The value of digital rectal examination in assessing for pelvic fracture-associated urethral injury: what defines a high-riding or nonpalpable prostate?

The benefits and clinical application of the digital rectal exam in trauma populations: Towards enhancing patient safety and quality outcomes

INTRODUCTION

Current literature contains an extensive number of analyses on the diagnostic value and utilization of the direct rectal exam in trauma patients. Presently, ATLS recommends the application of the digital rectal exam in trauma patients following a primary assessment of traumatic injuries. We aim to assess the validity and diagnostic value of the digital rectal exam in trauma populations.

METHODS

PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, ProQuest, and CINAHL databases were searched for studies from the date of database conception to August 6th, 2022. Studies that assessed the validity of the digital rectal exam performed in the emergency department or trauma bay, in both adult and pediatric trauma patients were included. Study outcomes and measurements of validity were summarized and compared.

RESULTS

A total of 9 studies met inclusion criteria for both adult and pediatric trauma populations. The sensitivity of the digital rectal exam in detecting both spinal cord and urethral injuries in adult trauma populations ranged from 0 to 50%, while the sensitivity in detecting gastrointestinal injuries ranged from 0% to 51%. When compared to other clinical indicators, the digital rectal exam was consistently worse at detecting injuries. Within the pediatric trauma populations, the digital rectal exam resulted in high false negative rates ranging from 66% to 100%, failing to detect all urethral and gastrointestinal injuries and pelvic fractures.

CONCLUSION

The use of digital rectal exams in trauma patients illustrates limited to no validity and reliability in assessing pertinent injuries and does not influence the management of injuries. Trauma societies should consider creating guidelines and algorithms to clarify the use of digital rectal exams in specific situations and injury types.

Impact of transperineal ultrasound on perineal skin dose in prostate radiation therapy

Introduction

This study investigated the relationship between anatomical compression introduced via ultrasound probe pressure and maximum perineum dose in prostate radiotherapy patients using the Clarity transperineal ultrasound (TPUS) system.

Methods

115 patient ultrasound and computed tomography scans were retrospectively analysed. The probe to prostate apex distance (PPA), probe to inferior corpus spongiosum distance (PICS) and maximum perineum dose were calculated. Compression was represented by the PICS and the calculated corpus to prostate ratio (CPR). Demographics included treatment technique, image quality, body mass index (BMI) and age. Multiple linear regression analysis assessed the relationship between compression measures and perineum dose.

Results

The maximum dose to perineum ranged from 1.81 to 45.56 Gy, with a median of 5.87 Gy (Interquartile range (IQR) 3.17). The PICS distance and CPR recorded was 1.67 cm (IQR 0.63) and 0.51 (range 0.29-0.85) respectively. Regression analysis demonstrated both PICS and CPR were significant predictors of maximum dose to the perineum (p < 0.001). Patient-specific factors, including age, BMI, treatment technique and ultrasound image quality, were not factors that significantly impacted the maximum perineum dose.

Conclusion

There was a statistically significant association between increased anatomical compression and perineal dose measurements. A PICS of 1.2 cm or greater is recommended, with compression reduced as much as possible without losing anatomical US definition. Future investigations would be beneficial to evaluate the optimal balance between ultrasound image quality and transducer compression considering the perineum dose.

Management of urological trauma associated with pelvic fractures

Urological trauma is frequently encountered in patients with high energy pelvic fractures and can have debilitating long-term sequelae for patients without appropriate multidisciplinary management. Anterior pelvic ring disruption causes a high incidence of bladder rupture and urethral injuries, and initial assessment requires urological tract imaging and emergent bladder drainage before subsequent surgical repair. Pelvic ring disruption requires urgent fixation and should be managed as an open fracture in the context of significant bladder and urethral injury with urinary leakage. Long-term outcomes are variable and genitourinary dysfunction is commonly reported among patients with pelvic fractures. Optimisation of patient outcomes relies heavily on collaborative management between orthopaedic and urological specialists and requires an appreciation of the anatomical intricacies of the pelvis. This article provides an overview of the British Orthopaedic Association Standards for Trauma and Orthopaedics management of urological trauma in the context of pelvic fractures.

Management of pelvic injuries in hemodynamically unstable polytrauma patients - Challenges and current updates

Pelvic injuries are notorious for causing rapid exsanguination, and also due to concomitant injuries and complications, they have a relatively higher mortality rate. Management of pelvic fractures in hemodynamically unstable patients is a challenging task and has been variably approached. Over the years, various concepts have evolved, and different guidelines and protocols were established in regional trauma care centers based mainly on their previous experience, outcomes, and availability of resources. More recently, damage control resuscitation, pelvic angioembolization, and acute definitive internal fixation are being employed in the management of these unstable injuries, without clear consensus or guidelines. In this background, we have performed a computerized search using the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed databases on studies published over the past 30 years. This comprehensive review aims to consolidate available literature on the current epidemiology, diagnostics, resuscitation, and management options of pelvic fractures in polytraumatized patients with hemodynamic instability with particular focus on damage control resuscitation, pelvic angioembolization, and acute definitive internal fixation.

The Road to Survival for Haemodynamically Unstable Patients With Open Pelvic Fractures

Management of haemodynamically unstable pelvic ring injuries has been simplified into treatment algorithms to streamline care and emergent decision making in order to improve patient outcomes whilst decreasing mortality and morbidity. Pelvic ring injuries are most commonly a result of high-velocity and energy forces that exert trauma to the pelvic bones causing not only damage to the bone but the surrounding soft-tissue, organs, and other structures and are usually accompanied by injuries to other parts of the body resulting in a polytraumatised patient. Open pelvic fractures are a rare subset of pelvic ring fractures that are on the more severe end of the pelvic fracture continuum and usually produce uncontrolled haemorrhage from fractured bone, retroperitoneal haematomas, intraabdominal bleeding from bowel injury, soft tissue injuries to the anus, perineum, and genitals, fractures of the pelvic bones, causing bleeding from cancellous bone, venous, and arterial injuries combined with bleeding from concomitant injuries. This is a very complex and challenging clinical situation and timely and appropriate decisions and action are paramount for a positive outcome. Consequently, open pelvic fractures have an extremely high rate of mortality and morbidity and outcomes remain poor, despite evidence-based improvements in treatment, knowledge, and identification of haemorrhage; in the pre-hospital, critical care, and operative settings. In the future utilisation of haemostatic drugs, dressings, devices, and procedures may aid in the time to haemorrhage control.

Pelvic fracture urethral injury in males-mechanisms of injury, management options and outcomes

Pelvic fracture urethral injury (PFUI) management in male adults and children is controversial. The jury is still out on the best way to manage these injuries in the short and long-term to minimise complications and optimise outcomes. There is also little in the urological literature about pelvic fractures themselves, their causes, grading systems, associated injuries and the mechanism of PFUI. A review of pelvic fracture and male PFUI literature since 1757 was performed to determine pelvic fracture classification, associated injuries and, PFUI classification and management. The outcomes of; suprapubic catheter (SPC) insertion alone, primary open surgical repair (POSR), delayed primary open surgical repair (DPOSR), primary open realignment (POR), primary endoscopic realignment (PER), delayed endoscopic treatment (DET) and delayed urethroplasty (DU) in male adults and children in all major series have been reviewed and collated for rates of restricture (RS), erectile dysfunction (ED) and urinary incontinence (UI). For SPC, POSR, DPOSR, POR, PER, DET and DU; (I) mean RS rate was 97.9%, 53.9%, 18%, 58.3%, 62.0%, 80.2%, 14.4%; (II) mean ED rate was 25.6%, 22.5%, 71%, 37.2%, 23.6%, 31.9%, 12.7%; (III) mean UI rate was 6.7%, 13.6%, 0%, 14.5%, 4.1%, 4.1%, 6.8%; (IV) mean FU in months was 46.3, 29.4, 12, 61, 31.4, 31.8, 54.9. For males with PFUI restricture and new onset ED is lowest following DU whilst UI is lowest following DPOSR. On balance DU offers the best overall outcomes and should be the treatment of choice for PFUI.

No Evidence Supporting the Routine Use of Digital Rectal Examinations in Trauma Patients

Digital rectal exams (DRE) are routinely used on trauma patients during the secondary survey as recommended by current Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) protocols. However, recent literature has called the blanket use of the DRE on each trauma patient into question. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the DRE as a diagnostic tool in the setting of urethral, spinal cord, small bowel, colon, and rectal injuries and determine if it can be eliminated from routine use in the trauma setting. Trauma patients with small bowel, colon, rectal, urethral, and spinal cord injuries, age of 18 years or older, and a noted DRE were included. Exclusion criteria included an age less than 18, patients who received paralytics, a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 3, and a history of paraplegia or quadriplegia. One-hundred eleven patient records were retrospectively reviewed. Ninety-two male (82.9 %) and 19 (17.1 %) females with a GCS of 13.7 were evaluated. Sixty-two (55.9 %) injuries were penetrating with 49 (44.1) being blunt. The DRE missed 100 % of urethral, 91.7 % of spinal cord, 93.1 % of small bowel, 100 % of colon, and 66.7 % of rectal injuries. For injuries confirmed with radiologic modalities, the DRE missed 93.3 %. For injuries confirmed on exploratory laparotomy, the DRE missed 94.9 %. The DRE has poor sensitivity for the diagnosis of urethral, spinal cord, small bowel, and large bowel injury. The DRE was found to be the most sensitive in the setting of rectal injuries. The DRE offers no benefit or predictive value when compared to other imaging modalities.

Teaching and practising rectal examination in Pakistan

BACKGROUND

Digital rectal examination (DRE) is an integral part of physical examination. The teaching and practising of DRE should start early in medical school for mastering the skills to perform DRE by the time of graduation. In recent years it has been observed that medical students are reluctant to learn and practise DRE because of a perception of the reduced importance of DRE as compared with other modalities of investigation. We evaluated the knowledge and attitude of medical students and interns towards the teaching and practising of DRE.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of four medical institutions in Karachi, Pakistan.

RESULTS

Of the 398 participants included in the study, almost half were medical students. Almost all (98%) of the participants appreciated the importance of DRE. Only half of the participants reported having been formally taught about DRE before reaching the final year of medical school. Only 16 per cent reported the use of manikins as an aide to demonstrate and practise DRE. The median number of times respondents had performed DRE was one. Patients' refusal to grant consent was the most common reason given for not performing DRE. Students are reluctant to learn and practise DRE because of a perception of its reduced importance

CONCLUSION

Teaching sessions on DRE using manikins are suggested to begin early in medical school. It is also suggested that a minimum number of DREs should be performed under supervision before the completion of the internship.