma center and with the subsequent CT scans that were performed or the surgeon's operative note. We hypothesize that aeromedical eFAST examinations are highly correlated with the trauma teams findings.

METHODS

This prospective, observational study evaluated 190 traumatically injured patients from June 2014 to December 2015 in Southeast Virginia and Northeast North Carolina.

RESULTS

For 190 trauma patients the Flight Crew POCUS examinations obtained a Positive Predictive Value (PPV) of 100% and a Negative Predictive Value (NPV) of 98.3% for the identification of pneumothorax, hemothorax, and free abdominal fluid, which is equivalent to that of the Trauma Team's POCUS studies on the same group of patients.

DISCUSSION

Because the early recognition of potentially life-threatening conditions is critical to providing appropriate care to the traumatically injured patient this study provides solid statistical data that flight crews can adequately perform and interpret POCUS results as well as out trauma team colleagues. This study could lead to a reduction of iatrogenic injuries from unnecessary invasive prehospital procedures, allow for early initiation of Massive Transfusion Protocols (MTP) prior to the patient's arrival at the Trauma Center, and potentially develop a change in trauma systems notification and transportation directly to the operating room.

CONCLUSION

Despite this study developing a very positive outlook on performing aeromedical POCUS for the evaluation and care of trauma patients additional research will be required to better understand the potential impact on trauma activation protocols and activation of in-hospital resources.

Sports Ultrasound: Applications Beyond the Musculoskeletal System

BACKGROUND

Traditionally, ultrasound has been used to evaluate musculoskeletal injuries in athletes; however, ultrasound applications extend well beyond musculoskeletal conditions, many of which are pertinent to athletes.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Articles were identified in PubMed using the search terms ultrasound, echocardiogram, preparticipation physical examination, glycogen, focused assessment with sonography of trauma, optic nerve, and vocal cord dysfunction. No date restrictions were placed on the literature search.

STUDY DESIGN

Clinical review.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level 4.

RESULTS

Several potential applications of nonmusculoskeletal ultrasound in sports medicine are presented, including extended Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (eFAST), limited echocardiographic screening during preparticipation physical examinations, assessment of muscle glycogen stores, optic nerve sheath diameter measurements in athletes with increased intracranial pressure, and assessment of vocal cord dysfunction in athletes.

CONCLUSION

Ultrasound can potentially be used to assist athletes with monitoring their muscle glycogen stores and the diagnosis of multiple nonmusculoskeletal conditions within sports medicine.

Integrating eFAST in the initial management of stable trauma patients: the end of plain film radiography

Background

The initial management of a trauma patient is a critical and demanding period. The use of extended focused assessment sonography for trauma (eFAST) has become more prevalent in trauma rooms, raising questions about the real “added value” of chest X-rays (CXRs) and pelvic X-rays (PXR), particularly in haemodynamically stable trauma patients. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a management protocol integrating eFAST and excluding X-rays in stable trauma patients.

Methods

This was a prospective, interventional, single-centre study including all primary blunt trauma patients admitted to the trauma bay with a suspicion of severe trauma. All patients underwent physical examination and eFAST (assessing abdomen, pelvis, pericardium and pleura) before a whole-body CT scan (WBCT). Patients fulfilling all stability criteria at any time in transit from the scene of the accident to the hospital were managed in the trauma bay without chest and PXR.

Results

Amongst 430 patients, 148 fulfilled the stability criteria (stability criteria group) of which 122 (82 %) had no X-rays in the trauma bay. No diagnostic failure with an immediate clinical impact was identified in the stability criteria group (SC group). All cases of pneumothorax requiring chest drainage were identified by eFAST associated with a clinical examination before the WBCT scan in the SC group. The time spent in the trauma bay was significantly shorter for the SC group without X-rays compared to those who received any X-ray (25 [20; 35] vs. 38 [30; 60] min, respectively; p < 0.0001). An analysis of the cost and radiation exposure showed savings of 7000 Є and 100 mSv, respectively.

Conclusions

No unrecognized diagnostic with a clinical impact due to the lack of CXR and PXR during the initial management of stable trauma patients was observed. The eFAST associated with physical examination provided the information necessary to safely complete the WBCT scan. It allowed a sensible cost and radiation saving.

Bedside ultrasonography for diagnosis of pneumothorax

Ultrasonography (US) has found its way into the critical care and emergency settings for the evaluation of acute respiratory failure conditions in recent years. It is useful for the diagnosis of varieties of abnormalities involving pleura and lung such as pleural effusion, alveolar interstitial syndrome, and pneumothorax (PTX). In addition to its reproducibility and timeliness, US has high sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of these conditions. The most widely used method for bedside evaluation of PTX is chest X-ray (CXR). However, the diagnostic sensitivity of CXR in detecting PTX is limited especially in occult PTX and when the patient is assumed supine position. Computed tomography (CT) is the gold standard in the evaluation of PTX, but is limited by its high radiation exposure and safety concerns in transporting critically ill patients. In this paper we review current advances in PTX diagnosis using US.

Utility of Chest Computed Tomography after a “Normal” Chest Radiograph in Patients with Thoracic Stab Wounds

Chest computed tomography (CCT) is used to screen for injuries in hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating injury. We aim to determine the incidence of missed injuries detected on CCT after a negative chest radiograph (CXR) in patients with thoracic stab wounds. A 10-year retrospective review of a Level I trauma center registry was performed on patients with thoracic stab wounds. Patients who were hemodynamically unstable or did not undergo both CXR and CCT were excluded. Patients with a negative CXR were evaluated to determine if additional findings were diagnosed on CCT. Of 386 patients with stab wounds to the chest, 154 (40%) underwent both CXR and CCT. One hundred and fifteen (75%) had a negative screening CXR. CCT identified injuries in 42 patients (37%) that were not seen on CXR. Pneumothorax and/or hemothorax occurred in 40 patients (35%), of which 14 patients underwent tube thoracostomy. Two patients had hemopericardium on CCT and both required operative intervention. Greater than one-third of patients with a normal screening CXR were found to have abnormalities on CCT. Future studies comparing repeat CXR to CCT are required to further define the optimal diagnostic strategy in patients with stab wounds to chest after normal screening CXR.