Determining the need for laparotomy in penetrating torso trauma: a prospective study using triple-contrast enhanced abdominopelvic computed tomography

Firearm injury to the left buttock with uterus penetrating trauma

A multispecialty trauma team must provide care for pelvic gunshot wounds (PGW) due to the high risk of associated morbidity and mortality, the high density of organs that might be wounded within the pelvis, and the potential consequences of these complicated injuries. We present a case of a 59-year-old woman hemodynamically stable with firearm injury to the left buttock. CT examination showed free air in the peritoneal cavity and in the retroperitoneum and a focal contrast extravasation within the uterine fundus. The patient underwent urgent laparotomy that revealed triple bowel perforation (sigmoid colon, medium rectum, ileum) and a laceration of the posterior and anterior uterine wall at level of the cervix with no signs of active bleeding. The bullet was lodged above the peritoneal reflection, in the right pelvis, and it was removed, and handed over to the judicial authority. The perforated bowel segments were resected with Hartmann's procedure and ileal anastomosis. The uterine laceration was repaired. Although all the viscera and the structures along the trajectory can be harmed, pelvic gunshot wounds have the potential to inflict serious injury. Nongravid uterine traumas are a unique occurrence, and proper care requires an understanding of lesion grading. Finding the gynecological lesion in female patients is essential to receiving the best care and protecting the reproductive system.

The fallacy of a roadmap computed tomography after an abdominal gunshot wound: A road that leads to nowhere

BACKGROUND

The 2019 Western Trauma Association guidelines recommend an abdominopelvic computed tomography (CTAP) in patients with a question of abdominal penetration after a gunshot wound. However, it is common practice to obtain a CTAP to provide a roadmap for an operation or to potentially alter management even in patients with classic indications for a laparotomy. The hypothesis for this study was that a CTAP for preoperative planning has no value in patients with an abdominal gunshot wound.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study from 2017 to 2022 of patients with an abdominal gunshot wound who had a preoperative CTAP. Data collection included clinical characteristics and CTAP and operative findings. Admission hypotension, abdominal pain and/or peritonitis, evisceration, and a transabdominal trajectory were considered clear indications for laparotomy. Computed tomography and operative findings were compared to determine concordance and if computed tomography altered management.

RESULTS

There were 149 patients included in the study, of which 72.5% had a clear indication for laparotomy. The CTAP findings were concordant with operative findings in 57.0% of patients, while additional injuries were found at laparotomy in 36.2% of patients. Based on CTAP, a negative diagnostic angiogram was performed in three patients (2.0%). Three patients (2.0%) underwent a trial of nonoperative management based on CTAP findings. All underwent laparotomy after a clinical change. Six patients (4.0%) had a nontherapeutic operation; all patients had findings suspicious for either a hollow viscous injury or a vascular injury on preoperative imaging.

CONCLUSION

While a CTAP scan may help to define an intra-abdominal trajectory when the trajectory is unclear, it does not alter management in those with indications for operation. In addition, CTAP missed injuries in a third of patients and contributed to all six nontherapeutic laparotomies. A preoperative CTAP has minimal value in patients who have indications for an operation.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic Test/Criteria; Level IV.

Comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of CT scan with oral and intravenous contrast versus CT scan with intravenous contrast alone in the diagnosis of blunt abdominal traumas

PURPOSE

Abdominal CT scan using oral and intravenous (IV) contrast is helpful in the diagnosis of intra-abdominal injuries. However, the use of oral and IV contrast delays the process of diagnosis and increases the risk of aspiration. It has also been shown that CT scan with IV contrast alone is as helpful as CT scan with oral and IV contrast and rectal CT scan in detecting abdominal injuries. Therefore, the present study aims to prospectively compare the diagnostic value of CT scan with oral and IV contrast versus CT scan with IV contrast alone in the diagnosis of blunt abdominal traumas (BATs).

METHODS

Altogether 123 BAT patients, 60 (48.8%) women and 63 (51.2%) men with the mean age of (40.4 ± 18.7) years who referred to the emergency department of Imam Khomeini Educational and Medical Center in Sari, Iran (a tertiary trauma center in north of Iran) from November 2014 to March 2017 and underwent abdominal CT scans + laparotomy were investigated. Those with penetrating traumas or hemodynamically unstable patients were excluded. The participants were randomly allocated to two groups: abdominal CT scan with oral and IV contrast (n = 63) and CT scan with IV contrast alone (n = 60). No statistically significant difference was found between two groups regarding the hemodynamic parameters, age, gender, injury mechanisms (all p > 0.05). The results of CT scan were compared with that of laparotomy results. The collected data were recorded in SPSS version 22.0 for Windows. Quantitative data were presented as mean and SD.

RESULTS

The sensitivity and specificity of CT scan using oral and IV contrast in the diagnosis of BATs were estimated at 96.48 (95% CI: 90.73-99.92) and 92.67 (95% CI: 89.65-94.88), respectively; while CT scan with IV contrast alone achieved a comparable sensitivity and specificity of 96.6 (95% CI: 87.45-99.42) and 92.84 (95% CI: 89.88-95.00), respectively.

CONCLUSION

CT scan with IV contrast alone can be used to assess visceral injuries in BAT patients with normal hemodynamics to avoid diagnostic delay.

Treatment of a gunshot wound (birdshot) patient with traumatic shock in a hybrid emergency room

Background

Although the Hybrid Emergency Room System (HERS) is a relatively novel method for treating severe trauma patients, there have been few reported cases of gunshot wound patients treated in HERS. Here we report our treatment of a unique gunshot wound case, with shock, in a HERS setting.

Case presentation

A 72-year-old male was transferred to our hospital due to a gunshot wound (GSW). He presented with left chest injuries and vital signs consistent with shock. While resuscitating the patient, including massive blood transfusion and surgery to control the damage, a subsequent computed tomography in HERS revealed the internal distribution of the birdshot and damage to the abdominal organs. Lower lobectomy of the left lung and laparotomy for gastrointestinal repair were performed. After a planned repeat operation and reconstruction of the left chest wall, he was discharged uneventfully.

Conclusions

HERS during resuscitation was useful for helping clinicians not only to find the bullets' distribution and judge the severity of injury caused by the gunshot, but also to develop subsequent therapeutic strategies for rescuing the gunshot wound patient from a life-threatening situation.

Rectal Contrast CT Scans of Limited Utility in Diagnosing Colonic Injuries in Penetrating Trauma: A Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Using rectal contrast computed tomography (CT) to identify traumatic colorectal injuries has become commonplace; however, these injuries remain relatively infrequent findings on CTs obtained for penetrating back and flank trauma. We conducted a meta-analysis to ascertain the efficacy of rectal contrast CT in identifying such injuries in victims penetrating injuries.

METHODS

PubMed and Embase were queried for relevant articles between 1974 and 2022. Review articles, case studies, and non-English manuscripts were excluded. Studies without descriptive CT and operative findings were excluded. Positive scans refer to rectal contrast extravasation. Sensitivity and specificity of rectal contrast CT scans were calculated with aggregated CT findings that were cross-referenced with laparotomy findings.

RESULTS

Only 8 manuscripts representing 506 patients quantified colorectal injuries and specified patients with rectal contrast extravasation. Seven patients with true colorectal injuries had no contrast extravasation on CT. There was one true positive scan. Another scan identified contrast extravasation, but laparotomy revealed no colorectal injury. Rectal contrast had sensitivity of 12.5%, specificity 99.8%, positive predictive value (PPV) 50%, negative predictive value (NPV) 99%, and a false negative rate of 88% in identifying colonic injuries.

DISCUSSION

The summation of 8 manuscripts suggest that the addition of rectal contrast in identifying colonic and rectal injuries may be of limited utility given its poor sensitivity and may be unnecessary. In its absence, subtle clues such as hematomas, extraluminal air, IV-dye extravasation, and trajectory may be additional indicators of injury. Further investigations are required to demonstrate a true benefit for the addition of rectal contrast.

Diagnostic performance of triple-contrast versus single-contrast multi-detector computed tomography for the evaluation of penetrating bowel injury

PURPOSE

Selecting groups of low-risk penetrating trauma patients to forego laparotomy can be challenging. The presence of bowel injury may prevent non-operative management. Optimal CT technique to detect bowel injury related to penetrating injury is controversial. Our goal is to compare the diagnostic performance of triple-contrast (oral, rectal, and IV) against IV contrast-only CT, for the detection of bowel injury from penetrating abdominopelvic trauma, using surgical diagnosis as the reference standard.

METHODS

Nine hundred ninety-seven patients who underwent CT for penetrating torso trauma at a single institution between 2009 and 2016 in our HIPPA-compliant and institutional review board-approved retrospective cohort study. A total of 143 patients, including 15 females and 123 males underwent a pre-operative CT, followed by exploratory laparotomy. Of these, 56 patients received triple-contrast CT. CT examinations were independently reviewed by two radiologists, blinded to surgical outcome and clinical presentation. Results were stratified by contrast type and injury mechanism and were compared based upon diagnostic performance indicators of sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and positive predictive value. Area under the receiving operating characteristics curves were analyzed for determination of diagnostic accuracy.

RESULTS

Bowel injury was present in 45 out of 143 patients (10 on triple-contrast group and 35 on IV contrast-only group). Specificity and accuracy were higher with triple-contrast CT (98% specific, 97-99% accurate) compared to IV contrast-only CT (66% specific, 78-79% accurate). Sensitivity was highest with IV contrast-only CT (91% sensitive) compared with triple-contrast CT (75% sensitive), although this difference was not statistically significant. Triple-contrast technique increased diagnostic accuracy for both radiologists regardless of mechanism of injury.

CONCLUSION

In our retrospective single-institution cohort study, triple-contrast MDCT had greater accuracy, specificity, and positive predictive values when compared to IV contrast-only CT in evaluating for bowel injury from penetrating wounds.

Diagnostic performance of CT and the use of GI contrast material for detection of hollow viscus injury after penetrating abdominal trauma. Experience from a level 1 Nordic trauma center

BACKGROUND

Use of gastrointestinal (GI) contrast material for computed tomography (CT) diagnosis of hollow viscus injury (HVI) after penetrating abdominal trauma is still controversial.

PURPOSE

To assess the sensitivity of CT and GI contrast material use in detecting HVI after penetrating abdominal trauma.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis (2013-2016) of patients with penetrating abdominal trauma. Data from the local trauma registry, medical records, and imaging from PACS were reviewed. CT and surgical findings were compared.

RESULTS

Of 636 patients with penetrating trauma, 177 (163 men, 14 women) had abdominal trauma (mean age 34 years, age range 16-88 years): 155/177 (85%) were imaged with CT on arrival; 128/155 (83%) were stab wounds and 21/155 (14%) were gunshot wounds; 47/155 (30%) had emergent surgery after CT. Two patients were imaged using oral, rectal and i.v. contrast; 23 with rectal and i.v. contrast; and 22 with i.v. contrast only. Surgery revealed HVI in 26 patients. CT had an overall sensitivity 69.2%, specificity 90.5%, PPV 90.0%, and NPV 70.4%. CT with oral and/or rectal contrast (n = 25) had sensitivity 66.7%, specificity 71.4%, PPV 85.7%, and NPV 45.5%. CT with i.v. contrast only (n = 22) had 75% sensitivity, 100% specificity, PPV 100%, and NPV 87.5%. No statistically significant difference was found between sensitivity of CT with GI contrast material and i.v. contrast only (P = 1).

CONCLUSION

Stab wounds were the most common cause of penetrating abdominal trauma. CT had 69.2% sensitivity and 90.5% specificity in detecting HVI. CT with GI contrast had similar sensitivity as CT with i.v. contrast only.

Use of Enteric Contrast Material for Abdominopelvic CT in Penetrating Traumatic Injury in Adults: Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND. Scarce evidence exists on the diagnostic benefit of enteric contrast administration for abdominopelvic CT performed in the setting of penetrating trauma. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of CT using enteric contrast material with that of CT not using enteric contrast material in penetrating traumatic abdominopelvic injury in adults. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION. A protocol was registered a priori (PROSPERO CRD42019139613). MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched until June 25, 2019. Studies were included that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of abdominopelvic CT either with or without enteric (oral and/or rectal) contrast material in patients presenting with penetrating traumatic injury. Relevant study data metrics and risk of bias were assessed. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression modeling were performed to assess and compare diagnostic accuracies. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS. From an initial sample of 829 studies, 12 studies were included that reported on 1287 patients with penetrating injury (389 with confirmed bowel, mesenteric, or other abdominopelvic organ injury). The enteric contrast material group (seven studies; 506 patients; 124 patients with confirmed penetrating injury) showed a sensitivity of 83.8% (95% CI, 73.7-90.5%) and specificity of 93.8% (95% CI, 83.6-97.8%). The group without enteric contrast administration (six studies; 781 patients; 265 patients with confirmed penetrating injury) showed a sensitivity of 93.0% (95% CI, 86.8-96.4%) and a specificity of 90.3% (95% CI, 81.4-95.2%). No statistically significant difference was identified for sensitivity (p = .07) or specificity (p = .37) between the groups with and without enteric contrast material according to meta-regression. Nine of 12 studies showed risk of bias in at least one QUADAS-2 domain (most frequently limited reporting of blinding of radiologists or lack of blinding of radiologists, insufficient clinical follow-up for the reference standard, and limited reporting of sampling methods). CONCLUSION. The use of enteric contrast material for CT does not provide a significant diagnostic benefit for penetrating traumatic injury. CLINICAL IMPACT. Eliminating enteric contrast administration for CT in penetrating traumatic injury can prevent delays in imaging and surgery and reduce cost.

Imaging evaluation of diaphragmatic injuries: Improving interpretation accuracy

Diaphragmatic Injuries (DIs) remain a challenging diagnosis with potential catastrophic delayed complications. A high degree of suspicion in every case of severe blunt thoracoabdominal trauma or penetrating thoracoabdominal injury is essential. This review will present the evidence and controversies on this topic providing a practical tutorial for radiologists hoping to improve their interpretive accuracy for both blunt and penetrating DIs. The imaging signs of diaphragmatic injuries will be explained with emphasis on multidetector CT. Diagnostic pitfalls, available protocols and other issues will be presented.

Diagnosis of diaphragm injuries using modern 256-slice CT scanners: too early to abandon operative exploration

Background

Missed injury of the diaphragm may result in hernia formation, enteric strangulation, and death. Compounding the problem, diaphragmatic injuries are rare and difficult to diagnose with standard imaging. As such, for patients with high suspicion of injury, operative exploration remains the gold standard for diagnosis. As no current data currently exist, we sought to perform a pragmatic evaluation of the diagnostic ability of 256-slice multidetector CT scanners for diagnosing diaphragmatic injuries after trauma.

Methods

A retrospective review of trauma patients from 2011 to 2018 was performed at an American College of Surgeons-verified level 1 trauma center to identify the diagnostic accuracy of CT scan for acute diaphragm injury. All patients undergoing abdominal operation were eligible for inclusion. Two separate levels of CT scan technology, 64-slice and 256-slice, were used during this time period. The prospective imaging reports were reviewed for the diagnosis of diaphragm injury and the results confirmed with the operative record. Injuries were graded using operative description per the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma guidelines.

Results

One thousand and sixty-eight patients underwent operation after preoperative CT scan. Acute diaphragm injury was identified intraoperatively in 14.7%. Most with diaphragmatic injury underwent 64-slice CT (134 of 157, 85.4%). Comparing patients receiving 64-slice or 256-slice CT scan, there was no difference in the side of injury (left side 57.5% vs. 69.6%, p=0.43) or median injury grade (3 (3, 3) vs. 3 (2, 3), p=0.65). Overall sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of the 256-slice CT were similar to the 64-slice CT (56.5% vs. 45.5%, 93.7% vs. 98.1%, and 89.0% vs. 90.2%).

Discussion

The new 256-slice multidetector CT scanner fails to sufficiently improve diagnostic accuracy over the previous technology. Patients with suspicion of diaphragm injury should undergo operative intervention.

Level of evidence

I, diagnostic test or criteria.

Accuracy of Computed Tomography in Diagnosis of Intra-abdominal Injuries in Stable Patients With Anterior Abdominal Stab Wounds: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Workup for patients presenting to the emergency department (ED) following an anterior abdominal stab wound (AASW) has been debated since the 1960s. Experts agree that patients with peritonitis, evisceration, or hemodynamic instability should undergo immediate laparotomy (LAP); however, workup of stable, asymptomatic or nonperitoneal patients is not clearly defined.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to evaluate the accuracy of computed tomography of abdomen and pelvis (CTAP) for diagnosis of intraabdominal injuries requiring therapeutic laparotomy (THER-LAP) in ED patients with AASW. Is a negative CT scan without a period of observation sufficient to safely discharge a hemodynamically stable, asymptomatic AASW patient?

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus from their inception until May 2017 for studies on ED patients with AASW. We defined the reference standard test as LAP for patients who were managed surgically and inpatient observation in those who were managed nonoperatively. In those who underwent LAP, THER-LAP was considered as disease positive. We used the Quality Assessment Tool for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) to evaluate the risk of bias and assess the applicability of the included studies. We attempted to compute the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) using a random-effects model with MetaDiSc software and calculate testing and treatment thresholds for CT scan applying the Pauker and Kassirer model.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included encompassing 575 patients. The weighted prevalence of THER-LAP was 34.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 30.5%-38.2%). Studies had variable quality and the inclusion criteria were not uniform. The operating characteristics of CT scan were as follows: sensitivity = 50% to 100%, specificity = 39% to 97%, LR+ = 1.0 to 15.7, and LR- = 0.07 to 1.0. The high heterogeneity (I²  > 75%) of the operating characteristics of CT scan prevented pooling of the data and therefore the testing and treatment thresholds could not be estimated.

DISCUSSION

The articles revealed a high prevalence (8.7%, 95% CI = 6.1%-12.2%) of injuries requiring THER-LAP in patients with a negative CT scan and almost half (47%, 95% CI = 30%-64%) of those injuries involved the small bowel.

CONCLUSIONS

In stable AASW patients, a negative CT scan alone without an observation period is inadequate to exclude significant intraabdominal injuries.

Emergency department imaging of pediatric trauma patients during combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan

BACKGROUND

Military hospitals in Iraq and Afghanistan treated children with traumatic injuries during the recent conflicts. Diagnostic imaging is an integral component of trauma management; however, few published data exist on its use in the wartime pediatric population.

OBJECTIVE

The authors describe the emergency department (ED) utilization of radiology resources for pediatric trauma patients in Iraq and Afghanistan.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We queried the Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DODTR) for all pediatric patients admitted to military fixed-facility hospitals in Iraq and Afghanistan from January 2007 to January 2016. We retrieved ED data on ultrasound (US), radiographic and computed tomography (CT) studies.

RESULTS

During the study period, there were 3,439 pediatric encounters, which represented 8.0% of all military hospital trauma admissions. ED providers obtained a total of 12,376 imaging studies on 2,920 (84.9%) children. Of the 12,376 imaging studies, 1,341 (10.8%) were US, 4,868 (39.3%) were radiographic and 6,167 (49.8%) were CT exams. Most children undergoing radiographic evaluation were boys (77.8%) and located in Afghanistan (70.4%), and they sustained penetrating injuries (68.0%). Children who underwent imaging had higher composite injury severity scores in comparison to those who did not undergo imaging (10 versus 9).

CONCLUSION

Military health care providers frequently utilized radiographic studies in the evaluation of pediatric trauma casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. Deployed military hospitals that treat children would benefit from dedicated pediatric-specific imaging training and protocols.

The breadth of the diaphragm: updates in embryogenesis and role of imaging

The diaphragm is an unique skeletal muscle separating the thoracic and abdominal cavities with a primary function of enabling respiration. When abnormal, whether by congenital or acquired means, the consequences for patients can be severe. Abnormalities that affect the diaphragm are often first detected on chest radiographs as an alteration in position or shape. Cross-sectional imaging studies, primarily CT and occasionally MRI, can depict structural defects, intrinsic and adjacent pathology in greater detail. Fluoroscopy is the primary radiologic means of evaluating diaphragmatic motion, though MRI and ultrasound also are capable of this function. This review provides an update on diaphragm embryogenesis and discusses current imaging of various abnormalities, including the emerging role of three-dimensional printing in planning surgical repair of diaphragmatic derangements.

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.

Colon Trauma: Evidence-Based Practices

Colon injury is not uncommon and occurs in about a half of patients with penetrating hollow viscus injuries. Despite major advances in the operative management of penetrating colon wounds, there remains discussion regarding the appropriate treatment of destructive colon injuries, with a significant amount of scientific evidence supporting segmental resection with primary anastomosis in most patients without comorbidities or large transfusion requirement. Although literature is sparse concerning the management of blunt colon injuries, some studies have shown operative decision based on an algorithm originally defined for penetrating wounds should be considered in blunt colon injuries. The optimal management of colonic injuries in patients requiring damage control surgery (DCS) also remains controversial. Studies have recently reported that there is no increased risk compared with patients treated without DCS if fascial closure is completed on the first reoperation, or that a management algorithm for penetrating colon wounds is probably efficacious for colon injuries in the setting of DCS as well.

Abdominal Trauma Revisited

Although abdominal trauma has been described since antiquity, formal laparotomies for trauma were not performed until the 1800s. Even with the introduction of general anesthesia in the United States during the years 1842 to 1846, laparotomies for abdominal trauma were not performed during the Civil War. The first laparotomy for an abdominal gunshot wound in the United States was finally performed in New York City in 1884. An aggressive operative approach to all forms of abdominal trauma till the establishment of formal trauma centers (where data were analyzed) resulted in extraordinarily high rates of nontherapeutic laparotomies from the 1880s to the 1960s. More selective operative approaches to patients with abdominal stab wounds (1960s), blunt trauma (1970s), and gunshot wounds (1990s) were then developed. Current adjuncts to the diagnosis of abdominal trauma when serial physical examinations are unreliable include the following: 1) diagnostic peritoneal tap/lavage, 2) surgeon-performed ultrasound examination; 3) contrast-enhanced CT of the abdomen and pelvis; and 4) diagnostic laparoscopy. Operative techniques for injuries to the liver, spleen, duodenum, and pancreas have been refined considerably since World War II. These need to be emphasized repeatedly in an era when fewer patients undergo laparotomy for abdominal trauma. Finally, abdominal trauma damage control is a valuable operative approach in patients with physiologic exhaustion and multiple injuries.

Early CT scanning in the emergency department in patients with penetrating injuries: does it affect outcome?

Background

To be a level I trauma center in the Netherlands a computed tomography (CT) scanner in the emergency department (ED) is considered desirable, as it is presumed that this optimizes the diagnostic process and that therapy can be directed based on these findings. Aim of this study was to assess the effects of implementing a CT scanner in the ED on outcomes in patients with penetrating injuries.

Methods

In this retrospective descriptive study, patients with penetrating injuries (shot and/or stab wounds), presented between 2000 and 2014 were analysed using the hospital’s electronic database, and data from the West Netherlands trauma registry and the financial department.

Results

405 patients were included: performing a CT scan upon arrival increased significantly from 26.7 to 67.0% (p = 0.00) after implementation of a CT scanner in the ED, with the mean cost of a CT being 96.85 euros. Overall mortality decreased from 6.9 to 3.7%, although not statistically significant. Intensive care unit admission (ICU-admission) and median hospital length of stay (H-LOS) decreased from 30.9 to 24.5% resp. 3.2 to 1.8 days (p ≤ 0.05). Overall mortality, adjusted for injury severity score (ISS), revised trauma score (RTS), and types of injuries, did not change significantly.

Conclusion

Patients with penetrating injuries more often received a CT scan on admission after implementation of a CT scanner in the ED. Early CT scanning is useful since it significantly reduces ICU-admissions and decreases H-LOS. It is a cheap and non-invasive diagnostic tool with significant clinical impact, resulting in directed treatment, and improvement of outcomes.

The diagnostic yield of commonly used investigations in pelvic gunshot wounds

BACKGROUND

Patients who sustain pelvic gunshot wounds (GSWs) are at significant risk for injury owing to the density of pelvic structures. Currently, the optimal workup for pelvic GSWs is unclear. The aims of this study were to determine the diagnostic yield of tests commonly used in the investigation of pelvic GSWs and to develop a diagnostic algorithm.

METHODS

All patients 15 years or older presenting to the Los Angeles County + University of Southern California Medical Center (January 2008 to February 2015) who sustained one or more pelvic GSWs were retrospectively identified. Patients' demographics, clinical assessment, investigations, procedures, and outcomes were abstracted. The diagnostic yield of computed tomographic (CT) scan, cystogram, gross inspection of the urine, urinalysis, endoscopy, and digital rectal examination (DRE) in the detection of clinically significant injuries to the pelvis were calculated.

RESULTS

Three hundred seventy patients were included. Patients with peritonitis, hemodynamic instability, an unevaluable abdomen, or evisceration were taken to the operating room for immediate laparotomy (n = 138 [37.3%]). All others (n = 232 [62.7%]) underwent CT scan and further investigations as indicated. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the investigations were CT scan: 1.00, 0.98, 0.74, and 1.00; cystogram: 1.00 for all parameters; gross inspection of the urine: 1.00 for all parameters; urinalysis: 1.00, 0.71, 0.17, and 1.00; endoscopy: 1.00, 0.82, 0.75, and 1.00; and DRE: 0.77, 0.99, 0.77, and 0.99.

CONCLUSION

In the workup of pelvic GSWs, patients with hemodynamic instability, peritonitis, evisceration, or an unevaluable abdomen should undergo immediate laparotomy, while all others should undergo CT scan. Computed tomography-positive patients should be managed for their injuries. If the CT is negative, the likelihood of a clinically significant injury is very low. If the CT is equivocal for rectal or bladder injury, endoscopy or cystogram should be used to guide definitive management. There is no role for routine urinalysis or DRE. Further prospective validation of these findings is warranted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic study, level III; therapeutic study, level IV.

Penetrating Injuries to the Abdomen: a Single Institutional Experience with Review of Literature

Penetrating abdominal trauma forms an important component of surgical emergencies, most of the victims being young aged in the prime of their life. Over the past century, the diagnosis and management of this common problem has seen drastic changes, finally reaching the destination of selective approach. We present our experience in the management of this group of patients in the rural setup. This is a prospective observational study done at our hospital between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2015 including patients who presented with penetrating abdominal injury. The clinical presentation, imaging features, diagnosis, management, and complications of all these patients are analyzed. The mean age was 33.5 years with majority being males. Homicidal stab injuries accounted for most of the injuries (62.5 %). Forty-eight patients underwent laparotomy, and among which, the procedure was therapeutic in 36 patients. Peritoneal penetration was the best predictor of a therapeutic laparotomy with a high sensitivity and positive predictive value (100 and 80 %, respectively). The small intestine was the most commonly injured organ. The mean postoperative stay was 8.25 days, and there was no mortality. Though the management of these patients should aim at minimizing the rate of negative laparotomies, this should not be done at the expense of delayed diagnosis and treatment. Diagnostic laparoscopy may avoid unnecessary laparotomies; however, it requires adequate skills in laparoendoscopy. Management is best tailor made for each individual based on the nature of injury, findings at presentation, and the organ injured.

Analysis of natural history of the diaphragmatic injury on the right in mice

OBJECTIVE

to evaluate natural evolution of right diaphragmatic injury after the surgical removal of a portion from hemi diaphragm.

METHODS

the animals were submitted to a surgical removal of portion from right hemi diaphragm by median laparotomy. The sample consists of 42 animals being 2 animals from pilot project and 40 operated animals. And the variables of the study were herniation, liver protection, healing, persistent diaphragm injury, evaluation of 16 channels tomography and the variables "heart rate" and "weight".

RESULTS

we analyzed 40 mice, we had two post-operative deaths; we had 17 animals in this group suffered from herniation (42.5%) and 23 animals didn't suffer from herniation (57.5%). Analyzing the tomography as image method in the evaluation of diaphragmatic hernia, we had as a method with good sensitivity (78.6%), good specificity (90.9%), and good accuracy (86.1%) when compared to necropsy.

CONCLUSION

there was a predominance of healing of right hemi diaphragm, the size of initial injury didn't have influence on occurrence of the liver protection or hernia in mice.

Multidetector CT for Penetrating Torso Trauma: State of the Art

The use of computed tomography (CT) for hemodynamically stable victims of penetrating torso trauma continues to increase but remains less singular to the work-up than in blunt trauma. Research in this area has focused on the incremental benefits of CT within the context of evolving diagnostic algorithms and in conjunction with techniques such as laparoscopy, endoscopy, and angiographic intervention. This review centers on the current state of multidetector CT as a triage tool for penetrating torso trauma and the primacy of trajectory evaluation in diagnosis, while emphasizing diagnostic challenges that have lingered despite tremendous technological advances since CT was first used in this setting 3 decades ago. As treatment strategies have also changed considerably over the years in parallel with advances in CT, current management implications of organ-specific injuries depicted at multidetector CT are also discussed.

Selective Nonoperative Management of Abdominal Stab Wounds

Stab wounds (SW) to the abdomen traditionally require urgent exploration when associated with shock, evisceration, or peritonitis. Hemodynamically stable patients without evisceration may benefit from serial exams even with peritonitis. We compared patients taken directly to the operating room with abdominal SWs (ED-OR) to those admitted for serial exams (ADMIT). We retrospectively reviewed hemodynamically stable patients presenting with any abdominal SW between January 2000 and December 2012. Exclusions included evidence of evisceration, systolic blood pressure ≤110 mm Hg, or blood transfusion. NON-THER was defined as abdominal exploration without identification of intra-abdominal injury requiring repair. Of 142 patients included, 104 were ED-OR and 38 were ADMIT. When ED-OR was compared with ADMIT, abdominal Abbreviated Injury Score was higher (2.4 vs 2.1; P = 0.01) and hospital length of stay was longer (4.8 vs 3.3 days; P = 0.04). Incidence of NON-THER was higher in ED-OR cohort (71% vs 13%; P ≤ 0.001). In a regression model, ED-OR was a predictor of NON-THER (adjusted odds ratio 16.6; P < 0.001). One patient from ED-OR expired after complications from NON-THER. There were no deaths in the ADMIT group. For those patients with abdominal SWs who present with systolic blood pressure ≥110 mm Hg, no blood product transfusion in the emergency department and lacking evisceration, admission for serial abdominal exams may be preferred regardless of abdominal exam.

MDCT of complications and common postoperative findings following penetrating torso trauma

Victims of penetrating torso trauma often present with findings that necessitate emergent exploratory laparotomy, precluding scanning with multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) until the postoperative period. This article reviews the wide range of complications as well as expected findings that may be encountered at MDCT performed postoperatively. Little has been written to guide the radiologist in interpreting these often complex and potentially confusing studies.

Selective non-operative management of penetrating liver injuries at a UK tertiary referral centre

INTRODUCTION

Selective non-operative management (SNOM) of penetrating abdominal injuries has increasingly been applied in North America in the last decade. However, there is less acceptance of SNOM among UK surgeons and there are limited data on UK practice. We aimed to review our management of penetrating liver injuries and, specifically, the application of SNOM.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of patients presenting with penetrating liver injuries between June 2005 and November 2013.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients sustained liver injuries due to penetrating trauma. The vast majority (97%) were due to stab wounds. The median injury severity score was 14 and a quarter of patients had concomitant thoracic injuries. Twelve patients (39%) underwent immediate surgery owing to haemodynamic instability, evisceration, retained weapon or diffuse peritonism. Nineteen patients were stable to undergo computed tomography (CT), ten of whom were selected subsequently for SNOM. SNOM was successful in eight cases. Both patients who failed SNOM had arterial phase contrast extravasation evident on their initial CT. Angioembolisation was not employed in either case. All major complications and the only death occurred in the operatively managed group. No significant complications of SNOM were identified and there were no transfusions in the non-operated group. Those undergoing operative management had longer lengths of stay than those undergoing SNOM (median stay 6.5 vs 3.0 days, p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

SNOM is a safe strategy for patients with penetrating liver injuries in a UK setting. Patient selection is critical and CT is a vital triage tool. Arterial phase contrast extravasation may predict failure of SNOM and adjunctive angioembolisation should be considered for this group.

Mechanisms of injury and CT findings in bowel and mesenteric trauma

Bowel and mesenteric injuries are relatively uncommon but associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Early recognition is crucial, and multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) now has a central role in the evaluation of patients with a history of trauma. In this review, we describe the MDCT appearances of bowel and mesenteric injuries with reference to findings at surgery. Emphasis is placed on the importance of an understanding of mechanism of injury when interpreting CT findings following abdominal trauma.

The principles of non-operative management of penetrating abdominal injury

The selective non-operative management of penetrating abdominal injury is gaining increasing acceptance. Recognition of the morbidity, mortality, and cost associated with non-therapeutic exploration has provided the impetus for selective management. This review describes the principles of, and evidence for, this strategy. Selective management is widely accepted for the treatment of stab wounds, but the selective management of ballistic injuries, particularly in the military setting, remains contentious. As a result, there are marked variations in the application of this practice. Computed tomography is a prerequisite for the selective management of ballistic injuries, and possibly also stab wounds. Failure of non-operative management, following stab wounds or gunshot wounds, is invariably apparent within 24 hours.

Do patients with penetrating abdominal stab wounds require laparotomy?

BACKGROUND

The optimal management of hemodynamically stable asymptomatic patients with anterior abdominal stab wounds (AASWs) remains controversial. The goal is to identify and treat injuries in a safe cost-effective manner. Common evaluation strategies are local wound exploration (LWE), diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL), serial clinical assessment (SCAs) and computed tomography (CT) imaging. Making a decision about the right time to operate on a patient with a penetrating abdominal stab wound, especially those who have visceral evisceration, is a continuing challenge.

OBJECTIVES

Until the year 2010, our strategy was emergency laparotomy in patients with penetrating anterior fascia and those with visceral evisceration. This survey was conducted towards evaluating the results of emergency laparotomy. So, better management can be done in patients with penetrating abdominal stab wounds.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective cross-sectional study was performed on patients with abdominal penetrating trauma who referred to Al- Zahra hospital in Isfahan, Iran from October 2000 to October 2010. It should be noted that patients with abdominal blunt trauma, patients under 14 years old, those with lateral abdomen penetrating trauma and patients who had unstable hemodynamic status were excluded from the study. Medical records of patients were reviewed and demographic and clinical data were collected for all patients including: age, sex, mechanism of trauma and the results of LWE and laparotomy. Data were analyzed with PASW v.20 software. All data were expressed as mean ± SD. The distribution of nominal variables was compared using the Chi-squared test. Also, diagnostic index for LWE were calculated. A two-sided P value less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.

RESULTS

During the 10 year period of the study, 1100 consecutive patients with stab wounds were admitted to Al-Zahra hospital Isfahan, Iran. In total, about 150 cases had penetrating traumas in the anterior abdomen area. Sixty-three (42%) patients were operated immediately due to shock, visceral evisceration or aspiration of blood via a nasogastric tube on admission. Organ injury was seen in 78% of patients with visceral evisceration. Among these 87 cases, 29 patients' (33.3%) anterior fascia was not penetrated in LWE. So, they were observed for several hours and discharged from the hospital without surgery. While for the remaining 58 patients (66.6%), whose LWE detected penetration of anterior abdominal fascia, laparotomy was performed which showed visceral injuries in 11 (18%) cases.

CONCLUSIONS

All in all, 82 percent of laparotomies in patients with penetrated anterior abdominal fascia without visceral evisceration, who had no signs of peritoneal irritation, were negative. So, we recommended further evaluation in these patients. However, visceral evisceration is an indication for exploratory laparotomy, since in our study; the majority of patients had organ damages.

Penetrating diaphragmatic injury: accuracy of 64-section multidetector CT with trajectography

PURPOSE

To (a) determine the diagnostic performance of 64-section multidetector computed tomography (CT) trajectography for penetrating diaphragmatic injury (PDI), (b) determine the diagnostic performance of classic signs of diaphragmatic injury at 64-section multidetector CT, and (c) compare the performance of these signs with that of trajectography.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This HIPAA-compliant retrospective study had institutional review board approval, with a waiver of the informed consent requirement. All patients who had experienced penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma, who had undergone preoperative 64-section multidetector CT of the chest and abdomen, and who had surgical confirmation of findings during a 2.5-year period were included in this study (25 male patients, two female patients; mean age, 32.6 years). After a training session, four trauma radiologists unaware of the surgical outcome independently reviewed all CT studies and scored the probability of PDI on a six-point scale. Collar sign, dependent viscera sign, herniation, contiguous injury on both sides of the diaphragm, discontinuous diaphragm sign, and transdiaphragmatic trajectory were evaluated for sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV). Accuracies were determined and receiver operating characteristic curves were analyzed.

RESULTS

Sensitivities for detection of PDI by using 64-section multidetector CT with postprocessing software ranged from 73% to 100%, specificities ranged from 50% to 92%, NPVs ranged from 71% to 100%, PPVs ranged from 68% to 92%, and accuracies ranged from 70% to 89%. Discontinuous diaphragm, herniation, collar, and dependent viscera signs were highly specific (92%-100%) but nonsensitive (0%-60%). Contiguous injury was generally more sensitive (80%-93% vs 73%-100%) but less specific (50%-67% vs 83%-92%) than transdiaphragmatic trajectory when patients with multiple entry wounds were included in the analysis. Transdiaphragmatic trajectory was a much more sensitive sign of PDI than previously reported (73%-100% vs 36%), with NPVs ranging from 71% to 100% and PPVs ranging from 85% to 92%.

CONCLUSION

Sixty-four-section multidetector CT trajectography facilitates the identification of transdiaphragmatic trajectory, which accurately rules in PDI when identified. Contiguous injury remains a highly sensitive sign, even when patients with multiple injuries are considered, and is useful for excluding PDI.

[A study of the predictive value of the primary review and complementary examinations in assessing the need for surgery in patients with stab wounds in the torso]

INTRODUCTION

Observation is the gold standard for stable patients with stab wounds. The aim of the study was to analyse the value of the primary review and complementary examinations to predict the need for surgery in stab wound patients in order to decrease observation times.

METHODS

A retrospective study of stab wound patients recorded in a database. Clinical and diagnostic workup parameters were analysed. The main variable was the need for surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 198 patients were included between 2006 and 2009, with a mean injury severity score (ISS) of 7.8±7, and 0.5% mortality. More than half (52%) of the patients suffered multiple wounds. Wound distribution was 23% neck, 46% thorax and 31% abdomen. Surgery was required in 73 (37%) patients (59% immediate, 27% delayed and 14% delayed). The need for surgery was associated with a lower revised trauma score (RTS), evisceration, active bleeding, and fascial penetration. Initial and control haemoglobin levels were significantly lower in patients who required surgery. A positive computerised tomography (CT) scan was associated with surgery. There were complications in 18% of patients, and they were more frequent in those who underwent surgery. There was no difference in complication rates between immediate and delayed (P=.72). Surgery was finally required in 10% of the patients with no abnormalities in the primary review and diagnostic workup, and 6% of those developed complications.

CONCLUSION

None of the parameters studied could individually assess the need for surgery. Primary and secondary reviews were the most important diagnostic tool, but CT scan should be used more often. An observation period of 24 hours is recommended in torso penetrating wounds.

Negative Laparotomy in Trauma: Are We Getting Better?

One of the trauma surgeons’ daily challenges is the balancing act between negative laparotomy and missed abdominal injury. We opted to characterize the indications that prompted a negative trauma exploratory laparotomy and the rate of missed abdominal injuries in an effort to optimize patient selection for laparotomy. At the Los Angeles County + University of Southern California Medical Center, negative laparotomies and missed injuries are consecutively captured and reviewed at the weekly mortality + morbidity (MM) conferences. All written reports of the MM meetings from January 2003 to December 2008 were reviewed to identify all patients who underwent a negative laparotomy or a laparotomy as a result of an initially missed abdominal injury. Over the 6-year study period, a total of 1871 laparotomies were performed, of which 73 (3.9%) were negative. The rate of missed injuries requiring subsequent laparotomy was 1.3 per cent (25 of 1871). The negative laparotomy rate and the rate of missed injuries did not vary significantly during the study period (2.8 to 4.7%, P = 0.875, and 0.7 to 2.9%, P = 0.689). Penetrating mechanisms accounted for the majority of negative laparotomies (58.9%). The primary indication for negative laparotomy was peritonitis (54.8%) followed by hypotension (28.8%) and suspicious computed tomographic scan findings (27.4%). The complication rate after negative laparotomy was 14.5 per cent, and of these, 10.1 per cent were directly related to the procedure. A low but steady rate of negative laparotomies and missed abdominal injuries after trauma remains. Negative laparotomies and missed abdominal injuries when they occur are still associated with significant complication rates and a prolonged length of stay.

Nonoperative management of pelvic gunshot wounds

BACKGROUND

The nonoperative management (NOM) of abdominal gunshot injuries is gradually becoming the standard of care. Patients with pelvic gunshot injuries constitute a subgroup of patients at high risk of visceral injury. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and safety of the selective NOM of pelvic gunshot injuries.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This prospective study was performed from April 1, 2004, to November 30, 2008. Patients with pelvic gunshot injuries underwent laparotomy for peritonitis, hemodynamic instability, rectal bleeding, and urologic injuries. Patients with benign abdominal findings with hematuria underwent computed tomography scanning with intravenous contrast. Stable patients with no tenderness or minimal tenderness confined to the wound or wound tract underwent serial abdominal examination. Outcome parameters included need for delayed laparotomy, complications, length of hospital stay, and survival.

RESULTS

During the 54-month study period, 239 patients with pelvic gunshot injuries were treated. One hundred seventy-six (73.6%) patients underwent immediate laparotomy, whereas 63 (26.4%) were selected for NOM. The nontherapeutic laparotomy rate was 4.5% in the former group, and no patient required delayed laparotomy in the latter group. Also, 3 patients with minor extraperitoneal bladder injuries were successfully managed nonoperatively. Associated injuries included mostly fractures to the bony pelvis including the iliac blade (19), pubic ramii (3), and acetabulum (3). The mean hospital stay was 2.2 (range 1-8) days in the nonoperative group of patients. There were no deaths.

CONCLUSIONS

Selective NOM of pelvic gunshot injuries is a feasible, safe, and effective alternative to routine laparotomy.

Practice management guidelines for selective nonoperative management of penetrating abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

: Although there is no debate that patients with peritonitis or hemodynamic instability should undergo urgent laparotomy after penetrating injury to the abdomen, it is also clear that certain stable patients without peritonitis may be managed without operation. The practice of deciding which patients may not need surgery after penetrating abdominal wounds has been termed selective management. This practice has been readily accepted during the past few decades with regard to abdominal stab wounds; however, controversy persists regarding gunshot wounds. Because of this, the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma Practice Management Guidelines Committee set out to develop guidelines to analyze which patients may be managed safely without laparotomy after penetrating abdominal trauma. A secondary goal of this committee was to find which diagnostic adjuncts are useful in the determination of the need for surgical exploration.

METHODS

: A search of the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health MEDLINE database was performed using PubMed (www.pubmed.gov).

RESULTS

: The search retrieved English language articles concerning selective management of penetrating abdominal trauma and related topics from the years 1960 to 2007. These articles were then used to construct this set of practice management guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

: Although the rate of nontherapeutic laparotomies after penetrating wounds to the abdomen should be minimized, this should never be at the expense of a delay in the diagnosis and treatment of injury. With this in mind, a routine laparotomy is not indicated in hemodynamically stable patients with abdominal stab wounds without signs of peritonitis or diffuse abdominal tenderness. Likewise, it is also not routinely indicated in stable patients with abdominal gunshot wounds if the wounds are tangential and there are no peritoneal signs. Abdominopelvic computed tomography should be considered in patients selected for initial nonoperative management to facilitate initial management decisions. The majority of patients with penetrating abdominal trauma managed nonoperatively may be discharged after 24 hours of observation in the presence of a reliable abdominal examination and minimal to no abdominal tenderness. Diagnostic laparoscopy may be considered as a tool to evaluate diaphragmatic lacerations and peritoneal penetration in an effort to avoid unnecessary laparotomy.

Abdominal computed tomography for diagnosing postoperative lower gastrointestinal tract leaks

BACKGROUND

Computed tomography (CT) is the most readily available imaging tool for diagnosis of postoperative lower gastrointestinal tract (LGIT) leak. The accuracy and sensitivity of CT for diagnosing a leak from a hollow viscous or anastomotic bowel leakage are still not well established. This retrospective study was conducted in order to define the role of CT in this setting.

STUDY DESIGN

The medical records of patients who underwent early relaparotomy (within 30 days) due to LGIT leak following a previous surgery in our department between 1998 and 2006 were reviewed. The ones whose abdominal CTs were done within 72 h prior to the repeated surgery with the aim of ruling out an intraabdominal infection or leak were studied, and the results were compared to the postsurgical findings.

RESULTS

Seventy patients were reoperated shortly following abdominal surgery due to postoperative LGIT leak. Forty-one of them had undergone 45 CT studies within 72 h before reoperation. Another 29 patients underwent a second procedure based on clinical presentation. Reoperation was done after an interval of 7.3 +/- 4.4 days in patients who underwent CT studies and after 4.5 +/- 2.3 days in patients without CTs (p = 0.003). Preoperative CTs identified only 47% of the leaks.

CONCLUSIONS

CT studies on patients shortly after abdominal surgery are not definitive. A negative CT study does not rule out LGIT leak. Clinically based decision making and exploratory relaparotomy still do play a role in those patients with suspicion for LGIT leak.

MDCT diagnosis of penetrating diaphragm injury

The purpose of the study was to determine the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of multidetector CT (MDCT) in detection of diaphragmatic injury following penetrating trauma. Chest and abdominal CT examinations performed preoperatively in 136 patients after penetrating trauma to the torso with injury trajectory in close proximity to the diaphragm were reviewed by radiologists unaware of surgical findings. Signs associated with diaphragmatic injuries in penetrating trauma were noted. These signs were correlated with surgical diagnoses, and their sensitivity and specificity in assisting the diagnosis were calculated. CT confirmed diaphragmatic injury in 41 of 47 injuries (sensitivity, 87.2%), and an intact diaphragm in 71 of 98 patients (specificity, 72.4%). The overall accuracy of MDCT was 77%. The most accurate sign helping the diagnosis was contiguous injury on either side of the diaphragm in single-entry penetrating trauma (sensitivity, 88%; specificity, 82%). Thus MDCT has high sensitivity and good specificity in detecting penetrating diaphragmatic injuries.

The evolution of the diagnostic work-up for stab wounds to the back and flank

BACKGROUND

Stab wounds to the back and flank infrequently cause injuries requiring operative treatment. Triple-contrast CT scan (3CT) has essentially replaced diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) as the primary means of identifying patients who require operative intervention. This study aims to review the evolution of the diagnostic work-up for stab wounds to the back and flank.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective review of haemodynamically stable patients with stab wound to the back or flank treated at a single Level 1 trauma centre over a 10-year period. Diagnostic accuracy of DPL and 3CT screening tests were evaluated against the patient's subsequent clinical course. The elapsed time between emergency department (ED) presentation and test results was recorded and compared.

RESULTS

A total of 177 patients were identified. 76 patients had stab wounds isolated to the back, 90 had stab wounds isolated to the flank and 11 had wounds in both locations. CT ultimately became the predominant initial diagnostic test during the study period. Although less frequently used over time, DPL retained good sensitivity and specificity for injuries requiring operative intervention (92% and 83%, respectively). 3CT identified all injuries requiring laparotomy (100% sensitivity) and had a specificity of 96%. 3CT was a more time-consuming process, with results available at a median of 3:31h after arrival to the ED, as compared to 1:03h for DPL (p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

3CT diagnosed all injuries requiring operative intervention, and its use was associated with a lower rate of non-therapeutic laparotomies. However, average time to diagnosis by 3CT was prolonged compared to DPL. Although 3CT has become the predominant diagnostic test when evaluating patients with stab wounds to the back and flank at our institution, efforts to further expedite the diagnostic work-up are necessary.

Penetrating neck injuries

The modern approach to patients presenting with penetrating injuries to the neck requires the cautious integration of clinical findings and appropriate imaging studies for formulation of an effective, safe, and minimally invasive modality of treatment. The optimal management of these injuries has undergone considerable debate regarding surgical versus nonsurgical treatment approaches. More recent advances in imaging technology continue to evolve, providing more accurate and timely information for the management of these patients. In this article the authors review both historic and recent articles that have formulated the current management of penetrating injuries to the neck.

Evaluation of selective treatment of penetrating abdominal trauma

OBJECTIVE

In penetrating abdominal trauma, diagnostic imaging and the application of selective clinical management may avoid negative celiotomy and improve outcome.

DESIGN

We prospectively observed patients with penetrating abdominal trauma over 15 months and recorded demographics, presentation, imaging, surgical procedure, and outcome. Patients who underwent immediate laparotomy were compared with patients who were observed and/or had a computed tomography (CT) scan. Outcomes of negative versus positive and immediate versus delayed celiotomy were compared. Chi-square and Student t tests were used. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.

SETTING

A level 1 trauma center.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients who presented with penetrating abdominal injury.

RESULTS

In all, 100 consecutive patients (mean age, 32 years) were included (male:female, 91:9; gunshot wound:stab wound, 65:35). Overall, 60 immediate and 10 delayed laparotomies were performed; 30 patients did not undergo surgery. Predictors of immediate celiotomy were hypotension (p = 0.03), anteriorly located entrance wounds (p = 0.0005), and transaxial wounds (p = 0.03). Overall morbidity and mortality was 32% and 2%, respectively. The negative celiotomy rate was 25%. Patients with a positive celiotomy had higher morbidity (p = 0.006) and longer hospital length of stay (p = 0.003) compared with negative celiotomy. A CT scan was employed in 32% of patients, with 100% sensitivity and 94% specificity. Delayed celiotomy (10%) did not adversely impact morbidity (p = 0.70) and was 100% therapeutic, with no deaths.

CONCLUSION

Nonselective immediate celiotomy for penetrating abdominal trauma results in a high rate of unnecessary surgery. Hemodynamically stable patients can safely be observed and/or have contrast CT scans and undergo delayed celiotomy, if indicated. This selective treatment had no adverse effect on patient outcomes and can potentially improve overall outcome.

Selective nonoperative management of penetrating torso injury from combat fragmentation wounds

BACKGROUND

Historically, military surgical doctrine has mandated exploratory laparotomy for all penetrating fragmentation wounds. We hypothesized that stable patients with abdominal fragmentation injuries whose computerized tomography (CT) scans for intraperitoneal or retroperitoneal penetration disclosed nothing abnormal, can be safely observed without therapeutic laparotomy.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied all hemodynamically stable patients with penetrating fragmentation wounds to the back, flank, lower chest, abdomen, and pelvis evaluated by abdominal physical examination (PE), CT, or ultrasound treated during a 6-month period at one combat support hospital. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated comparing each positive test to laparotomy and each negative test to successful nonoperative management.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-five patients met study criteria. Based on CT scans, 85 (59%) patients were managed nonoperatively; 60 (41%) underwent laparotomy. Forty-five of 60 (75%) of laparotomies were therapeutic. CT scan for intraperitoneal or retroperitoneal penetration that disclosed nothing abnormal was 99% predictive of successful nonoperative management. In detecting intra-abdominal injury requiring laparotomy, sensitivity for each method was 30.2% (PE), 11.7% (ultrasound), and 97.8% (CT) (p < 0.05). Specificity was 94.8% (PE), 100% (ultrasound), and 84.8% (CT). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were 0.565 (PE), 0.543 (ultrasound), and 0.929 (CT) (p < 0.0001). All patients with a positive ultrasound (n = 4) underwent therapeutic laparotomy.

CONCLUSION

PE alone was unreliable in stable patients with abdominal fragmentation injuries. The clinical value of ultrasound results was limited, likely because the majority of these stable patients did not have injuries associated with the large accumulation of peritoneal fluid. CT scan safely and effectively analyzed nonoperative management of penetrating abdominal fragmentation injuries and should be the diagnostic study of choice in all stable patients without peritonitis with abdominal, flank, back, or pelvic combat fragmentation wounds.