Oral contrast is not necessary in the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma by computed tomography

Single Center Retrospective Review of Post-laparotomy CT Abdomen and Pelvis Findings and Trends

Purpose

To identify common findings visualized on CT following damage control laparotomy, including post-surgical changes and additional injuries, and to determine change in frequency of post-laparotomy CT at our institution over time.

Methods

Single institution, IRB-Exempt, retrospective review of the University of Kentucky trauma registry from 1/2006 to 2/2019 for all trauma patients undergoing exploratory laparotomy initially and subsequently undergoing CT of the abdomen and pelvis within 24 hours. Operative findings from surgical operation notes and findings reported on post-laparotomy CT were recorded, including vascular and solid organ injuries, operative changes, free intraperitoneal fluid/air, and retroperitoneal findings. Next steps in management were also recorded.

Results

In total 1,047 patients underwent exploratory laparotomy initially at our institution between 1/2006-2/2019. Of those, only 96 had a diagnostic CT of the abdomen and pelvis within 24 h after initial surgery, first occurring in 2010. Among these 96, there were 71 blunt and 25 penetrating injuries. Most common injuries recognized during exploratory laparotomy were bowel/mesentery (55), spleen (34), and liver (26). Regarding CT findings, all patients (96/96, 100%) had residual pneumoperitoneum, 84/96 (87.5%) had residual hemoperitoneum, 36/96 (37.5%) noted post-surgical changes or additional injuries to the spleen, 36/96 (37.5%) to the bowel/mesentery, and 32/96 (33.3%) to the liver, and 34/96 (35.4%) were noted to have pelvic fractures. After CT, 31/96 (32.3%) went back to the OR for relook laparotomy and additional surgical intervention and 7/96 (7.3%) went to IR for embolization. Most common procedures during relaparotomy involved the bowel (8) and solid organs (6).

Conclusions

CT examination within 24 h post damage control laparotomy was exceedingly rare at our institution prior to 2012 but has steadily increased. Frequency now averages 20.5% yearly. Damage control laparotomy is an uncommon clinical scenario; however, knowledge of frequent injuries and common post-operative changes will aid in radiologist detection of additional injuries helping shape next step management and provide adequate therapy.

Single-Contrast CT for Detecting Bowel Injuries in Penetrating Abdominopelvic Trauma

OBJECTIVE

Many centers advocate use of triple-contrast (IV, oral, and rectal) CT for assessing hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating abdominopelvic trauma. Enteric contrast material has several disadvantages, leading our practice to pursue use of single-contrast (IV) CT. We conducted a retrospective review of electronic medical records at our institution to assess the accuracy of single-contrast CT for diagnosing bowel injuries in cases of penetrating abdominopelvic trauma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients who presented to our emergency department between January 1, 2004, and March 1, 2014, with penetrating abdominopelvic trauma, underwent an abdominopelvic CT, and had surgery performed thereafter. We reviewed pertinent emergency department records for details regarding the site of injury, the number of injuries per patient, and the type of weapon used. We correlated CT reports with operative notes for presence and sites of bowel injury.

RESULTS

A total of 274 patients (median age, 27 years old) met our inclusion criteria; 77% had sustained gunshot wounds (GSWs). CT showed bowel injury in 173 cases; surgery revealed bowel injury in 162 cases. CT had 142 true-positive, 31 false-positive, 81 true-negative, and 20 false-negative cases, resulting in sensitivity of 88%, specificity of 72%, positive predictive value of 82%, and negative predictive value of 80% for detecting bowel injuries. CT had the highest sensitivity and specificity in patients with multiple GSWs (94% and 79%, respectively) and those with injuries to the stomach and rectum.

CONCLUSION

Single-contrast CT can show bowel injuries in patients with penetrating abdominopelvic trauma with accuracy comparable with that reported for triple-contrast CT.

Utility of CT oral contrast administration in the emergency department of a quaternary oncology hospital: diagnostic implications, turnaround times, and assessment of ED physician ordering

PURPOSE

To compare studies with and without oral contrast on performance of multidetector computed tomography (CT) and the order to CT examination turnaround time in cancer patients presenting to the emergency department (ED). To the best of our knowledge, oral contrast utility has not previously been specifically assessed in cancer patients presenting to the emergency department.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Retrospective review of CT abdomen examinations performed in oncology patients presenting to the emergency department during one month. CT examinations performed with and without oral contrast were rated by two consensus readers for degree of confidence and diagnostic ability. Correlations were assessed for primary cancer type, age, sex, chief complaint/examination indication, body mass index, intravenous contrast status, repeat CT examination within 4 weeks, and disposition. Turnaround times from order to the start of the CT examination were calculated.

RESULTS

The studied group consisted of 267 patients (127 men and 140 women) with a mean age of 56 years and a mean body mass index of 27.8 kg/m². One hundred sixty CT examinations were performed without oral contrast, and 107 CT examinations were performed with oral contrast. There was no significant difference between cases with oral contrast and cases without oral contrast in the number of cases rated as "improved confidence" (odds ratio [OR] 0.54, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.23-1.31, P = 0.17), "improved diagnosis" (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.20-1.64, P = 0.3), "impaired confidence" (OR 3.92, 95% CI 0.46-33.06, P = 0.21), or "impaired diagnosis" (OR 2.63, 95% CI 0.29-23.89, P = 0.39). The turnaround time in the group receiving oral contrast (mean, 141 min; standard deviation, 49.8 min) was significantly longer than that in the group not receiving oral contrast (mean, 109.2 min; standard deviation, 64.8 min) with a mean difference of 31.8 min (P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

On the basis of our findings and prior studies, targeted rather than default use of oral contrast shows acceptable diagnostic ability in the emergency setting for oncology patients. Benefit from oral contrast use is suggested in scenarios such as suspected fistula/bowel leak/abscess, hypoattenuating peritoneal disease, prior bowel surgery such as gastric bypass, and the absence of intravenous contrast administration. Improvement through the use of targeted oral contrast administration also supports the emergency department need for prompt diagnosis and disposition.

[Place of non-operative treatment of abdominal contusions in developing countries]

Le traitement non opératoire des contusions de l'abdomen représente une approche thérapeutique nouvelle des traumatismes fermés de l'abdomen. La disponibilité d'un plateau technique performant constitue classiquement une des principales conditions pour la réussite de cette attitude. Nous essayons d’étudier les différents aspects épidémiologiques, diagnostiques et thérapeutiques de cette affection dans le contexte d'un pays en voie de développement, à travers les résultats d'une série de 106 malades. une série de 106 patients est prise en charge par le traitement non opératoire. La gravité des lésions est appréciée par les données cliniques et paracliniques, ainsi que la morbidité et la mortalité sont analysées. les accidents de la circulation étaient la première cause des contusions abdominales, dans notre contexte. Les lésions hépatiques étaient les plus fréquentes (65% des cas), suivit des lésions spléniques chez 19 patients. La notion de polytraumatisme était très fréquente. La durée moyenne de surveillance était de 9,5 jours. Seize malades étaient transfusés, et le nombre moyen de culots globulaires (CG) était de 3,5 culots par patient. Une laparotomie en urgence était indiquée chez 10 patients (9.4%) devant l'instabilité hémodynamique. Trois malades ont nécessité un traitement chirurgical secondaire. On avait noté un taux de mortalité de 3.7% soit 4 cas. il semble à partir de notre expérience que l'abstention chirurgicale peut constituer, dans des conditions strictes de surveillance, une alternative thérapeutique de référence dans les pays en voie de développement, sûre et justifiée à une chirurgie d'urgence toujours difficile.

Blunt abdominal trauma: imaging and intervention

Interventional radiology, particularly percutaneous angioembolization, plays an important role in the management of blunt abdominal trauma involving solid organs and pelvic fractures. The traumatic injuries of the central nervous system, heart, and great vessels often lead to death at the site of trauma. Although patients with visceral organ injuries can also die at the site of trauma, these patients often reach the hospital thus giving us an opportunity to treat them with surgical or radiological intervention depending on the clinical condition of the patient. The management of these patients with trauma is now well codified-patients who remain unstable despite resuscitation should be shifted either to an operating room for laparotomy if the ultrasound (US) revealed hemoperitoneum or to a interventional room for angioembolization in cases of pelvic fractures. In all other cases, computed tomography is essential. Currently, multidetector computed tomography with contrast is the gold standard imaging modality for the diagnosis of traumatic abdominal injuries; it helps in assessing the extent of injuries, and further management can be planned.

Use of positive oral contrast agents in abdominopelvic computed tomography for blunt abdominal injury: meta-analysis and systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether positive oral contrast agents improve accuracy of abdominopelvic CT compared with no, neutral or negative oral contrast agent.

METHODS

Literature was searched for studies evaluating the diagnostic performance of abdominopelvic CT with positive oral contrast agents against imaging with no, neutral or negative oral contrast agent. Meta-analysis reviewed studies correlating CT findings of blunt abdominal injury with positive and without oral contrast agents against surgical, autopsy or clinical outcome allowing derivation of pooled sensitivity and specificity. Systematic review was performed on studies with common design and reference standard.

RESULTS

Thirty-two studies were divided into two groups. Group 1 comprised 15 studies comparing CT with positive and without oral contrast agents. Meta-analysis of five studies from group 1 provided no difference in sensitivity or specificity between CT with positive or without oral contrast agents. Group 2 comprised 17 studies comparing CT with positive and neutral or negative oral contrast agents. Systematic review of 12 studies from group 2 indicated that neutral or negative oral contrasts were as effective as positive oral contrast agents for bowel visualisation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no difference in accuracy between CT performed with positive oral contrast agents or with no, neutral or negative oral contrast agent.

KEY POINTS

• There is no difference in the accuracy of CT with or without oral contrast agent. • There is no difference in the accuracy of CT with Gastrografin or water. • Omission of oral contrast, utilising neutral or negative oral contrast agent saves time, costs and decreases risk of aspiration.

Multidetector CT of blunt abdominal trauma

The morbidity, mortality, and economic costs resulting from trauma in general, and blunt abdominal trauma in particular, are substantial. The "panscan" (computed tomographic [CT] examination of the head, neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis) has become an essential element in the early evaluation and decision-making algorithm for hemodynamically stable patients who sustained abdominal trauma. CT has virtually replaced diagnostic peritoneal lavage for the detection of important injuries. Over the past decade, substantial hardware and software developments in CT technology, especially the introduction and refinement of multidetector scanners, have expanded the versatility of CT for examination of the polytrauma patient in multiple facets: higher spatial resolution, faster image acquisition and reconstruction, and improved patient safety (optimization of radiation delivery methods). In this article, the authors review the elements of multidetector CT technique that are currently relevant for evaluating blunt abdominal trauma and describe the most important CT signs of trauma in the various organs. Because conservative nonsurgical therapy is preferred for all but the most severe injuries affecting the solid viscera, the authors emphasize the CT findings that are indications for direct therapeutic intervention.

CT imaging of blunt traumatic bowel and mesenteric injuries

Delayed diagnosis of a bowel or mesenteric injury resulting in hollow viscus perforation leads to significant morbidity and mortality from hemorrhage, peritonitis, or abdominal sepsis. The timely diagnosis of bowel and mesenteric injuries requiring operative repair depends almost exclusively on their early detection by the radiologist on computed tomography examination, because the clinical signs and symptoms of these injuries are not specific and usually develop late. Therefore, the radiologist must be familiar with the often-subtle imaging findings of bowel and mesenteric injury that will allow for appropriate triage of a patient who has sustained blunt trauma to the abdomen or pelvis.

Oral contrast for abdominal computed tomography in children: the effects on gastric fluid volume

BACKGROUND

Oral enteric contrast medium (ECM) is frequently administered to achieve visualization of the gastrointestinal tract during abdominal evaluation with computed tomography (CT). Administering oral ECM less than 2 hours before sedation/anesthesia violates the nothing-by-mouth guidelines and in theory may increase the risk of aspiration pneumonia. In this study we measured the residual gastric fluid when using a protocol in which ECM is administered up to 1 hour before anesthesia/sedation. We hypothesized that patients receiving ECM 1 hour before anesthesia/sedation would have residual gastric fluid volume (GFV) >0.4 mL/kg.

METHODS

Anesthesia and radiology reports, CT images, and department incident reports were reviewed between January 2005 and June 2009 for all patients who required sedation/anesthesia for abdominal CT. For each patient, the volume of contrast or stomach fluid was calculated using a region of interest outlining the stomach portion containing high-attenuation fluid and low-attenuation of other gastric contents. Information obtained from anesthesia/sedation reports included demographic characteristics, presenting pathology, drugs used for anesthesia/sedation induction and maintenance, airway interventions, method for securing endotracheal tube, and complications related to ECM administration, including oxygen desaturation, vomiting, coughing, bronchospasm, laryngospasm, and aspiration.

RESULTS

We identified 365 patients (mean age = 32 months; range = 0.66 to 211.10 months) who received oral/IV contrast material before anesthesia/sedation for abdominal CT and 47 patients (mean age = 52 months; range = 0.63 to 215.84 months) who received only IV contrast material and followed the traditional fast. For those who received oral contrast, the mean contrast volume administered was 18.10 mL/kg (range = 1.5 to 82.76 mL/kg). The median GVF 1 hour after completing the oral contrast was significantly higher than that in patients who received only IV contrast (0.38 mL/kg vs. 0.15 mL/kg, P = 0.0049). GFV exceeded 0.4 mL/kg in 189 patients (178 of 365 [49%] in the oral contrast group vs. 11 of 47 [23%] in the IV contrast group) (χ(2) = 10.7874, P = 0.0010). Among those who received oral contrast, 207 patients had general anesthesia and 158 patients had deep sedation. Two cases of vomiting were reported in the general anesthesia group with no evidence of pulmonary aspiration identified.

CONCLUSION

For children receiving an abdominal CT, the residual GFV exceeded 0.4 mL/kg in 49% (178/365) of those who received oral ECM up to 1 hour before anesthesia/sedation in comparison with 23% (11/47) of those who received IV-only contrast.

Hollow viscus injury

BACKGROUND

Hollow viscus injuries are uncommon and occur in approximately 1% of all blunt trauma patients.

DISCUSSION

These injuries are often not suspected and are difficult to diagnosis. Morbidity and mortality are high, and a negative abdominal computed tomography is not sufficient to rule out these injuries in certain clinical scenarios.

CONCLUSION

Using a case-based approach, the epidemiology and diagnostic pathways to manage hollow viscus injuries are reviewed.

Routine use of positive oral contrast material is not required for oncology patients undergoing follow-up multidetector CT

The purpose of this retrospective medical audit was to evaluate the effect of discontinuing routine administration of oral contrast material to oncology patients undergoing follow-up multidetector computed tomography (CT) on reader evaluation of study adequacy. Analysis of 100 patients' experience of CT shows that positive oral contrast material was their least pleasant experience (P < .0001). Abandoning the routine use of positive oral contrast material for follow-up scans in general oncology patients undergoing multidetector CT, with section reconstruction thickness of 2.5 mm, was audited for 447 patents and included 5-13-month follow-up. The patient satisfaction study and clinical audit were performed according to local institutional audit guidelines. Since this was a clinical audit project, ethical approval was not required under UK National Health Service research governance arrangements. No patient needed to be recalled, no related diagnostic error has been reported, and follow-up CT, available in 285 of 447 cases (64%), revealed no error on the audited scan. We conclude that the routine use of positive oral contrast material is unnecessary for follow-up multidetector CT for general oncology indications.

Emergency department imaging: current practice

PURPOSE

To provide a snapshot of the demographics of radiologists providing coverage for emergency departments (EDs) and current imaging practices in EDs in the United States.

METHODS

An online survey was created with Views Flash 3 software (Cogix, Monterey, California). Random e-mail addresses from a variety of databases were chosen. A total of 678 surveys were sent over a 9-month period.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-two radiology groups (28%) responded to the survey. Forty-one groups (21%) had designated emergency radiology divisions. Sixty-three groups (33%) were using computed tomographic (CT) coronary angiography in the ED workup of chest-pain. Thirty-five groups (18%) were using "triple-rule-out scans" (ie, a single CT scan to rule out coronary artery disease, pulmonary embolism, and aortic dissection). Multiplanar reconstructions of chest, abdominal, and pelvic CT images were routinely performed by 95 groups (49%). Forty-four percent used reformatted CT images instead of conventional radiographs in the workup of cervical spine trauma, and 68 groups (35%) used reformations in thoracic and lumbar spine trauma. Ninety groups (47%) did not use oral contrast for blunt abdominal trauma CT scanning. Sixty-seven respondents (35%) preferred computed tomography to evaluate for acute appendicitis in the setting of pregnancy. Forty percent of imaging equipment located within the EDs was CT scanners. The majority of the groups still communicated unexpected findings via telephone (49%).

CONCLUSION

New imaging practices for the evaluation of entities such as chest pain, spine trauma, and abdominal pain and trauma are emerging in EDs. As one plans ED development, these trends should be considered.

Blunt abdominal trauma: current imaging techniques and CT findings in patients with solid organ, bowel, and mesenteric injury

Imaging plays a critical role in the evaluation of patients with blunt abdominal trauma. In most institutions, computed tomography (CT) is the modality of choice when evaluating such patients. The purpose of this review is to highlight current techniques in trauma imaging and to review CT findings associated with solid organ, bowel, mesenteric, and diaphragmatic injury. In particular, emphasis is placed on the use of multidetector CT technology (MDCT), especially 64-row detector CT. The role of various techniques, including the use of oral and intravenous contrast, as well as the potential benefit of delayed imaging, is discussed.

Computed tomography without oral contrast solution for blunt diaphragmatic injuries in abdominal trauma

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of computed tomography (CT) without oral contrast for diaphragm injuries (DIs) in blunt abdominal trauma.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled 500 consecutive "trauma-one" patients who received CT imaging and interpretation (CT-Read1) of the abdomen within 45 minutes of their arrival from July 2000 to December 2001. All patients were imaged without oral contrast but with intravenous contrast. Computed tomographic images were reviewed within 24 hours of admission by research radiologists (CT-Read2) blinded to CT-Read1. True DIs were determined hierarchically by either laparotomy or autopsy.

RESULTS

There were 9 patients with laparotomy or autopsy-proven blunt DIs; 8 of these injuries involved the left hemidiaphragm. The CT-Read1 correctly detected only 6 of 9 blunt DIs, thus missing 3 DIs. One of these involved the right hemidiaphragm, whereas the other 2 were left sided. There were no false-positive findings with CT-Read1 for blunt DI. The sensitivity and specificity of CT imaging with respect to DI were 66.7% (95% CI, 29.9%-92.5%) and 100% (95% CI, 99.2%-100%), respectively. The PPV for the test was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.65-1.00).

CONCLUSION

Although the low number of blunt DIs in this study limits its general applicability, CT imaging of the diaphragm without oral contrast appears to perform within the range of reported imaging techniques using oral contrast. Still, CT scanning appears to have an unsatisfactorily low sensitivity to be reliably used in eliminating the diagnosis of blunt DI.

Blunt Abdominal Trauma: Performance of CT without Oral Contrast Material

PURPOSE

To retrospectively evaluate multi-detector row computed tomography (CT) without oral contrast material for depiction of bowel and mesenteric injuries that require surgical repair in patients with blunt abdominal trauma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The investigational review board approved the study. Informed consent was waived. CT reports for October 2001 to September 2003 were reviewed and 1082 patients were identified who had undergone abdominopelvic CT with a multi-detector row scanner and without oral contrast material. Findings were divided into four categories: negative, solid organ injury with or without hemoperitoneum, free fluid only, and suspected bowel or mesenteric injury. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated by comparing CT findings with laparotomy reports and hospital course.

RESULTS

CT findings were no intraabdominal injury (n = 932), solid organ injury only (n = 102), free fluid only (n = 34), and suspected bowel or mesenteric injury (n = 14). CT findings in patients suspected of having bowel or mesenteric injury were pneumoperitoneum with other secondary findings (n = 4), mesenteric hematoma and bowel wall abnormality (n = 2), mesenteric hematoma only (n = 4), and bowel wall thickening only (n = 4). In 11 patients, bowel or mesenteric injury was proved surgically. Thus, the study included 1066 true-negative, nine true-positive, two false-negative, and five false-positive results. Based on these data, sensitivity was 82% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 52%, 95%), specificity was 99% (95% CI: 98%, 99%), positive predictive value was 64% (95% CI: 39%, 83%), and negative predictive value was 99% (95% CI: 98%, 99%) for depiction of bowel and mesenteric injuries.

CONCLUSION

Multi-detector row CT without oral contrast material is adequate for depiction of bowel and mesenteric injuries that require surgical repair. Results are comparable with previously reported data for single-detector row helical CT with oral contrast material.

Performance of helical computed tomography without oral contrast for the detection of gastrointestinal injuries

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We describe the performance of helical abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan without oral contrast for the detection of blunt gastrointestinal injuries.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of a consecutive series of patients who underwent helical abdominal CT scanning for evaluation of blunt intra-abdominal injury and were admitted to a Level I trauma center from May 1996 to September 2001. Abdominal CT scans were performed with intravenous contrast but without oral contrast. Patients were considered to have gastrointestinal injuries if an injury was identified to the gastrointestinal tract from the duodenum to the sigmoid colon or associated mesentery and considered to have major gastrointestinal injuries if gastrointestinal perforation, active mesenteric hemorrhage, or mesenteric devascularization occurred. All gastrointestinal injuries were confirmed by laparotomy, autopsy, or additional imaging studies.

RESULTS

Six thousand fifty-two patients underwent abdominal CT scan (mean age 35.5 +/- 21.1 years), and 106 (1.8%) patients had gastrointestinal injuries identified by laparotomy, autopsy, or additional (nonabdominal CT) imaging studies. Abdominal CT scan result was abnormal in 91 (86%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 78% to 92%) of the 106 patients with gastrointestinal injuries and revealed findings suggestive of gastrointestinal injury in 81 (76%; 95% CI 67% to 84%) patients. Abdominal CT scan demonstrated findings suggestive of gastrointestinal injury in 58 of 64 (91%; 95% CI 81% to 96%) patients with major gastrointestinal injuries. Two hundred thirty-eight (4.0%) patients had findings suspicious for gastrointestinal injuries on abdominal CT scan, but gastrointestinal injury was never confirmed.

CONCLUSION

Helical abdominal CT scan without oral contrast identified nearly three fourths of patients with blunt gastrointestinal injuries who were selected for abdominal CT scanning. Sensitivity of this diagnostic test improves in the subset of patients with major gastrointestinal injuries.

Oral contrast agents for CT of abdominal trauma in pediatric patients: a comparison of dilute hypaque and water

OBJECTIVE

Dilute Hypaque Sodium is generally well accepted as an oral contrast agent for CT of pediatric patients who have experienced recent blunt abdominal trauma. However, Hypaque can cause complications. Using water as a substitute contrast agent eliminates these potential complications. The purpose of our study was to compare the performance of water with that of dilute Hypaque as an oral contrast agent. Our hypothesis was that we would find no significant difference in performance between the two agents in defining anatomic details of the hollow gastrointestinal tract.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of 74 CT scans obtained in infants and children who had received blunt abdominal trauma, scoring the quality of visualization of bowel structures, the presence of non-bowel-related findings, and the confidence level in making each assessment. The date range of the scans reviewed overlapped with the period in which the oral contrast material used for scanning such patients was switched from dilute Hypaque to water. Of the 74 CT scans that we reviewed, 53 were obtained with dilute Hypaque and 21 were obtained with water. The sex distribution between the two groups was compared using a chi-square test, whereas the mean age was compared using a two-sample two-sided Student's t test. A two-sample one-sided Student's t test of equivalence was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Sex distribution for the two groups of patients was not significantly different (69.81% of the group who received dilute Hypaque were boys; 68.18% of the group who received water were boys). Furthermore, the difference in the mean age for the two groups was not statistically significantly (dilute Hypaque group, 8.86 years; water group, 10.18 years). No statistically significant difference in performance of the contrast agents was found with respect to the detection of intraabdominal abnormality. As an oral contrast material, water performed as well as dilute Hypaque in facilitating visualization of all intraabdominal anatomic structures.

CONCLUSION

In defining anatomic details of the hollow gastrointestinal tract, water is as effective as dilute Hypaque as an oral contrast agent for CT in the setting of acute blunt abdominal trauma in pediatric patients.

Computed tomographic scanning without oral contrast solution for blunt bowel and mesenteric injuries in abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

Computed tomographic (CT) scanning using intravenous and oral contrast material has traditionally been advocated for the evaluation of intra-abdominal injury, including blunt bowel and mesenteric injuries (BBMIs). The necessity of oral contrast in detecting these injuries has recently been called into question. The purpose of this study was to determine the sensitivity and specificity of CT scanning without oral contrast for BBMIs.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled 500 consecutive blunt trauma patients who received CT imaging and interpretation (CT-Read1) of the abdomen from July 2000 to November 2001. All patients were imaged without oral contrast, but with intravenous contrast. CT images were reviewed within 24 hours of admission by a research radiologist (CT-Read2) blinded to CT-Read1. For study purposes, true BBMI was determined to be present if either laparotomy or autopsy identified bowel or mesenteric injury, or both CT-Read2 and the hospital discharge summary described bowel or mesenteric injury. Three-month telephone follow-up was also completed.

RESULTS

CT-Read1 detected 19 of 20 bowel and mesenteric injuries. CT-Read1 missed one duodenal perforation. There were two patients with false-positive interpretations of CT-Read1 for bowel injury. The sensitivity and specificity of CT imaging for the detection of BBMIs were 95.0% and 99.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

CT imaging of the abdomen without oral contrast for detection of BBMIs compares favorably with CT imaging using oral contrast.

Is administration of enteric contrast material safe before abdominal CT in children who require sedation? Experience with chloral hydrate and pentobarbital

OBJECTIVE

It has been common practice to administer enteric contrast material in preparation for abdominal CT in children who require sedation to be examined. At some institutions, the practice of administering an anesthetic or enteric contrast material before sedation is being challenged because it violates the "nothing by mouth" status that is otherwise strictly enforced before sedation. Our purpose was to review our safety record in administering enteric contrast material for CT before sedation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Radiology reports, medical records, and department incident reports were reviewed for the past 5 years from all patients who required sedation for abdominal CT. Patient age and sex, type of sedation, and complications (defined as vomiting with aspiration) related to enteric contrast material before the sedation were recorded. For routine oral contrast material, diluted Hypaque (meglumine diatrizoate) was administered in an age-based amount 1-2 hr before scanning. For sedation, depending on the patient's age, either oral chloral hydrate (70-100 mg/kg) or IV pentobarbital (3 mg/kg with repeated doses of up to 7 mg/kg) was used.

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty-seven patients who received oral contrast material before sedation for abdominal CT were identified (200 boys, 167 girls; age range, 1 month-19 years; mean age, 2.9 years). Chloral hydrate was used in 30 patients and IV pentobarbital in 337 patients. No complications related to the administration of oral contrast material before sedation were identified.

CONCLUSION

The practice of administering oral contrast material in children before sedation for abdominal CT appears to be safe when using the sedation drugs and protocols in place at our institution. Further study of the safety of this practice should be undertaken.

Isolated free fluid on computed tomographic scan in blunt abdominal trauma: a systematic review of incidence and management

BACKGROUND

Abdominal computed tomographic (CT) scan is accepted as the primary diagnostic modality in stable patients with blunt abdominal trauma. A recent survey of 328 trauma surgeons demonstrated marked variation in the management of patients with head injuries and the finding of free intra-abdominal fluid without solid organ injury on CT scan. This study was undertaken to attempt to determine what to do when free fluid without solid organ injury is seen on abdominal CT scan in patients with blunt trauma.

METHODS

Articles concerning the incidence and significance of free intra-abdominal fluid on CT scan of blunt trauma patients without solid organ injury were systematically reviewed. A MEDLINE search was performed using terms such as tomography-x-ray computed, wounds-nonpenetrating, small intestine/injuries, time factors, and abdominal trauma and diagnostic tests. Bibliographies of pertinent articles were reviewed. Appropriate articles were evaluated for quality and data were combined to reach a conclusion.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis could not be performed because no randomized, prospective, controlled trials could be found. Forty-one articles were excluded from the analysis because they looked at only patients with known injuries to intestine, diaphragm, or pancreas and the investigation of the CT scan findings did not include negative scans. Ten articles, which described CT scan results for all patients presenting with blunt abdominal trauma for a defined period of time, formed the basis of this study. Isolated free fluid was seen in 463 (2.8%) of over 16,000 blunt trauma patients scanned. A therapeutic laparotomy was performed in only 122 (27%) of these patients.

CONCLUSION

The isolated finding of free intra-abdominal fluid on CT scan in patients with blunt trauma and no solid organ injury does not warrant laparotomy. Alert patients may be followed with physical examination. Patients with altered mental status should undergo diagnostic peritoneal lavage.

[Strategies diagnosis of polytraumatized adult patients with coma]

OBJECTIVE

To review the diagnostic strategy of management of multiple trauma patient during the first hours.

DATA SOURCES

Extraction from Pubmed database of French and English articles on the management of multiple trauma patient published for ten years.

DATA SELECTION

The collected articles were reviewed and selected according to their quality and originality. The more recent data were selected.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The first hours of management of multiple trauma patients are a particular challenge. The first dilemma is to drive the patient toward an adequate structure. In case of poor haemodynamic tolerance, the patient will be drive in the nearest hospital. When haemodynamic parameters are restored, multiple trauma patient has to be receive in a high level hospital by a trained medical team with an anesthesiologist, intensivist, neurosurgeon, general surgeon and radiologist. The initial assessment may have two priorities: quality and speed. The total body CT scan is actually the answer to these priorities.

The role of oral contrast administration immediately prior to the computed tomographic evaluation of the blunt trauma victim

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether the administration of oral contrast followed by immediate computerised tomographic (CT) scanning presents a significant risk of aspiration and whether it is useful in the diagnosis of hollow viscus injury.

OBJECTIVE

Determine the number of intestinal perforations diagnosed by oral contrast enhanced CT scans for blunt trauma and identify those who developed aspiration pneumonitis causally related to oral contrast administration.

METHODS

We analysed a database of consecutive blunt trauma admissions over a 2-year period. The majority received oral contrast immediately prior to CT scanning. We determined the number of intestinal perforations identified by abdominal CT confirmed at laparatomy and the number of cases of aspiration pneumonia.

RESULTS

Nine (1%) of the 1173 CT scans identified enteric perforations. Oral contrast enhanced CT scans demonstrated pneumoperitoneum (3), extraluminal contrast extravasation (2), and the presence of free fluid with small bowel wall thickening (8). In this same cohort, eight (0.7%) cases of aspiration pneumonia were diagnosed within 48 h of admission in patients with a mean GCS of 4.25; only one (0.1%) was temporally related to oral contrast administration. In a prospective study, none of the 65 consecutive patients who received oral contrast had witnessed aspiration.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral contrast administration given immediately prior to CT scanning does not increase the risk of clinically significant aspiration and assists in the detection of enteric perforation.

Isolated intraperitoneal fluid on abdominal computed tomography in children with blunt trauma

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency of isolated intraperitoneal fluid (IIF) on abdominal computed tomography (CT) in pediatric blunt trauma patients and the association between IIF and clinically identifiable intra-abdominal injuries (IAIs) in these patients.

METHODS

The authors conducted a prospective observational study of consecutive children <16 years old with blunt torso trauma who underwent abdominal CT scanning while in the emergency department (ED). All patients were evaluated by a faculty emergency physician who documented the patient's physical examination. All CTs were interpreted by a single faculty radiologist masked to clinical data. The volume of intraperitoneal fluid was quantified (small, moderate, large) and the presence of organ injury visible on CT was noted. Patients were considered to have IIF if the CT demonstrated intraperitoneal fluid and no solid organ injury. Patients with IIF were followed through their hospitalizations or telephoned in one week if discharged home from the ED.

RESULTS

Five hundred twenty-seven children with blunt trauma were enrolled into the study. The mean age (+/-SD) was 7.4 +/- 4.7 years, and the median pediatric trauma score was 10 (range -2 to 12). Eighty-eight patients (17%; 95% CI = 14% to 20%) had intraperitoneal fluid on CT scan and 42 (48%; 95% CI = 37% to 59%) of these patients had IIF. Of the 42 patients with IIF, five patients (all without abdominal tenderness and with a small amount of IIF on CT scan) were discharged to home from the ED and were well at telephone follow-up; the remaining 37 patients were hospitalized. Of the 42 patients with IIF, 7 patients (17%, 95% CI = 7 to 31%) had IAIs subsequently identified (all gastrointestinal injuries) during their evaluations. Six of the seven patients with IIF and subsequently identified IAIs had abdominal tenderness on examination in the ED. The remaining patient had a decreased level of consciousness.

CONCLUSIONS

Isolated intraperitoneal fluid occurs in 8% of pediatric blunt trauma patients undergoing abdominal CT, and IAIs are subsequently identified in 17% of these patients. Patients with a small amount of IIF on CT who lack abdominal tenderness and have a normal level of consciousness are at low risk for subsequently identified IAIs.

Childhood trauma. Now and in the new millennium

Given the magnitude of childhood injuries that occur yearly in the United States, physicians need integrated echelons of care that include regional pediatric trauma centers, trauma centers with pediatric commitment, and EDs appropriate for children. Head injury is the most significant cause of morbidity and mortality among children, but physicians are far from effectively evaluating the dynamics of cerebral metabolism and oxygen delivery in the acute resuscitation of injured children. Critically injured children must be kept normothermic, and attention to the signs of hypovolemic shock must be monitored. Secondary brain ischemia frequently occurs because the details of resuscitation are not carefully monitored. A "leader" must be designated, and this should be someone experienced in childhood trauma. The younger the child and the more severe the injury, the more important is the notion of "experience." The ultimate goal, now and in the new millennium, should not be who, where, or when to administer care to critically ill or injured children but rather the quality of the treatment of these children.

Clinical evaluation of the child: injury to the chest and abdomen

In the paediatric age group (under 18 years) injury continues to be the dominant cause of mortality, being more common than all other causes combined. Disability resulting from injury represents a major expenditure in financial and emotional terms. The child’s anatomy and physiology are such that directly applying the principles of adult trauma care to the child can result in a less than optimal outcome and can add to long-term and/or permanent disability. Chest and abdominal injuries are the second and third most common causes of death, respectively, in childhood and when combined represent the second leading cause of death in this age group due to injury. There are six life-threatening injuries seen in paediatric injuries: airway obstruction, tension pneumothorax, massive haemothorax, open pneumothorax, flail chest and cardiac tamponade. There are six other potentially life-threatening injuries: simple pneumothorax, pulmonary contusion, tracheobronchial disruption, blunt cardiac injury, aortic disruption and haemothorax. These entities are discussed in terms of identification and treatment.

Abdominal injuries are generally well recognized by trauma surgeons. The difference in the paediatric age group involves the diagnosis of intra-abdominal injuries. The principle of diagnosis is that the injured organ should be specifically identified, not just left at the impression that something is bleeding, perforated or otherwise disrupted. The main diagnostic modality is the spiral or helical computerized tomography scan. This is an appropriate diagnostic method in all but the most severely injured and haemodynamically abnormal children. Care in initial assessment and management and in specific diagnosis has great potential to decrease the mortality in a country’s youngest citizens.

Oral contrast with computed tomography in the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma in children

BACKGROUND

The use of oral contrast in evaluating children by computed tomography (CT) following blunt trauma is controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate retrospectively the use of oral contrast with abdominal CT in children with suspected abdominal injury.

METHODS

The medical records of 101 children who underwent CT for abdominal trauma between 1993 and 1997 were reviewed for data pertaining to the mechanism of injury, clinical findings and management. Scans were reviewed by a paediatric radiologist and criteria of intestinal injury on CT described by Cox and Kuhn were used: (1) extraluminal air or contrast material, (2) focal area of thickening of bowel wall and mesentery, and (3) free intraperitoneal fluid in the absence of solid organ injury.

RESULTS

CT was performed within a median time of 2.4 (range 1-48) h after the injury. On 37 (62 per cent) of 60 scans in children who had oral contrast, the duodenum was not opacified after a mean delay of 30 min. Intestinal injury was suspected on CT in four children. In two children with CT evidence of intestinal injury (with/without oral contrast) rupture of the duodenojejunal flexure (n = 1) or ileal perforation (n = 1) was found at laparotomy. Two children had a false-positive scan, leading to negative laparotomy; one scan with oral contrast incorrectly suggested a duodenal leak and in another child CT without oral contrast showed thickening of bowel wall with free intraperitoneal fluid but no specific intestinal injury was identified at laparotomy. One patient had two negative CT scans (with and without oral contrast) and underwent laparotomy for clinical suspicion of bowel injury; rupture of the splenic flexure of the colon was found at laparotomy.

CONCLUSION

CT is not reliable for diagnosing intestinal injuries and this is not improved by use of oral contrast. Omission of oral contrast was not associated with delay in the diagnosis of intestinal injury. Since intestinal injuries are uncommon in children, a prospective multicentre study would determine more precisely the role of the routine use of oral contrast.

Retrospective analysis of the adequacy of oral contrast material for computed tomography scans in trauma patients

BACKGROUND

This study examined the adequacy of oral contrast (OC) in adult trauma patients, the differences in the incidence of pathology and other patient characteristics related to OC adequacy, and the incidence of OC-associated emesis.

METHODS

The cases of 129 adult trauma patients were reviewed from January to December 1996 for utilization of OC, administration time, time to computed tomography (CT), and emesis within 4 hours. CT films were reviewed for adequacy of OC (AC = adequate contrast, IC = inadequate contrast) and pathology.

RESULTS

Data are presented as median and range, or percentage and 95% confidence interval (CI). Pathology was found in 24% (CI 17% to 31%) and was not associated with AC. OC administration to CT was 14 minutes (0 to 139). IC was present for 60% (CI 52% to 69%). Subjects with IC had higher injury severity scores. 10% (CI 5% to 15%) with OC had emesis.

CONCLUSION

OC is not necessary for diagnostic accuracy, and may contribute to patient morbidity or discomfort.

Evaluation of the patient with blunt abdominal trauma: an evidence based approach

Patients with blunt abdominal trauma present a special challenge to the emergency physician. Physical examination is often unreliable, even if the patient is awake, and the frequent co-existence of head injury exacerbates this problem. This article examines the evidence basis of three diagnostic modalities in evaluating blunt abdominal trauma: DPL (the time-honored test); CT scanning (the current standard of care); and abdominal sonography (the emerging standard--especially for examination conducted in the trauma room). A proposed algorithm for the appropriate use of these modalities is also presented.

Significance of peritoneal fluid as an isolated finding on abdominal computed tomographic scans in pediatric trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Peritoneal fluid on abdominal computed tomographic (CT) scan in the absence of solid-organ injury suggests a bowel injury. We sought to determine the significance of peritoneal fluid as the sole finding on abdominal CT scans obtained to evaluate injured pediatric patients.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of abdominal CT scans obtained during the initial survey of blunt trauma patients less than 19 years old during a 5-year period (1991-1995). All patients received intravenous and oral contrast agents. All CT scans were read by a staff radiologist. All CT scan results were retrospectively verified by one of the authors.

RESULTS

Of the 259 scans, 157 (59%) were read as normal; 76 (31%) demonstrated solid-organ injury or pelvic fracture; 2 (1%) had pneumoperitoneum and 24 (9%) had peritoneal fluid as the only finding. Quantification of the fluid was done using a previously described method. Of the 16 patients with a small amount of fluid, only 2 (12%) required celiotomy. Of the eight patients with a moderate amount of fluid, four (50%) required celiotomy. At celiotomy, the six patients all had small-bowel injuries. No abdominal CT scan demonstrated extravasation of oral contrast.

CONCLUSION

Intra-abdominal fluid as the sole finding on abdominal CT scan does not mandate immediate celiotomy in the bluntly injured pediatric patient. The patient with fluid in more than one location has a 50% chance of bowel injury. We also conclude that extravasated enteral contrast is rarely present to aid in the diagnosis of bowel injury in children.

Effect of oral contrast administration for abdominal computed tomography in the evaluation of acute blunt trauma

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine how frequently oral contrast medium (OC) is essential for computed tomography (CT) diagnosis of blunt intraabdominal injury and to quantify the delay associated with OC administration and the incidence of adverse effects.

METHODS

This retrospective chart review, with prospective reevaluation of CT scans for diagnostic value of OC, took place in a university teaching hospital and Level l trauma center. Participants were blunt-trauma victims admitted between June 1, 1988, and November 1, 1993, who had abdominal CT as part of their initial evaluation. Trauma registry records were used to identify study patients. Available charts and CTs were reviewed for all patients with intestinal/mesenteric and pancreatic injuries. Randomly selected cases of liver injury, spleen injury, and no intraabdominal injury were also reviewed. Blinded CT scans were reevaluated for quality of bowel opacification and value of OC to diagnostic impression.

RESULTS

During the study period, 2,162 blunt-trauma patients had an abdominal CT; 297 intraabdominal injuries were diagnosed in 248 patients. Full review was done on 124 charts, and 70 CT scans were reevaluated. Thirty-one (100%) of 31 liver and spleen injuries were diagnosed on CT, and OC was considered essential in none of these studies. One (4.5%) of 22 intestinal and mesenteric injuries was seen on CT, but this was the only such injury treated nonoperatively. None of 21 surgically confirmed intestinal/mesenteric injuries was seen on CT. Free air or free OC was seen in none of 7 cases of intestinal perforation. OC was judged essential in none of 20 scans in patients without intraabdominal injury. On 2 scans. OC was considered essential for the radiographic diagnosis. One of these was a normal pancreas at exploration (radiographic false-positive result). The only pancreatic injury requiring specific surgical treatment was missed on CT. Twenty-one percent of patients required placement of nasogastric tube for contrast administration after failing oral administration, and 23% vomited OC. One of 124 had documented aspiration of OC. Average additional time incurred in the ED for administration of OC was 144 minutes.

CONCLUSION

OC is rarely essential for CT diagnosis of intraabdominal injury. It may improve sensitivity for pancreatic injury, but it does not help identify injuries requiring surgical treatment. Even with OC, CT is insensitive for intestinal injury. Vomiting and aspiration are significant risks. Use of OC adds a significant amount of time to ED evaluation. Adverse effects of OC administration, in this setting, may outweigh its benefits.

Superman play and pediatric blunt abdominal trauma

Two pediatric patients with life-threatening intra-abdominal injuries associated with Superman play are presented. The cases illustrate the importance of knowing the mechanism of injury in the assessment of children with blunt abdominal trauma. The diagnostic value of liver enzymes and the controversies surrounding the radiographic assessment of pediatric blunt abdominal trauma are presented.

Imaging gastrointestinal perforation in pediatric blunt abdominal trauma

OBJECTIVE

To assess the role of imaging, in particular CT, in the early detection of GI perforation.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

In a 10-year period, 43 patients with surgically confirmed GI perforation were identified from hospital records; 22 of these had preoperative CT evaluation. Medical records and radiology were retrospectively reviewed and CT studies were particularly assessed for extraluminal air, free intraperitoneal fluid, bowel wall thickening, bowel wall enhancement, and bowel dilatation. During the study period an additional 12 trauma patients were identified who had CT studies demonstrating the above findings, but who had hypovolemic shock bowel or nondisrupting bowel injury without perforation evident.

RESULTS

Extraluminal air was demonstrated in 47 % of the imaged perforations. There was one false-positive extraluminal air. Perforation was confirmed in patients who had all five of the above CT findings, but this was the case for only 18 % of patients with perforation. One or more of the five specified CT findings were present in all CT studies reviewed. No false-negative CT study was performed in the study period.

CONCLUSION

Separating nondisrupting bowel injury from perforation is diagnostically difficult; however, CT remains a good modality for assessing GI perforation in pediatric blunt trauma, but it cannot replace diligent and repeated clinical evaluation of all potential perforation victims.