The validity of abdominal examination in blunt trauma patients with distracting injuries

Predictive parameters for early detection of clinically relevant abdominal trauma in multiple-injury or polytraumatised patients: a retrospective analysis

Diagnosis of relevant organ injury after blunt abdominal injury (AI) in multiple-injury/polytraumatised patients is challenging. AI can be distinguished between injuries of parenchymatous organs (POI) of the upper abdomen (liver, spleen) and bowel and mesenteric injuries (BMI). Still, such injuries may be associated with delays in diagnosis and treatment. The present study aimed to verify laboratory parameters, imaging diagnostics, physical examination and related injuries to predict intraabdominal injuries. This retrospective, single-centre study includes data from multiple-injury/polytraumatised patients between 2005 and 2017. Two main groups were defined with relevant abdominal injury (AI+) and without abdominal injury (AI-). The AI+ group was divided into three subgroups: BMI+, BMI+/POI+, and POI+. Groups were compared in a univariate analysis for significant differences. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine predictors for AI+, BMI+ and POI+. 26.3% (271 of 1032) of the included patients had an abdominal injury. Subgroups were composed of 4.7% (49 of 1032) BMI+, 4.7% (48 of 1032) BMI+/POI+ and 16.8% (174 of 1032) POI+. Pathological abdominal signs had a sensitivity of 48.7% and a specificity of 92.4% for AI+. Transaminases were significantly higher in cases of AI+. Pathological computed tomography (CT) (free fluid, parenchymal damage, Bowel Injury Prediction Score (BIPS), CT Grade > 4) was summarised and had a sensitivity of 94.8%, a specificity of 98%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 94.5% and, negative predictive value (NPV) of 98.2% for AI+. The detected predictors for AI+ were pathological abdominal findings (odds ratio (OR) 3.93), pathological multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) (OR 668.9), alanine (ALAT) ≥ 1.23 µmol/ls (OR 2.35) and associated long bone fractures (OR 3.82). Pathological abdominal signs, pathological MSCT and lactate (LAC) levels ≥ 1.94 mmol/l could be calculated as significant risk factors for BMI+. For POI+ pathological abdominal MSCT, ASAT ≥ 1.73 µmol/ls and concomitant thoracic injuries had significant relevance. The study presents reliable risk factors for abdominal injury and its sub-entities. The predictors can be explained by the anatomy of the trunk and existing studies. Elevated transaminases predicted abdominal injury (AI+) and, specifically, the POI+. The pathological MSCT was the most reliable predictive parameter. However, it was essential to include further relevant parameters.

Predicting factors for extremity fracture among border-fall patients using machine learning computing

BACKGROUND

The factors causing the injuries sustained from falls at US-Mexican border include falls from border wall or fence, fleeing from border patrols, ejecting from vehicle, and others. This study aimed to determine the factors leading to anatomical injuries and to identify the importance of factors leading to limb fracture and internal organ injuries.

METHODS

A total of 178 patients who sustained musculoskeletal injuries or internal organ injuries and were admitted to our hospital were included in this retrospective study. Factors indexed for analysis included demographics, comorbidities, and falling mechanic factors. Correlations between anatomical injuries and mechanical injuries were analyzed. Multilayer perceptron neural network (MPNN) was used to identify predictive factors and to stratify the importance of these factors leading to injuries. The SPSS software was used for statistical analysis and predictive factor analysis.

RESULTS

The extremity fracture was associated with border wall/fence fall (p = 0.001) and fleeing (p = 0.002). The spine fracture was correlated with bridge jump/fall (p = 0.007), fence jump/fall (p = 0.026). The vehicle ejecting/MVA was correlated with head injury (P < 0.001), chest injury (P < 0.001), and abdominal injury p < 0.001). MNPP stratify the importance of factor causing injury with multiple factor considered.

CONCLUSION

The various injury factors caused different anatomical injuries. Multifactorial assessment associated with these injuries can improve the accuracy of diagnosis and develop a predictive model for clinical applications.

Effectiveness of implementation strategies for increasing clinicians' use of five validated imaging decision rules for musculoskeletal injuries: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Strategies to enhance clinicians' adherence to validated imaging decision rules and increase the appropriateness of imaging remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of various implementation strategies for increasing clinicians' use of five validated imaging decision rules (Ottawa Ankle Rules, Ottawa Knee Rule, Canadian C-Spine Rule, National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study and Canadian Computed Tomography Head Rule).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

The inclusion criteria were experimental, quasi-experimental study designs comprising randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials, and single-arm trials (i.e. prospective observational studies) of implementation interventions in any care setting. The search encompassed electronic databases up to March 11, 2024, including MEDLINE (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias of studies independently using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group (EPOC) risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was clinicians' use of decision rules. Secondary outcomes included imaging use (indicated, non-indicated and overall) and knowledge of the rules.

RESULTS

We included 22 studies (5-RCTs, 1-non-RCT and 16-single-arm trials), conducted in emergency care settings in six countries (USA, Canada, UK, Australia, Ireland and France). One RCT suggested that reminders may be effective at increasing clinicians' use of Ottawa Ankle Rules but may also increase the use of ankle radiography. Two RCTs that combined multiple intervention strategies showed mixed results for ankle imaging and head CT use. One combining educational meetings and materials on Ottawa Ankle Rules reduced ankle injury imaging among ED physicians, while another, with similar efforts plus clinical practice guidelines and reminders for the Canadian CT Head Rule, increased CT imaging for head injuries. For knowledge, one RCT suggested that distributing guidelines had a limited short-term impact but improved clinicians' long-term knowledge of the Ottawa Ankle Rules.

CONCLUSION

Interventions such as pop-up reminders, educational meetings, and posters may improve adherence to the Ottawa Ankle Rules, Ottawa Knee Rule, and Canadian CT Head Rule. Reminders may reduce non-indicated imaging for knee and ankle injuries. The uncertain quality of evidence indicates the need for well-conducted RCTs to establish effectiveness of implementation strategies.

Awareness and use of five imaging decision rules for musculoskeletal injuries: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Several validated decision rules are available for clinicians to guide the appropriate use of imaging for patients with musculoskeletal injuries, including the Canadian CT Head Rule, Canadian C-Spine Rule, National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) guideline, Ottawa Ankle Rules and Ottawa Knee Rules. However, it is unclear to what extent clinicians are aware of the rules and are using these five rules in practice.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the proportion of clinicians that are aware of five imaging decision rules and the proportion that use them in practice.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

This was a systematic review conducted in accordance with the 'Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses' (PRISMA) statement. We performed searches in MEDLINE (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and Scopus databases to identify observational and experimental studies with data on the following outcomes among clinicians related to five validated imaging decision rules: awareness, use, attitudes, knowledge, and barriers and facilitators to implementation. Where possible, we pooled data using medians to summarise these outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 39 studies. Studies were conducted in 15 countries (e.g. the USA, Canada, the UK, Australasia, New Zealand) and included various clinician types (e.g. emergency physicians, emergency nurses and nurse practitioners). Among the five decision rules, clinicians' awareness was highest for the Canadian C-Spine Rule (84%, n = 3 studies) and lowest for the Ottawa Knee Rules (18%, n = 2). Clinicians' use was highest for NEXUS (median percentage ranging from 7 to 77%, n = 4) followed by Canadian C-Spine Rule (56-71%, n = 7 studies) and lowest for the Ottawa Knee Rules which ranged from 18 to 58% (n = 4).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that awareness of the five imaging decision rules is low. Changing clinicians' attitudes and knowledge towards these decision rules and addressing barriers to their implementation could increase use.

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.

Suspicion of abdominal injuries in high-energy trauma patients: which clinical factors influence decision making for diagnostic imaging?

Background: The choice of diagnostic imaging for high-energy trauma (HET) patients is highly debated. Currently, different diagnostic imaging is used in trauma centres to identify abdominal injuries. However, it remains unclear when physicians have a suspicion for abdominal injuries, and when diagnostic imaging is performed. Over-triage may lead to unnecessary diagnostics in relatively minor injured HET-patients.Purpose: We investigated which clinical factors influence the decision to perform a focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) or abdominal computed tomography (CT) in HET-patients. Additionally, we investigated which clinical factors determined whether HET-patients were admitted to the hospital or discharged from the emergency department.Methods: We performed a retrospective data analysis of all HET-patients in a single level II trauma centre in the Netherlands, between June 2015 and January 2017.Results: 316 HET-patients were included in this study. We found two clinical factors that proved to significantly predict whether a FAST or abdominal CT was performed: abdominal pain and the degree of concomitant injury. Furthermore, we found that the degree of concomitant injury as well as low haemoglobin levels proved to significantly predict whether a patient was admitted to the hospital for observation.Conclusion: This study clarifies on which clinical factors the decision is taken to perform diagnostic imaging to identify abdominal injuries. Future prospective multicentre studies should clarify whether these clinical factors are trustworthy predictors of abdominal injuries, and whether patients can safely be discharged after trauma work-up.

Whole-Body CT after Motor Vehicle Crash: No Benefit after High-Energy Impact and with Normal Physical Examination

Background Debate continues about the risks and benefits of systematic whole-body CT when no injury is clinically suspected. Risks of whole-body CT include high radiation exposure and iodine contrast agent, but its effectiveness in reducing mortality in low-risk motor vehicle crashes is unclear. Purpose To assess unsuspected injuries revealed at whole-body CT in patients following motor vehicle crash (MVC) meeting only kinetic elements of the Vittel criteria for the severity of trauma, with no evidence of trunk injury and a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15. Materials and Methods This retrospective study included all consecutive adult patients who consulted an emergency department of a level 1 trauma center between August 2016 and July 2017 if they underwent whole-body CT for one or more kinetic elements of the Vittel criteria, had a normal examination of the trunk, and had a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15. Data of the MVC mechanism and physical and biologic examinations were collected, as well as patient treatment data after whole-body CT. Whole-body CT examinations were read by two double-blinded readers to help detect unsuspected injuries. Results Ninety-three patients were included; 72 were men with a mean age of 30.8 years ± 12.0 (standard deviation). Sixty-nine patients were occupants of a car. Seventeen patients were hit by a car while on motorbikes, three while on bicycles, and four as pedestrians. Unsuspected injuries were depicted at 11 whole-body CT examinations: eight lung contusions, one acetabular fracture, one sternal fracture, and one adrenal hematoma. None of these injuries required a specific treatment. One patient with lung contusion of more than 30% of lung volume was followed without requiring further treatment. Conclusion In this population, whole-body CT did not lead to any change in patient treatment. These results suggest whole-body CT should not be systematically performed when no evidence of trunk injury is observed in patients following motor vehicle crash meeting only kinetic elements of Vittel criteria. © RSNA, 2019 See also the editorial by Munera and Durso in this issue.

[Management of traumatic intestinal injury of mass casualties]

While intestinal injury is relatively rare in blunt abdominal trauma, it is common in penetrating abdominal trauma. Intestinal injury cannot be detected effectively by computed tomography (CT); therefore penetrating abdominal injury or abdominal signs in blunt trauma require liberal indications for explorative laparotomy. In mass casualty situations patients with hemodynamic instability and abdominal signs should be prioritized for surgery. Besides intra-abdominal hemorrhage the major issue is septic complications due to intestinal perforation. The current surgical strategy should reflect the number of injured patients and the individual pattern of injuries. Damage control surgery is not an effective strategy to improve survival rates in severely injured patients or in mass casualty situations. Damage control surgery focuses on lifesaving procedures especially bleeding control and control of contamination. This includes an open abdomen strategy with later definitive repair and abdominal wall closure.

Laparoscopy for blunt abdominal trauma: a challenging endeavor

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Laparoscopy in blunt abdominal trauma is challenging because of multiple associated injuries, higher trauma score values and higher morbidity and mortality, as compared with patients with penetrating abdominal trauma. The aim of this study was to investigate the role of laparoscopy in the management of blunt abdominal trauma patients and to highlight related challenges.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Over a 4-year period, patients managed laparoscopically for blunt abdominal trauma were retrospectively analyzed. Perioperative details, indications for laparoscopy and conversion, complications, and length of hospital stay were discussed.

RESULTS

A total of 35 stable patients underwent laparoscopy. The mean Injury Severity Score was 12 (4-38). Therapeutic laparoscopy was performed in 15 (56%) and diagnostic in 12 (44%) patients. Eight (23%) patients were converted to therapeutic laparotomy. Intraoperative bleeding, complex injuries, visualization problem, and equipment failure necessitated conversion. Three (30%) patients with negative computed tomography scan had therapeutic laparoscopy for mesenteric injuries. There were no missed injuries. The mean length of hospital stay was 11 days in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy for stable patients is feasible and safe. Multiple injuries make laparoscopy more difficult, and advanced laparoscopic skills are required. The conversion rate is high; however, the non-therapeutic laparotomies were completely eliminated in this study.

Development of a new clinical decision rule for cervical CT to detect cervical spine injury in patients with head or neck trauma

Objective

Previous cervical spine imaging decision rules have been based on positive findings on plain X-ray and are limited by lack of specificity, age restrictions and complicated algorithms. We previously derived and validated a clinical decision rule (Rule 1) for detecting cervical spine injury (CSI) on CT in a single-centre study. This recommended CT for patients with (1) GCS score <14, (2) GCS 14–15 and posterior cervical tenderness or neurological deficit, (3) age ≥60 years and fall down stairs, or (4) age <60 and injured in a motorcycle collision or fallen from height. This study assessed the accuracy and reliability of this rule and refined the rule.

Methods

We conducted a prospective, dual-centre study at two Japanese EDs between August 2012 and March 2014. Patients with head or neck injury ≥16 years of age were included. Clinical data were collected from medical records. Imaging was at the discretion of the treating physician. CSI was diagnosed as a fracture or dislocation seen on CT; patients who were not imaged were followed for 14 days. We analysed the sensitivity and specificity of Rule 1 and refined it post hoc using recursive partitioning.

Results

1192 patients were enrolled. 927 completed follow-up. Of these, 584 (63.0%) underwent CT imaging and 38 had CSI. Sensitivity and specificity of Rule 1 were 92.1% (95% CI 79.2% to 97.3%) and 58.6% (95% CI 55.4% to 61.9%). A second rule (Rule 2) was derived recommending CT for those with any of the following: GCS <14, cervical tenderness, neurological deficit or mechanism of injury (fall down stairs, motorcycle collision or fall from height) without age limits. Sensitivity and specificity were 100% (95% CI 90.8% to 100%) and 51.9% (95% CI 48.6% to 55.2%), respectively.

Conclusions

Our initial CT decision rule had lower sensitivity than in our initial validation study. A refined decision rule based on GCS, neck tenderness, neurological deficit and mechanism of injury showed excellent sensitivity with a small loss of specificity. Rule 2 will now need validation in an independent cohort.

Epidemiology and management of splenic injury: An analysis of a Chinese military registry

In China, there have been few meta-analyses of the epidemiology and management of splenic injury. Due to the success of Chinese military hospitals in the domestic treatment of splenic injury, the present study conducted a systematic review of such cases, identifying a high occurrence rate of splenic trauma, as well as a number of strategies of managing splenic injury in China. Data were collected from sixteen Chinese military hospitals between July 2000 and March 2009, and retrospectively reviewed. It was observed that between July 2000 and March 2009 a total of 7,807 patients (84.32% male and 15.68% female) with splenic injury were admitted to hospital. The mean duration of hospital stay was 17.9±18.6 days and the gender distribution of splenic injury over the successive years did not differ significantly (P>0.05, c=0.034). However, there was a significant difference in the gender distribution of splenic injury patients in different months (P<0.05, c=0.063). In addition, admission numbers for splenic injury were highest in September, October and November. It was also found that splenic injury may occur at all ages, though patients of working age (20-50 years), which comprises 85.59% of patients, the highest proportion of all recorded cases. Associations between mortality rate and each management strategy were as follows: Operative management, 0.11% and non-operative management, 0.15%. Furthermore, multivariate analysis demonstrated that transfusion, New Injury Severity Score and management strategies were all correlated with mortality rate. Thus, despite a lack of data for inpatients from civilian hospitals, the present study has, in part, identified the epidemiology and management strategies of splenic injury in China. These findings may supplement those from previous analyses of splenic injury in other countries and regions.

Clinical Judgment Is Not Reliable for Reducing Whole-body Computed Tomography Scanning after Isolated High-energy Blunt Trauma

Background

The purpose of this study was to test the diagnostic performance of clinical judgment for the prediction of a significant injury with whole-body computed tomography scanning after high-energy trauma.

Methods

The authors conducted an observational prospective study in a single level-I trauma center. Adult patients were included if they had an isolated high-energy injury. Senior trauma leaders were asked to make a clinical judgment regarding the likelihood of a significant injury before performance of a whole-body computed tomography scan. Clinical judgments were recorded using a probability diagnosis scale. The primary endpoint was the diagnosis of a serious-to-critical lesion on the whole-body computed tomography scan. Diagnostic performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic analysis.

Results

Of the 354 included patients, 127 patients (36%) had at least one injury classified as abbreviated injury score greater than or equal to 3. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the clinical judgment to predict a serious-to-critical lesion was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.64 to 0.75%). The sensitivity of the clinical judgment was 82% (95% CI, 74 to 88%), and the specificity was 49% (95% CI, 42 to 55%). No patient with a strict negative clinical examination had a severe lesion (n = 19 patients). The sensitivity of the clinical examination was 100% (95% CI, 97 to 100%) and its specificity was 8% (95% CI, 5 to 13%).

Conclusions

Clinical judgment alone is not sufficient to reduce whole-body computed tomography scan use. In patients with a strictly normal physical examination, whole-body computed tomography scanning might be avoided, but this result deserves additional study in larger and more diverse populations of trauma patients.

Barriers Against Implementing Blunt Abdominal Trauma Guidelines in a Hospital: A Qualitative Study

Introduction

Clinical practice guidelines are structured recommendations that help physicians and patients to make proper decisions when dealing with a specific clinical condition. Because blunt abdominal trauma causes a various range of mild, single-system, and multisystem injuries, early detection will help to reduce mortality and resulting disability. Emergency treatment should be initiated based on CPGs. This study aimed to determine the variables affecting implementing blunt abdominal trauma CPGs in an Iranian hospital.

Methods

This study was conducted as a qualitative and phenomenology study in the Family Hospital in Tehran (Iran) in 2015. The research population included eight experts and key people in the area of blunt abdominal trauma clinical practice guidelines. Sampling was based on purposive and nonrandom methods. A semistructured interview was done for the data collection. A framework method was applied for the data analysis by using Atlas.ti software.

Results

After framework analyzing and various reviewing and deleting and combining the codes from 251 codes obtained, 15 families and five super families were extracted, including technical knowledge barriers, economical barriers, barriers related to deployment and monitoring, political will barriers, and managing barriers.

Conclusion

Structural reform is needed for eliminating the defects available in the healthcare system. As with most of the codes, subconcepts and concepts are classified into the field of human resources; it seems that the education and knowledge will be more important than other resources such as capital and equipment.