Ultrasound in blunt abdominal trauma

Delayed Rupture of Occult Splenic Injury: a Case Report

We report on a case of splenic rupture that presented eleven days after a trivial injury. Possible explanations of the delay in presentation and ways for early detection are discussed. Emergency physicians should always bear this entity in mind before discharging patients with left thoracoabdominal injury.

Repeat computed tomography is highly sensitive in determining need for delayed exploration in blunt abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography (CT) imaging has an established role in the initial evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma. What is less clear is the role of CT in guiding delayed exploration in patients initially managed nonoperatively after blunt trauma. We hypothesized that a repeat CT would accurately identify the need for an exploratory laparotomy in this patient population.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From 2005 to 2014, we reviewed all blunt abdominal trauma patients at our institution who received an admission CT scan. We identified patients who underwent repeat CT of the abdomen within 72 h for the documented purpose of reevaluating potential intra-abdominal injuries. CT findings were categorized as either having a CT indication for exploration or not, allowing a sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 50 patients who met our inclusion criteria, 9 underwent surgical exploration of the abdomen and 41 did not. Admission clinical indicators such as Glasgow Coma Scale, Injury Severity Score, and vitals were similar between the operative and nonoperative groups (P > 0.05). When compared with initial CT scan, repeat scan was found to increase the sensitivity from 67% to 100%, while also improving the specificity to 86%, positive predictive value to 50%, and negative predictive value to 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

Repeat CT scan of the abdomen may be useful in evaluating blunt trauma patients initially managed nonoperatively. The second CT scan increases the sensitivity of CT evaluation to 100% while also improving the specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value.

Bedside emergency department ultrasonography availability and use for blunt abdominal trauma in Canadian pediatric centres

Objectives:

To quantify the current availability and use of bedside emergency department ultrasonography (EDUS) for blunt trauma at Canadian pediatric centres and to identify any perceived barriers to the use of bedside EDUS in such centres.

Methods:

An electronic survey was sent to 162 pediatric emergency physicians and 12 site directors from the 12 pediatric emergency departments across Canada.

Results:

Ninety-two percent (11 of 12) of centres completed the survey. The individual physician response rate was 65% (106 of 162), with 100% of site directors responding. Ultrasound machines were available in 45% (5 of 11) of centres. Forty-two percent (32 of 77) of emergency physicians working in equipped pediatric centres used bedside EDUS to evaluate blunt abdominal trauma (BAT). In the subgroup of staff who also worked at adults sites, the frequency of ultrasonography use for the evaluation of pediatric BAT was 75%. In the 55% (6 of 11) of centres without ultrasonography, 88% of staff intend to incorporate its use in the future and 81% indicated that they believed the incorporation of ultrasonography would have a positive impact on patient care. The main perceived barriers to the use of ultrasonography in the evaluation of BAT were a lack of training (41%) and a lack of equipment (26%).

Conclusion:

Bedside EDUS is currently used in almost half of pediatric trauma centres, a frequency that is significantly lower than adult centres. Physicians in pediatric centres who use ultrasonography report that it has a high utility, and a great majority of physicians at pediatric centres without EDUS plan to incorporate it in the future. The main reported barriers to its use are a lack of training and a lack of equipment availability.

Diagnostic accuracy of secondary ultrasound exam in blunt abdominal trauma

Background:

In stable patients with blunt abdominal trauma, accurate diagnosis of visceral injuries is crucial.

Objectives:

To determine whether repeating ultrasound exam will increase the sensitivity of focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) through revealing additional free intraperitoneal fluid in patients with blunt abdominal trauma.

Patients and Methods:

We performed a prospective observational study by performing primary and secondary ultrasound exams in blunt abdominal trauma patients. All ultrasound exams were performed by four radiology residents who had the experience of more than 400 FAST exams. Five routine intraperitoneal spaces as well as the interloop space were examined by ultrasound in order to find free fluid. All patients who expired or were transferred to the operating room before the second exam were excluded from the study. All positive ultrasound results were compared with intra-operative and computed tomography (CT) findings and/or the clinical status of the patients.

Results:

Primary ultrasound was performed in 372 patients; 61 of them did not undergo secondary ultrasound exam; thus, were excluded from the study.Three hundred eleven patients underwent both primary and secondary ultrasound exams. One hundred and two of all patients were evaluated by contrast enhanced CT scan and 31 underwent laparotomy. The sensitivity of ultrasound exam in detecting intraperitoneal fluid significantly increased from 70.7% for the primary exam to 92.7% for the secondary exam. Examining the interloop space significantly improved the sensitivity of ultrasonography in both primary (from 36.6% to 70.7%) and secondary (from 65.9% to 92.7%) exams.

Conclusions:

Performing a secondary ultrasound exam in stable blunt abdominal trauma patients and adding interloop space scan to the routine FAST exam significantly increases the sensitivity of ultrasound in detecting intraperitoneal free fluid.

False-negative FAST examination: associations with injury characteristics and patient outcomes

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) is widely used for evaluating patients with blunt abdominal trauma; however, it sometimes produces false-negative results. Presenting characteristics in the emergency department may help identify patients at risk for false-negative FAST result or help the physician predict injuries in patients with a negative FAST result who are unstable or deteriorate during observation. Alternatively, false-negative FAST may have no clinical significance. The objectives of this study are to estimate associations between false-negative FAST results and patient characteristics, specific abdominal organ injuries, and patient outcomes.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients who presented to an urban Level I trauma center between July 2005 and December 2008 with blunt abdominal trauma, a documented FAST, and pathologic free fluid as determined by computed tomography, diagnostic peritoneal lavage, laparotomy, or autopsy. Physicians blinded to the study purpose used standardized abstraction methods to confirm FAST results and the presence of pathologic free fluid. Multivariable modeling was used to assess associations between potential predictors of a false-negative FAST result and false-negative FAST result and adverse outcomes.

RESULTS

During the study period, 332 patients met inclusion criteria. Median age was 32 years (interquartile range 23 to 45 years), 67% were male patients, the median Injury Severity Score was 27 (interquartile range 17 to 41), and 162 (49%) had a false-negative FAST result. Head injury was positively associated with false-negative FAST result (odds ratio [OR] 4.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.5 to 15.7), whereas severe abdominal injury was negatively associated (OR 0.3; 95% CI 0.1 to 0.5). Injuries to the spleen (OR 0.4; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.66), liver (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.61), and abdominal vasculature (OR 0.17; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.38) were also negatively associated with false-negative FAST result. False-negative FAST result was not associated with mortality (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.9), prolonged ICU length of stay (relative risk 0.88; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.12), or total hospital length of stay (relative risk 0.92; 95% CI 0.76 to 1.12). However, patients with false-negative FAST results were substantially less likely to require therapeutic laparotomy (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.52).

CONCLUSION

Patients with severe head injuries and minor abdominal injuries were more likely to have a false-negative than true-positive FAST result. On the other hand, patients with spleen, liver, or abdominal vascular injuries are less likely to have false-negative FAST examination results. Adverse outcomes were not associated with false-negative FAST examination results, and in fact patients with false-negative FAST result were less likely to have a therapeutic laparotomy. Further studies are needed to assess the strength of these findings.

Management of liver trauma

BACKGROUND

Blunt and penetrating liver trauma is common and often presents major diagnostic and management problems.

METHODS

A literature review was undertaken to determine the current consensus on investigation and management strategies.

RESULTS

The liver is the most frequently injured organ following abdominal trauma. Immediate assessment with ultrasound has replaced diagnostic peritoneal lavage in the resuscitation room, but computerised tomography remains the gold standard investigation. Nonoperative management is preferred in stable patients but laparotomy is indicated in unstable patients. Damage control techniques such as perihepatic packing, hepatotomy plus direct suture, and resectional debridement are recommended. Major complex surgical procedures such as anatomical resection or atriocaval shunting are now thought to be redundant in the emergency setting. Packing is also recommended for the inexperienced surgeon to allow control and stabilisation prior to transfer to a tertiary centre. Interventional radiological techniques are becoming more widely used, particularly in patients who are being managed nonoperatively or have been stabilised by perihepatic packing.

CONCLUSIONS

Management of liver injuries has evolved significantly throughout the last two decades. In the absence of other abdominal injuries, operative management can usually be avoided. Patients with more complex injuries or subsequent complications should be transferred to a specialist centre to optimise final outcome.

Management of liver trauma

BACKGROUND

Blunt and penetrating liver trauma is common and often presents major diagnostic and management problems.

METHODS

A literature review was undertaken to determine the current consensus on investigation and management strategies.

RESULTS

The liver is the most frequently injured organ following abdominal trauma. Immediate assessment with ultrasound has replaced diagnostic peritoneal lavage in the resuscitation room, but computerised tomography remains the gold standard investigation. Nonoperative management is preferred in stable patients but laparotomy is indicated in unstable patients. Damage control techniques such as perihepatic packing, hepatotomy plus direct suture, and resectional debridement are recommended. Major complex surgical procedures such as anatomical resection or atriocaval shunting are now thought to be redundant in the emergency setting. Packing is also recommended for the inexperienced surgeon to allow control and stabilisation prior to transfer to a tertiary centre. Interventional radiological techniques are becoming more widely used, particularly in patients who are being managed nonoperatively or have been stabilised by perihepatic packing.

CONCLUSIONS

Management of liver injuries has evolved significantly throughout the last two decades. In the absence of other abdominal injuries, operative management can usually be avoided. Patients with more complex injuries or subsequent complications should be transferred to a specialist centre to optimise final outcome.

Is sonography reliable for the diagnosis of pediatric blunt abdominal trauma?

BACKGROUND

Computerized tomography (CT) is considered as the imaging study of choice for blunt abdominal trauma in children. Nevertheless, recent investigations clearly indicate an increased risk of cancer in children exposed to radiation during abdominal spiral CT. Therefore, alternative strategies should be used for the diagnosis and surgical decision making in blunt abdominal trauma in children.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis included all children with intraabdominal organ rupture after blunt abdominal trauma. Patients were diagnosed by a standardized emergency protocol that included primary clinical assessment and repeated ultrasound but not routine CT. Efficacy of abdominal ultrasound was evaluated in regard to safe diagnosis and appropriate surgical decision making.

RESULTS

The study included 35 children with intraabdominal organ rupture diagnosed by ultrasound. One fifth (7/35) of the patients were polytraumatized, whereas 28 of 35 had an isolated blunt abdominal trauma. All patients underwent immediate ultrasound scanning of the abdomen and retroperitoneal space. Two patients were immediately operated because of hemodynamically instability. Four of 7 polytraumatized patients and 7 of 28 patients with isolated blunt abdominal trauma were additionally diagnosed by spiral CT. Only 1 patient underwent subsequent surgery because of the findings in the CT. Ultrasound was effective in more than 97% (34/35) of the patients for diagnosis and appropriate surgical decision making.

CONCLUSION

Ultrasound combined with clinical assessment presents an effective method for safe diagnosis and appropriate surgical decision making in pediatric blunt abdominal trauma. Selected cases with polytrauma and/or unequivocal findings in the ultrasound should undergo abdominal CT. Patients requiring abdominal CT should have an anticipated benefit that exceeds the radiation risk. The importance of repeated clinical assessment cannot be overstated.

Abdominal trauma: from operative to nonoperative management

The nonoperative care of intraabdominal trauma in the polytraumatised patient greatly depends on imaging techniques. The haemodynamically unstable patient should undergo expedient sonography to rule out abdominal haemorrhage. The use of computer tomography (CT) in this difficult patient group is also currently evaluated, however it takes specific amendments to the protocol and institution. In the hemodynamically stable patient however, computer tomography is the modality of choice to evaluate the injured abdomen. Nonoperative treatment can be successful in up to 80% of selected cases. Adjuncts to nonoperative care include embolisation of the spleen and liver in cases of arterial bleeding, and endoscopic retrograde cholangio pancreaticography (ERCP) and stenting for injuries to the biliary tree.

Exsanguination in trauma: A review of diagnostics and treatment options

Trauma patients with haemorrhagic shock who only transiently respond or do not respond to fluid therapy and/or the administration of blood products have exsanguinating injuries. Recognising shock due to (exsanguinating) haemorrhage in trauma is about constructing a synthesis of trauma mechanism, injuries, vital signs and the therapeutic response of the patient. The aim of prehospital care of bleeding trauma patients is to deliver the patient to a facility for definitive care within the shortest amount of time by rapid transport and minimise therapy to what is necessary to maintain adequate vital signs. Rapid decisions have to be made using regional trauma triage protocols that have incorporated patient condition, transport times and the level of care than can be performed by the prehospital care providers and the receiving hospitals. The treatment of bleeding patients is aimed at two major goals: stopping the bleeding and restoration of the blood volume. Fluid resuscitation should allow for preservation of vital functions without increasing the risk for further (re)bleeding. To prevent further deterioration and subsequent exsanguinations 'permissive hypotension' may be the goal to achieve. Within the hospital, a sound trauma team activation system, including the logistic procedure as well as activation criteria, is essential for a fast and adequate response. After determination of haemorrhagic shock, all efforts have to be directed to stop the bleeding in order to prevent exsanguinations. A simultaneous effort is made to restore blood volume and correct coagulation. Reversal of coagulopathy with pharmacotherapeutic interventions may be a promising concept to limit blood loss after trauma. Abdominal ultrasound has replaced diagnostic peritoneal lavage for detection of haemoperitoneum. With the development of sliding-gantry based computer tomography diagnostic systems, rapid evaluation by CT-scanning of the trauma patient is possible during resuscitation. The concept of damage control surgery, the staged approach in treatment of severe trauma, has proven to be of vital importance in the treatment of exsanguinating trauma patients and is adopted worldwide. When performing 'blind' transfusion or 'damage control resuscitation', a predetermined fixed ratio of blood components may result in the administration of higher plasma and platelets doses and may improve outcome. The role of thromboelastography and thromboelastometry as point-of-care tests for coagulation in massive blood loss is emerging, providing information about actual clot formation and clot stability, shortly (10min) after the blood sample is taken. Thus, therapy guided by the test results will allow for administration of specific coagulation factors that will be depleted despite administration with fresh frozen plasma during massive transfusion of blood components.

Emergency room management of patients with blunt major trauma: evaluation of the multislice computed tomography protocol exemplified by an urban trauma center

BACKGROUND

The early clinical management of patients with major trauma still represents a challenge. To clinically evaluate the full extent of a patient's injuries is difficult, especially when the patient is unconscious. Before December 2002, trauma patients admitted to our emergency room (ER) underwent a diagnostic protocol including physical examination, conventional radiography (CR), sonography and further procedures if necessary. After the installation of a MSCT scanner, all trauma patients underwent the "MSCT protocol" immediately after admission. The aim of the study was to compare the "MSCT-protocol" as it is performed at our institution, with the "Pre-MSCT-protocol".

METHODS

We compared 185 patients undergoing the "Pre MSCT-protocol" with 185 patients undergoing "MSCT protocol". We evaluated the efficacy, speed and accuracy of the "MSCT protocol" using several variables. Time periods from admission to the ER to admission to the intensive care unit were compared as well as outcome parameters such as length of ICU stay, ventilation period and rates of organ. Dichotomous data were analyzed by Chi-square analysis; continuous data were analyzed by Student's t test. Any values of p < 0.05 were considered significant for any test.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found regarding demographic data. The full extent of injuries was definitively diagnosed after 12 +/- 9 minutes in 92.4% of the "MSCT protocol" cohort. In only 76.2% of "Pre-MSCT protocol" cohort definitive diagnosis was possible after 41 +/- 27 minutes. Total ER time was 104 +/- 21 minutes with the "Pre-MSCT protocol" and 70 +/- 17 minutes with "MSCT protocol" (p < 0.05). "Pre-MSCT protocol" patients had a significantly longer ICU stay than "MSCT protocol" patients (p < 0.05). "MSCT protocol" patients had significantly fewer ventilation days (14.3 vs. 10.9 days). Furthermore, rates of organ failure were lower in patients undergoing the "MSCT protocol".

CONCLUSION

We could demonstrate that immediate MSCT in patients with blunt major trauma leads to more accurate and faster diagnosis, and reduction of early clinical time intervals. We also observed a reduction in ventilation, ICU, and hospital days, and in organ failure rates, though this might have been partly due to small differences in case mix. The "MSCT protocol" algorithm seems to be safe and effective.

Blunt abdominal trauma: emergency contrast-enhanced sonography for detection of solid organ injuries

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study was to prospectively compare the diagnostic value of sonography and contrast-enhanced sonography with CT for the detection of solid organ injuries in blunt abdominal trauma patients.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Sonography, contrast-enhanced sonography, and CT were performed to assess possible abdominal organ injuries in 69 nonconsecutive hemodynamically stable patients with blunt abdominal trauma and a strong clinical suspicion of abdominal lesions. Sonography and contrast-enhanced sonography findings were compared with CT findings, the reference standard technique.

RESULTS

Thirty-two patients had 35 abdominal injuries on CT (10 kidney or adrenal lesions, seven liver lesions, 17 spleen lesions, and one retroperitoneal hematoma). Sixteen lesions were detected on sonography, and 32 were seen on contrast-enhanced sonography. The sensitivity and specificity of sonography were 45.7% and 91.8%, respectively, and the positive and negative predictive values were 84.2% and 64.1%, respectively. Contrast-enhanced sonography had a sensitivity of 91.4%, a specificity of 100%, and positive and negative predictive values of 100% and 92.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Contrast-enhanced sonography was found to be more sensitive than sonography and almost as sensitive as CT in the detection of traumatic abdominal solid organ injuries. It can therefore be proposed as a useful tool in the assessment of blunt abdominal trauma.

Hypotensive Patients with Blunt Abdominal Trauma: Performance of Screening US

PURPOSE

To determine retrospectively the accuracy of screening ultrasonography (US) in patients with hypotension (systolic blood pressure <or= 90 mm Hg) after blunt abdominal trauma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The investigational review board approved the study and waived informed consent. The study group consisted of 128 hypotensive patients with blunt abdominal trauma who underwent screening US over a 9-year period. Abdomens were scanned for free fluid and for parenchymal heterogeneity in visceral organs; scans that depicted these were considered positive. Prospective reports were used to calculate diagnostic performance. Patients were retrospectively given a fluid score according to the number of fluid pockets visualized (0, 1, or > or =2) (consensus by three readers) and were assigned to a low- or high-risk group according to the presence of hematuria and/or axial fracture on radiographs. Screening US results were compared with findings with the best available reference standard (computed tomography [CT]), repeat US, other diagnostic test, laparotomy, autopsy, clinical course). Data were compared by using chi(2) or Fisher exact test, depending on expected frequencies, with Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons. Continuous variables were compared by using unpaired Student t test or Mann-Whitney U test, depending on data distribution.

RESULTS

The study included 77 male and 51 female patients (mean age, 42 years). Sensitivity was 85% (44 of 52) for detection of any injuries, 97% (30 of 31) for surgical injuries (ie, injuries requiring surgery), and 100% (10 of 10) for fatal injuries. Specificity was 96% (73 of 76), 82% (80 of 97), and 69% (81 of 118), and accuracy was 91% (117 of 128), 86% (110 of 128), and 71% (91 of 128), for respective injury categories. One nonfatal surgical injury was missed in a high-risk patient. For each injury category, frequency of injury in patients with a fluid score of 2 or more was nine times that in patients with a score of 0 (P < .001 for all comparisons). Frequency of false-negative US findings in high-risk patients was eight times that in low-risk patients (P < .01).

CONCLUSION

In patients who are hypotensive after blunt abdominal trauma and not hemodynamically stable enough to undergo diagnostic CT, negative US findings virtually exclude surgical injury, while positive US findings indicate surgical injury in 64% of cases.

Secondary ultrasound examination increases the sensitivity of the FAST exam in blunt trauma

INTRODUCTION

Approximately one third of stable patients with significant intra-abdominal injury do not have significant intraperitoneal blood evident on admission. We hypothesized that a delayed, repeat ultrasound study (Secondary Ultrasound--SUS) will reveal additional intra-abdominal injuries and hemoperitoneum.

METHODS

We performed a prospective observational study of trauma patients at our Level I trauma center from April 2003 to December 2003. Patients underwent an initial ultrasound (US), followed by a SUS examination within 24 hours of admission. Patients not eligible for a SUS because of early discharge, operative intervention or death were excluded. All US and SUS exams were performed and evaluated by surgical/emergency medicine house staff or surgical attendings.

RESULTS

Five hundred forty-seven patients had both an initial US and a SUS examination. The sensitivity of the initial US in this patient population was 31.1% and increased to 72.1% on SUS (p < 0.001) for intra-abdominal injury or intra-abdominal fluid. The specificity for the initial US was 99.8% and 99.8% for SUS. The negative predictive value was 92.0% for the initial US and increased to 96.6% for SUS (p = 0.002). The accuracy of the initial ultrasound was 92.1% and increased to 96.7% on the SUS (p < 0.002). No patient with a negative SUS after 4 hours developed clinically significant hemoperitoneum.

CONCLUSION

A secondary ultrasound of the abdomen significantly increases the sensitivity of ultrasound to detect intra-abdominal injury.

Blunt Abdominal Trauma: Clinical Value of Negative Screening US Scans

PURPOSE

To assess clinical and surgical outcomes in patients with blunt abdominal trauma and negative screening ultrasonographic (US) scans.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From a database of 4,000 patients who underwent screening US for suspected blunt abdominal trauma at a level 1 trauma center, the authors retrospectively identified 3,679 patients with negative US findings. In these patients, outcome was determined by means of retrospective review of the trauma registry and all radiologic, surgical, and autopsy reports. In patients with false-negative findings at screening US, all imaging studies and medical charts were also reviewed. Proportions were statistically compared by means of the Pearson chi(2) and Fisher exact tests. Monte Carlo estimation was applied when expected frequencies were low.

RESULTS

Among the 3,679 patients with negative findings at screening US, 99.9% (n = 3,641) had no injuries (true-negative findings). Differences in true-negative rates as a function of year (P >.5) or time of day (P >.3) were not significant. Among the 3,641 patients with true-negative findings, 93.6% (n = 3,407) required no additional tests and 6.4% (n = 234) underwent computed tomography or other tests. The percentage of patients who underwent additional tests was significantly higher in the 1st year of the study (19.2%) than in subsequent years (all comparisons, P <.001). Thirty-eight patients had false-negative US findings for abdominal injury. The injuries that were missed in 24 patients were nonsurgical (those that were treated successfully without intervention or were considered minor at autopsy) and those in 14 patients were surgical (required surgical intervention). Cumulatively, 65 injuries were missed. The six most common injuries included retroperitoneal hematoma (n = 13) and injuries in the spleen (n = 10), liver (n = 9), kidney (n = 8), adrenal gland (n = 8), and small bowel (n = 7). Twenty-five of the 38 patients had no or trace hemoperitoneum. Mean diagnostic delay until recognition of missed injury was 16.8 hours +/- 4.3 (standard error of the mean). The missed injury was identified within 12 hours in 19 of the 38 patients and within 24 hours in 34.

CONCLUSION

The combination of negative US findings and negative clinical observation virtually excludes abdominal injury in patients who are admitted and observed for at least 12-24 hours.

The benefit of routine thoracic, abdominal, and pelvic computed tomography to evaluate trauma patients with closed head injuries

BACKGROUND

The evaluation of multitrauma patients for blunt truncal injuries remains open for debate. We sought to evaluate the role of routine computed tomography (CT) of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis as a screening tool for patients already undergoing cranial CT studies.

METHODS

Charts of blunt trauma patients admitted from June 2000 to June 2001 were reviewed for demographics, Glascow Coma Scale (GCS), physical and radiological findings, and length of stay.

RESULTS

Our study found that 38% of patients undergoing cranial CT scanning had a unexpected finding on body scans. Changes were made in 26% of the study group because results found on the adjuvant CTs.

CONCLUSIONS

Additional body CTs add minimal cost to the care of trauma patients but can significantly change the management. We believe it is beneficial to perform routine body CT examinations when performing cranial imaging for blunt head injury.

Sensitivity in detecting free intraperitoneal fluid with the pelvic views of the FAST exam

The multiple-view focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) exam is an integral tool in the assessment of blunt abdominal trauma. A prospective observational study was performed to compute the average minimum volume of detectable intraperitoneal fluid with the pelvic views of the FAST exam. All adult patients from October 1999 to May 2001, who presented to the ED with blunt abdominal trauma and underwent a clinically indicated diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL), were candidates for admission to the pelvic ultrasound study. In the supine position, patients were administered lavage fluid in 100 cc increments until the examiner detected the fluid on ultrasound. An independent reviewer also examined the hard-copy ultrasound images for fluid detection. Patients were excluded if they had (1) a positive DPL for hemoperitoneum (defined as 10 cc of gross blood or >100,000 red blood cells/mL), (2) a positive initial ultrasound for free fluid, or (3) lacked sufficient hard-copy ultrasound images. The mean minimal volume of fluid needed for pelvic ultrasound detection by the examiner and reviewer was 157 and 129 cc (n = 7), respectively. The median quantity of fluid for ultrasound detection by both the examiner and reviewer was 100 cc. The pelvic views of the FAST exam identified a significantly smaller quantity of intraperitoneal fluid than previous studies of the right upper quadrant single-view exam.

Current use and perceived utility of ultrasound for evaluation of pediatric compared with adult trauma patients

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the current use and perceived utility of ultrasound in the assessment of pediatric compared with adult trauma patients.

METHODS

A questionnaire was developed and mailed to 72 pediatric emergency physicians, 120 general emergency physicians, and 117 trauma attendings at 240 institutions.

RESULTS

Of 309 surveys, 234 (75%) were completed. Ultrasound was available to 169 of 234 (72%) of the physicians, and 122 of 169 (72%) were performing the Focused Assessment by Sonography for Trauma examination to evaluate trauma patients. Seventy-three percent (110/150) of general emergency and trauma surgeons reported that ultrasound was available equally with or more readily than computed tomography (CT) scan. Only 26% (5/19) of pediatric emergency attendings considered ultrasound equally available with CT scan, and none considered it more readily available than CT scan. Ninety-two percent (137/149) of general emergency and trauma attendings responding to the question about utility considered ultrasound somewhat useful to extremely useful for assessing adult trauma patients, and 77% considered it useful for pediatric patients. Only 57% (12/21) of pediatric emergency attendings responding to the same question perceived ultrasound as useful for pediatric trauma evaluations.

CONCLUSIONS

We conclude that ultrasound for the assessment of trauma patients is widely used by general emergency physicians and trauma surgeons, whereas pediatric emergency physicians report less use and perceived utility.

Us of blunt abdominal trauma: importance of free pelvic fluid in women of reproductive age

PURPOSE

To assess the importance of free fluid and to determine the accuracy of screening ultrasonography (US) in female patients of reproductive age with trauma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

US was performed in 1,047 patients, aged 10-60 years, to evaluate blunt trauma. Patients were retrospectively assigned to groups on the basis of presence and location of intraperitoneal free fluid. Injury and surgical injury rates were assessed by comparing US results with computed tomographic, repeat US, cystographic, peritoneal lavage, surgical, and/or autopsy findings in 144 patients and with final clinical outcome in 903. US scans were positive if fluid was outside the cul-de-sac or if suspicious parenchymal abnormalities were present.

RESULTS

In 939 patients, no fluid was seen: Eight had injuries; three were surgical. In 56, anechoic fluid was isolated to the cul-de-sac: Two had injuries; one was surgical. In 26, fluid was isolated to the upper abdomen: Fifteen had injuries; five were surgical. In 22, fluid involved the pelvis and abdomen: Nineteen had injuries; 14 were surgical. In four, questionable fluid was isolated to the supravesical space. Patients with fluid in the cul-de-sac had similar injury and surgical injury rates as those with no fluid but had lower rates than those of patients with fluid elsewhere (P<.02 to P<.001). US screening had 89% sensitivity, 98% specificity, 97% accuracy, a 61% positive predictive value, and a 99% negative predictive value.

CONCLUSION

In female patients of reproductive age with trauma, free fluid isolated to the cul-de-sac is likely physiologic; clinical follow-up should suffice. Patients with fluid elsewhere usually have clinically important injury and require further evaluation.

The role of CT in the management of adult urinary tract trauma

Computed tomography (CT) is now the investigation of choice for evaluating haematuria following major abdominal trauma. This pictorial review provides a logical framework for understanding the classification and features of urinary tract injuries, defines the indications and outlines the techniques for CT imaging in upper and lower urinary tract trauma. The use of other competing imaging modalities is also discussed.

Advances in the management of pediatric trauma

BACKGROUND

Numerous important advances have been made in the management of trauma in childhood in prevention, prehospitalization and intrahospital care, postoperative management, and rehabilitation. As with adult trauma care, the development of trauma systems has impacted greatly on morbidity and mortality in injured children.

DATA SOURCES

Recent literature was searched for information regarding selected aspects of pediatric trauma care where significant improvements in outcome have occurred. The specific areas selected because of their contribution to improved outcomes include changes in the organization of care including the establishment of trauma centers and trauma systems, understanding trauma physiology as a basis for care, selective management of blunt trauma, management of burn injury, and prevention.

CONCLUSION

Because of the various advances in the understanding of the effects of injury that have been translated to improved approaches to treatment, overall treatment mortality in childhood has dropped 45% over the last 20 years and mortality with burn injury has been reduced by half in patients with over 60% of body surface burn and almost eliminated below that level unless there are additional circumstances. Nonetheless, trauma is still the leading cause of death in childhood, so continuing commitment by pediatric surgeons to advancing trauma care for children is in order as well as providing education for adult surgeons willing to commit themselves to care of the injured child.

Significance of minimal or no intraperitoneal fluid visible on CT scan associated with blunt liver and splenic injuries: a multicenter analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of ultrasound (U/S) for the evaluation of patients with blunt abdominal trauma is gaining increasing acceptance. Patients who would have undergone computed tomographic (CT) scan may now be evaluated solely with U/S. Solid organ injuries with minimal or no free fluid may be missed by surgeon sonographers.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe the incidence and clinical importance of liver and splenic injuries with minimal or no free intraperitoneal fluid visible on CT scan. We hypothesized that these solid organ injuries occur infrequently and are of minor clinical significance.

METHODS

Patient records and CT scans were reviewed for the presence of and outcome associated with blunt liver and splenic injuries with minimal (<250 mL) or no free fluid detected by an attending radiologist. Data were collected from six major trauma centers during a 4-year period before the introduction of U/S and included demographics, grade of injury (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma scale), need for operative intervention, and outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 938 patients with liver and splenic injuries were identified. In this group, 11% of liver injuries and 12% of splenic injuries had no free fluid visible on CT scan and could be missed by diagnostic peritoneal lavage or U/S. Of the 938 patients, 267 (28%) met the inclusion criteria; 161 had injury to the spleen and 125 had injury to the liver. In the 267 patients studied, 97% of the injuries were managed nonoperatively. However, 8 patients (3%) required operative intervention for bleeding. Compared with the liver, the spleen was significantly more likely to bleed (p = 0.01), but the grade of splenic injury was not related to the risk for hemorrhage (p = 0.051).

CONCLUSION

Data from this study suggest that injuries to the liver or spleen with minimal or no intraperitoneal fluid visible on CT scan occur more frequently than predicted but usually are of minimal clinical significance. However, patients with splenic injuries may be missed by abdominal U/S. We found a 5% associated risk of bleeding. Therefore, abdominal U/S should not be used as the sole diagnostic modality in all stable patients at risk for blunt abdominal injury.

Accuracy of surgeon-performed gallbladder ultrasound

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic cholelithiasis is among the most common of general surgery referrals. With an appropriate clinical presentation, definitive diagnosis requires documentation of gallstones by ultrasonography (US). The authors evaluated the accuracy of surgeon-performed US for identifying gallstones in patients with a nonacute indication for study.

METHODS

Patients referred for symptomatic cholelithiasis and who provided informed consent received an US examination by one or more of the surgical investigators. Surgeon-performed US findings were correlated with radiologist US findings and pathologic diagnoses.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven patients received a total of 128 examinations by the investigators. Surgeon-performed US examination agreed with the radiologist US findings for 112 of 122 studies (92%) with a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 95%. Surgeon-performed US findings correlated with the pathologic diagnoses for 83 of 86 studies (97%).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons can perform gallbladder US in the nonacute setting with a high degree of accuracy.