Emergency department ultrasonography in the evaluation of hypotensive and normotensive children with blunt abdominal trauma.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of emergency department (ED) ultrasound scan in identifying which children with blunt torso trauma have intraperitoneal fluid associated with intraabdominal injuries (IAI). METHODS: The authors conducted a prospective, observational study of children (< 16 years old) with blunt trauma who presented to a level 1 trauma center over a 29-month period and underwent abdominal ultrasound scan while in the ED. Ultrasound examinations were ordered at the discretion of the trauma surgeons or ED physicians caring for the patients, performed by trained sonographers, and interpreted at the time of the ultrasound. Ultrasound examinations were interpreted solely for the presence or absence of intraperitoneal fluid. Hypotension was defined as > or = 1 standard deviation below the age-adjusted mean. Patients underwent follow-up to identify those with intraperitoneal fluid and IAI. RESULTS: A total of 224 pediatric blunt trauma patients had ultrasound scan performed and were enrolled. Thirty-three patients had IAI with intraperitoneal fluid, and ultrasound scan was positive in 27. The accuracy of abdominal ultrasound for detecting intraperitoneal fluid associated with IAI was sensitivity, 82% (95% confidence interval [CI] 65% to 93%); specificity, 95% (95% CI 91% to 97%); positive predictive value, 73% (95% CI 56% to 86%); and negative predictive value, 97% (95% CI 93% to 99%). In the 13 patients who were hypotensive, ultrasound scan correctly identified intraperitoneal fluid in all 7 patients (sensitivity 100%) with IAI, and hemoperitoneum and was negative in all 6 patients (specificity 100%) who did not have hemoperitoneum. Nine patients had IAI without intraperitoneal fluid, and ultrasound scan result was negative for fluid in all 9. CONCLUSIONS: ED abdominal ultrasound scan used solely for the detection of intraperitoneal fluid in pediatric blunt trauma patients has a modest accuracy. Ultrasonography has the best test performance in those children who are hypotensive and should be obtained early in the ED evaluation of these patients.     

The hand-held ultrasound examination for penetrating abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND: An evaluation of hand-held ultrasonography (US) in the assessment of penetrating torso trauma has not yet been reported. METHODS: A 2.4 kg hand-held ultrasound device was used to examine penetrating trauma victims in an exam designated as the Hand-Held Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (HHFAST). Results were compared with other US examinations including formal FAST (FFAST), computed tomography, diagnostic peritoneal lavage, operative and autopsy findings, and serial examination. Performance considered both the detection of fluid and injuries requiring intervention. RESULTS: The HHFAST was excellent for detecting free intraperitoneal fluid, which had 100% specificity for peritoneal penetration, but was only moderately sensitive for injuries requiring therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Hand-held sonography can quickly detect intraperitoneal fluid, which has good test performance in determining the presence of an intra-abdominal injury. Negative FAST examinations after penetrating trauma should be followed up with another diagnostic modality.     

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

INTRODUCTION: Approximately one third of stable patients with significant intra-abdominal injury do not have significant intraperitoneal blood evident on admission. We hypothesized that a delayed, repeat ultrasound study (Secondary Ultrasound--SUS) will reveal additional intra-abdominal injuries and hemoperitoneum. METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study of trauma patients at our Level I trauma center from April 2003 to December 2003. Patients underwent an initial ultrasound (US), followed by a SUS examination within 24 hours of admission. Patients not eligible for a SUS because of early discharge, operative intervention or death were excluded. All US and SUS exams were performed and evaluated by surgical/emergency medicine house staff or surgical attendings. RESULTS: Five hundred forty-seven patients had both an initial US and a SUS examination. The sensitivity of the initial US in this patient population was 31.1% and increased to 72.1% on SUS (p < 0.001) for intra-abdominal injury or intra-abdominal fluid. The specificity for the initial US was 99.8% and 99.8% for SUS. The negative predictive value was 92.0% for the initial US and increased to 96.6% for SUS (p = 0.002). The accuracy of the initial ultrasound was 92.1% and increased to 96.7% on the SUS (p < 0.002). No patient with a negative SUS after 4 hours developed clinically significant hemoperitoneum. CONCLUSION: A secondary ultrasound of the abdomen significantly increases the sensitivity of ultrasound to detect intra-abdominal injury.     

Discriminatory power of 3.5 MHz convex and 7.5 MHz linear ultrasound probes for the imaging of traumatic splenic lesions: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND: Ultrasound is a powerful tool for recognition of free fluid after blunt abdominal trauma, whereas its role for detection of organ lesions remains to be defined. The objective of this study was to determine the diagnostic value of different ultrasound transducers for the precise detection of visceral damage rather than its surrogates in case of splenic injury. METHODS: After a standardized focused abdominal sonogram for trauma protocol to screen for hemoperitoneum, 37 slim, hemodynamically stable subjects with suspected torso trauma were investigated for the extent of parenchymal lesions of the spleen using a 3.5 MHz curved array and a 7.5 MHz linear device. Helical computed tomographic scanning was carried out as the reference standard in all cases. RESULTS: Twenty patients presented splenic damage. The 7.5 MHz transducer showed higher accuracy than the lower frequency probe for the detection of tissue irregularities (difference in proportions, 16.2%; 95% confidence interval, -1.9%-33.5%). A similar trend was observed for 13 lacerations subsequently progressing to two-timed splenic rupture that required surgery (absolute risk reduction, 8.1%; 95% confidence interval, -7.6%-23.9%). With an observed prevalence of 54% for the presence of splenic injury, organ lacerations could be excluded more confidently using the linear probe (posttest probability, 16% vs. 36%). CONCLUSION: In slim patients, higher frequency linear ultrasound probes can provide therapy-relevant information on the integrity of splenic parenchyma after blunt abdominal trauma.     

Free fluid on abdominal computed tomography without solid organ injury after blunt abdominal injury does not mandate celiotomy

BACKGROUND: Mandatory celiotomy has been proposed for all patients with unexplained free fluid on abdominal computed tomography (CT) scanning after blunt abdominal injury. This recommendation has been based upon retrospective data and concerns over the potential morbidity from the late diagnosis of blunt intestinal injury. This study examined the rate of intestinal injury in patients with free fluid on abdominal CT after blunt abdominal trauma. METHODS: This study was a multicenter prospective series of all patients with blunt abdominal trauma admitted to four level I trauma centers over 22 months. Data were collected concurrently at the time of patient enrollment and included demographics, injury severity score, findings on CT scan, and presence or absence of blunt intestinal injury. This database was specifically queried for those patients who had free fluid without solid organ injury. RESULTS: In all, 2,299 patients were evaluated. Free fluid was present in 265. Of these, 90 patients had isolated free fluid with only 7 having a blunt intestinal injury. Conversely, 91% of patients with free fluid did not. All patients with free fluid were observed for a mean of 8 days (95% confidence interval 6.1 to 10.4, range 1 to 131). There were no missed injuries. CONCLUSIONS: Free fluid on abdominal CT scan does not mandate celiotomy. Serial observation with the possible use of other adjunctive tests is recommended.     

Prospective evaluation of hand-held focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) in blunt abdominal trauma.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasonography (US) has become indispensable in assessing the status of the injured patient. Although hand-held US equipment is now commercially available and may expand the availability and speed of US in assessing the trauma patient, it has not been subjected to controlled evaluation in early trauma care. METHODS: A 2.4-kg hand-held (HH) US device was used to perform focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) on blunt trauma victims at 2 centres. Results were compared with the "truth" as determined through formal FAST examinations (FFAST), CT, operative findings and serial examination. The ability of HHFAST to detect free fluid, intra-abdominal injuries and injuries requiring therapeutic interventions was assessed. RESULTS: HHFAST was positive in 80% of 313 patients who needed surgery or angiography. HHFAST test performances (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, likelihood ratios of positive and negative test results) were 77%, 99%, 96%, 94%, 95%, 95 and 0.2, respectively, for free fluid, and 64%, 99%, 96%, 89%, 90%, 74 and 0.4, respectively, for documented injuries. HHFAST missed or gave an indeterminate result in 8 (3%) of 270 patients with injuries who required therapeutic intervention and 25 (9%) of 270 patients who did not require intervention. FFAST performance was comparable. CONCLUSIONS: HHFAST performed by clinicians detects intraperitoneal fluid with a high degree of accuracy. All FAST examinations are valuable tests when positive. They will miss some injuries, but the majority of the injuries missed do not require therapy. HHFAST provides an early extension of the physical examination but should be complemented by the selective use of CT, rather than formal repeat US.     

Evaluation of ultrasound,lavage, and computed tomography in blunt abdominal trauma

Summary We have analysed the data of 136 patients with multiple injuries treated between 1983 and 1988 in order to assess the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of ultrasound, lavage and computed tomography (CT) for the preoperative diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma. CT was carried out in doubtful cases (n=29) if ultrasound and lavage had not provided sufficient information. Fifty-eight patients were primarily excluded from the study because neither clinical examination nor ultrasound gave any sign of an intra-abdominal lesion. In 25 cases, sonography could be compared with lavage, CT, and the intraoperative situs. Ultrasound showed reliable results in respect to accuracy (100%), sensitivity (84%), and specificity (98%). Computed tomography confirmed all sonographic diagnoses in 29 patients but did not provide further information. Peritoneal lavage gave correct information in all patients operated upon. Our 5-years' experience suggests that ultrasound is a reliable, quick, cheap, and repeatable technique of great value in patients with blunt abdominal traumata.Presented at the International Congress on Surgical Endoscopy, Ultrasound, and Interventional Techniques, Berlin 1988     

2,576 ultrasounds for blunt abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND: Determination of intra-abdominal injury following blunt abdominal trauma (BAT) continues to be a diagnostic challenge. Ultrasound (US) has been described as a potentially useful diagnostic tool in this setting and is being used with increasing frequency in trauma centers. We determined the diagnostic capability of US in the evaluation of BAT. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of our trauma US database was performed over a 30-month period. Computed tomographic scan, diagnostic peritoneal lavage, or exploratory laparotomy confirmed the presence of intra-abdominal injury. RESULTS: During the study period, 8,197 patients were evaluated at the Ryder Trauma Center. Of this group, 2,576 (31%) had US in the evaluation of BAT. Three hundred eleven (12%) US exams were considered positive. Forty-three patients (1.7%) had a false-negative US; of this group, 10 (33%) required exploratory laparotomy. US had a sensitivity of 86%, a specificity of 98%, and an accuracy of 97% for detection of intra-abdominal injuries. Positive predictive value was 87% and negative predictive value was 98%. CONCLUSION: Emergency US is highly reliable and may replace computed tomographic scan and diagnostic peritoneal lavage as the initial diagnostic modality in the evaluation of most patients with BAT.     

Not so FAST

BACKGROUND: Focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) as a screening tool in the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma will lead to underdiagnosis of abdominal injuries and may have an impact on treatment and outcome in trauma patients. METHODS: From October 2001 to June 2002, a protocol for evaluating hemodynamically stable trauma patients with suspected blunt abdominal injury (BAI) admitted to our institution was implemented using FAST examination as a screening tool for BAI and computed tomographic (CT) scanning of the abdomen and pelvis as a confirmatory test. At the completion of the secondary survey, patients underwent a four-view FAST examination (Sonosite, Bothell, WA) followed within 1 hour by an abdominal/pelvic CT scan. The FAST examination was considered positive if it demonstrated evidence of free intra-abdominal fluid. Clinical, laboratory, and imaging results were recorded at admission, and FAST examination results were compared with CT scan findings, noting the discordance. RESULTS: Patients with suspicion for BAI were evaluated according to protocol (n = 372). Thirteen cases were excluded for inadequate FAST examinations, leaving 359 patients for analysis. There were 313 true-negative FAST examinations, 16 true-positives, 22 false-negatives, and 8 false-positives. Using CT scanning as the confirmatory test for hemoperitoneum, FAST examination had a sensitivity of 42%, a specificity of 98%, a positive predictive value of 67%, a negative predictive value of 93%, and an accuracy of 92%; chi analysis showed significant discordance between FAST examination and CT scan (5.85%, < 0.001). Six patients with false-negative FAST examinations required laparotomy for intra-abdominal injuries; 16 patients required admission for nonoperative management of injury. Of the 313 true-negative FAST examinations, 19 patients were noted to have intra-abdominal injuries without hemoperitoneum and 11 patients were noted to have retroperitoneal injuries. CONCLUSION: Use of FAST examination as a screening tool for BAI in the hemodynamically stable trauma patient results in underdiagnosis of intra-abdominal injury. This may have an impact on treatment and outcome in trauma patients. Hemodynamically stable patients with suspected BAI should undergo routine CT scanning.     

Abdominal seat belt marks in the era of focused abdominal sonography for trauma

HYPOTHESIS: Focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) is an unreliable method for assessing intra-abdominal injury in patients with seat belt marks. DESIGN: Retrospective review of trauma patients with intestinal injury and seat belt marks during a 3-year period. Records were reviewed for patient demographics, FAST results, computed tomographic (CT) scan results, and operative findings. The CT scan results were considered positive if bowel wall thickening, extraluminal air, or free fluid without solid organ injury were present. SETTING: University hospital designated as a level I trauma center. PATIENTS: Twenty-three patients who required operation for intestinal or mesenteric injury and who had an abdominal seat belt mark. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Sensitivity of FAST in these patients. RESULTS: All patients were evaluated using both FAST and CT scan of the abdomen and pelvis. Eighteen patients (78%) had either negative or equivocal FAST results when significant intestinal injury was present. All 23 patients had CT scan findings suggestive of bowel or mesenteric injury. Moderate-to-large free intraperitoneal fluid without solid organ injury was the most common finding (n = 21, 91%). Operative findings included small-bowel perforation (n = 18, 78%), colonic perforation (n = 7, 30%), bowel deserosalization (n = 8, 35%), and isolated mesenteric injury (n = 5, 22%). Sixteen patients (70%) had multiple intra-abdominal injuries. All patients were taken directly from the emergency department to the operating room. Seventeen percent of operative explorations (4/23) were nontherapeutic (no repairs required). CONCLUSION: This study confirms that FAST cannot reliably exclude intestinal injury in patients with seat belt marks.     

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

BACKGROUND: The use of ultrasound (U/S) for the evaluation of patients with blunt abdominal trauma is gaining increasing acceptance. Patients who would have undergone computed tomographic (CT) scan may now be evaluated solely with U/S. Solid organ injuries with minimal or no free fluid may be missed by surgeon sonographers. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the incidence and clinical importance of liver and splenic injuries with minimal or no free intraperitoneal fluid visible on CT scan. We hypothesized that these solid organ injuries occur infrequently and are of minor clinical significance. METHODS: Patient records and CT scans were reviewed for the presence of and outcome associated with blunt liver and splenic injuries with minimal (<250 mL) or no free fluid detected by an attending radiologist. Data were collected from six major trauma centers during a 4-year period before the introduction of U/S and included demographics, grade of injury (American Association for the Surgery of Trauma scale), need for operative intervention, and outcome. RESULTS: A total of 938 patients with liver and splenic injuries were identified. In this group, 11% of liver injuries and 12% of splenic injuries had no free fluid visible on CT scan and could be missed by diagnostic peritoneal lavage or U/S. Of the 938 patients, 267 (28%) met the inclusion criteria; 161 had injury to the spleen and 125 had injury to the liver. In the 267 patients studied, 97% of the injuries were managed nonoperatively. However, 8 patients (3%) required operative intervention for bleeding. Compared with the liver, the spleen was significantly more likely to bleed (p = 0.01), but the grade of splenic injury was not related to the risk for hemorrhage (p = 0.051). CONCLUSION: Data from this study suggest that injuries to the liver or spleen with minimal or no intraperitoneal fluid visible on CT scan occur more frequently than predicted but usually are of minimal clinical significance. However, patients with splenic injuries may be missed by abdominal U/S. We found a 5% associated risk of bleeding. Therefore, abdominal U/S should not be used as the sole diagnostic modality in all stable patients at risk for blunt abdominal injury.     

Distinguishing inflicted versus accidental abdominal injuries in young children

OBJECTIVES: To compare the presentation of young children with abdominal trauma caused by high-velocity accidental (HVA), low-velocity accidental (LVA), and inflicted injury, and to test the hypothesis that a delay in care is highly predictive of an inflicted injury. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review at an urban Level I pediatric trauma center between 1991 and 2001 of children younger than 6 years who were admitted with abdominal injuries and an Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) score > or = 2. Charts were abstracted for demographic information, history of presentation, mechanism of injury, and diagnoses. Accidental injuries were defined as high velocity (motor vehicle crash or a fall from > 10 feet) or low velocity (household trauma, bicycle crash, or a fall from < 10 feet). Inflicted trauma was defined as a constellation of unexplained injuries, confessions by a perpetrator, or disclosure by the victim. RESULTS: Of the 121 children in the study, 77 (64%) had HVA injuries, 31 (26%) had LVA injuries, and 13 (11%) had inflicted injuries. Solid organ injuries (e.g., liver, spleen, and kidney) were most common in all groups, and abused children were significantly more likely to have suffered a hollow viscus injury (p = 0.03). Abused children were also significantly more likely to have suffered injuries with an AIS score >3 and combined hollow viscus and solid organ injuries than the HVA group or the LVA group (p < 0.001). Presentation for medical care occurred within 12 hours for 100% of the HVA group but only 65% of the LVA group, and 46% of the abuse group (p < 0.001). Presentation to care at greater than 12 hours was neither specific nor highly predictive of abuse, as some children with LVA injuries presented for care late despite developing symptoms shortly after their injury occurred (specificity, 65% [95% confidence interval, 45-81%]; positive predictive value, 39% [95% confidence interval, 17-64%]). CONCLUSION: Young children with inflicted abdominal injuries are more likely to have more severe injuries, multiple injuries, and a delay in seeking care than young children with accidental abdominal trauma. However, delay in seeking care is not specific for inflicted injury and occurs in some children with LVA abdominal trauma.     

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

BACKGROUND: Abdominal computed tomographic (CT) scan is accepted as the primary diagnostic modality in stable patients with blunt abdominal trauma. A recent survey of 328 trauma surgeons demonstrated marked variation in the management of patients with head injuries and the finding of free intra-abdominal fluid without solid organ injury on CT scan. This study was undertaken to attempt to determine what to do when free fluid without solid organ injury is seen on abdominal CT scan in patients with blunt trauma. METHODS: Articles concerning the incidence and significance of free intra-abdominal fluid on CT scan of blunt trauma patients without solid organ injury were systematically reviewed. A MEDLINE search was performed using terms such as tomography-x-ray computed, wounds-nonpenetrating, small intestine/injuries, time factors, and abdominal trauma and diagnostic tests. Bibliographies of pertinent articles were reviewed. Appropriate articles were evaluated for quality and data were combined to reach a conclusion. RESULTS: Meta-analysis could not be performed because no randomized, prospective, controlled trials could be found. Forty-one articles were excluded from the analysis because they looked at only patients with known injuries to intestine, diaphragm, or pancreas and the investigation of the CT scan findings did not include negative scans. Ten articles, which described CT scan results for all patients presenting with blunt abdominal trauma for a defined period of time, formed the basis of this study. Isolated free fluid was seen in 463 (2.8%) of over 16,000 blunt trauma patients scanned. A therapeutic laparotomy was performed in only 122 (27%) of these patients. CONCLUSION: The isolated finding of free intra-abdominal fluid on CT scan in patients with blunt trauma and no solid organ injury does not warrant laparotomy. Alert patients may be followed with physical examination. Patients with altered mental status should undergo diagnostic peritoneal lavage.     

Rate and prediction of traumatic injuries detected by abdominal computed tomography scan in intubated children

BACKGROUND: Recent concerns about the lifetime cancer risk associated computed tomography (CT) caused us to reevaluate the utility of this test in traumatized children. In addition, little is known regarding the utility of abdominal CT in children who have been emergently intubated. We sought to describe the injuries identified by abdominal CTs in intubated pediatric trauma patients and create a derivation set of predictors of intra-abdominal injury in this patient population. METHODS: A review was conducted of patients cared for at a Level I pediatric trauma center. Patients were included if they were emergently intubated after blunt trauma and had an emergent abdominal CT performed. Outcome measures included the presence of an intra-abdominal injury on CT, the need for exploratory laparotomy (ELAP), the findings of the ELAP, and death. Logistic regression was used to determine which variables were associated with an abnormal abdominal CT scan. RESULTS: In all, 118 met inclusion criteria; the median age was 7.2 years. Thirty- two patients (27.1%) were found to have at least one abdominal injury on CT scan. One ELAP was performed and 12 patients died. Of the variables analyzed, abdominal examination abnormalities and elevated liver function tests (LFTs) were significantly associated with injuries. When both were abnormal, 75% of patients (12/16) had abnormal scans (sensitivity = 71%, specificity = 92%, positive predictive value = 75%, negative predictive value = 91%). CONCLUSIONS: In this series, a significant number of intubated pediatric trauma victims had intra-abdominal injuries identified by CT scan. The presence of abnormal abdominal examination findings and elevated LFTs appear to predict an abnormal CT scan.     

Use of abdominal ultrasonography to assess pediatric splenic trauma. Potential pitfalls in the diagnosis.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of abdominal ultrasonography (US) for screening and grading pediatric splenic injury. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The use of abdominal US has increased rapidly as a method of evaluating organ damage after blunt abdominal trauma. Despite US's increasing use, little is known about its accuracy in children with splenic injury. METHODS: Children (N = 32) suffering blunt abdominal trauma who were diagnosed with splenic injury by computerized tomography (CT) scan prospectively were enlisted in this study. Degree of splenic injury was evaluated by both CT and US. The ultrasounds were evaluated by an initial reading as well as by a radiologist who was blinded as to the results of the CT. RESULTS: Twelve (38%) of the 32 splenic injuries found on CT were missed completely on the initial reading of the US. When the ultrasounds were graded in a blinded fashion, 10 (31%) of the splenic lacerations were missed and 17 (53%) were downgraded. Seven (22%) of the 32 splenic fractures were not associated with any free intraperitoneal fluid on the CT scan. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that US has a low level of sensitivity (62% to 78%) in detecting splenic injury and downgrades the degree of injury in the majority of cases. Reliance on free intraperitoneal fluid may be inaccurate because not all patients with splenic injury have free intra-abdominal fluid. Based on these findings, US may be of limited use in the initial assessment, management, and follow-up of pediatric splenic trauma.     

Moderne Diagnostik des Bauchtraumas

In case of suspected intra-abdominal injury, fast transport of the patient to a suitable hospital is of high priority. The initial clinical examination aims at identifying patients with potentially life-threatening bleeding that require emergency surgery. In patients with penetrating trauma, laparoscopy is favoured to exclude suspected perforation of the peritoneum. If a peritoneal perforation is identified, exploratory laparotomy is recommended to exclude or treat lacerations of the hollow viscus. Although clinical examination should be performed its sensitivity and specificity of up to 82% and 45%, respectively, are not sufficient as the sole screening method. For the further diagnostic workup, diagnostic peritoneal lavage has been completely replaced by abdominal ultrasound examination in Germany and many other countries. Focussing not only on the detection of free abdominal fluid but also searching for parenchymal organ lesions and performing repeated examinations increases accuracy up to 96%, with specificity of 99.8% and sensitivity of 72.1%. Computed abdominal tomography with a helical scanner with and without intravenous contrast media is currently the gold standard of imaging techniques to identify traumatic abdominal injuries. A sensitivity of 97.2% and specificity of 94.7% can be achieved. False negative findings must be expected with hollow organ injuries. Serial clinical and ultrasound examinations as well as lab testing in conjunction with repeated CT may help to identify such lesions. Increased intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) with consecutive abdominal compartment syndrome and multiple organ dysfunction is a delayed complication from conditions such as severe intra-abdominal bleeding, major bleeding from pelvic ring fractures, and profuse fluid resuscitation. The IAP should be measured routinely in patients at risk, and decompression laparotomy may be indicated with pressures of higher than 20 mmHg.     

Ultrasound detection of blunt urological trauma: a 6-year study

The objective of this study was to assess the utility of emergency ultrasonography in the detection of blunt urological injury. A retrospective review was conducted of all consecutive emergency blunt trauma ultrasonograms (US) obtained at a level I trauma centre from January 1995 to January 2001. Among the 4320 emergency ultrasonograms performed, 596 patients (14%) had intraabdominal injury and, of these, 99 patients (17%) had urological injuries. The sensitivity of ultrasound for all urological injuries was 67%, and specificity was 99.8%. For isolated urological injuries, sensitivity and specificity were 55.6 and 99.8%, respectively. Ultrasound was most accurate in the detection of grade III renal injuries, identifying 14/15 (93%), and 13 underwent laparotomy. For isolated urological injuries, 15 of 25 (60%) patients with a true-positive US underwent laparotomy compared to 3 of 20 (15%) with a false-negative US. Isolated urological injury was significantly associated with an ultrasonographic pattern of free fluid in the left upper quadrant and the left pericolic gutter (odds ratio=55.1; P<0.001), followed by isolated fluid in the left pericolic gutter (odds ratio=8.6; P=0.04). Although emergency ultrasonography is useful in the triage of patients with blunt urological trauma, it may miss significant urological injury requiring further intervention. As most renal injuries may be managed non-operatively, further studies such as contrast-enhanced CT or angiography should be obtained in the stable patient with suspected blunt urological injury.     

Usefulness of ultrasonography in the initial assessment of blunt abdominal trauma in children

Abdominal injuries are frequent in children, and the early assessment is the best guaranty for an accurate management. Although computed tomography (TAC) has been considered the diagnostic modality of choice for children with blunt abdominal trauma, is a costly radiological test that requires the patients be stable and sedated. The aim of this study is to evaluate the usefulness of abdominal ultrasonography, a quick, non-invasive technique, of low cost, and repeatable, during the initial assessment of these patients, arguing about the possibility of replace TAC in the detection of intra-abdominal posttraumatic injury. A retrospective case note review was carried out on the 22 children of less than 8 year-old admitted with blunt abdominal trauma to the Pediatric Surgery Section of our institution between 1991 and 1999. The most common mechanism of injury has been the motor vehicle accident (63.63%). All were initially evaluated with ultrasonography and those with any abnormal ultrasonographic findings (free intraperitoneal fluid, intra-abdominal organ injury) were further evaluated with computed tomography and/or repeated sonographies. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy o the diagnostic methods, have been evaluated. This investigation found abnormalities in 17 patients, 70.59% of whom have been managed conservatively. The accuracy of the abdominal ultrasound in the diagnosis of intra-abdominal injury was 77.27%, with a 82.35% sensitivity, 60% especificity, 87.5% positive predictive value, and 50% negative predictive value. The accuracy of the TAC in the diagnosis was 93.75%. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the TAC were 92.85%, 100%, 100%, and 66% respectively. We conclude that TAC is the imaging modality of choice in children with severe abdominal trauma but ultrasonography is a reasonable technique to arouse diagnostic suspicion, that can avoid additional tomographic studies. Abdominal computed tomography must be reserved for the hemodynamically stable children with anormal ultrasonographic findings or with suspected injuries by a clinical evolution that gone unnoticed in the previous study.     

Minimal pelvic fluid in blunt abdominal trauma in children: the significance of this sonographic finding

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the significance of the ultrasonographic finding of pelvic fluid after blunt abdominal trauma in children as a predictor of an abdominal organ injury. METHODS: The clinical and imaging data of 183 children with blunt abdominal trauma were reviewed retrospectively. All children had an abdominal sonography as the primary screening study. The ultrasound results were divided into 3 groups: group A, normal examination; group B, pelvic fluid only; group C, peritoneal fluid outside the pelvis. The results of the initial ultrasound examinations were compared with the findings of the CT scan, or a second ultrasound examination or the clinical course during the hospitalization. RESULTS: Group A included 87 children; group B, 57, and group C, 39. Four abdominal organ injuries were missed by the ultrasound examination. The sensitivity and specificity of the ultrasound examinations to predict organ injury in presence of peritoneal fluid outside the pelvis were, respectively, 89.5% and 96.6%; the positive and negative predictive value were 87.2% and 97.3%. No statistically significant difference was seen between group A and group B, whereas the presence of peritoneal fluid outside the pelvic cavity (group C) was associated strongly with an organ injury (P <.001). CONCLUSIONS: A normal ultrasound examination or the presence of pelvic fluid are associated with a low probability of an organ injury. In the presence of peritoneal fluid outside the pelvis, the probability of an organ injury is very high.     

The problem of the closed abdominal injury in polytrauma patients]

The histories of 66 patients with blunt abdominal trauma requiring surgery in the period from 1985 to 1989 were analysed. The patients were divided into three groups on the basis of the other injuries present. Group I, isolated blunt abdominal trauma and blunt abdominal trauma with slight concomitant injuries (18 patients, ISS 17.17 +/- 1.40); group II, blunt abdominal trauma with severe concomitant injuries but without craniocerebral trauma (23 patients, ISS 29.34 +/- 1.45); and group III, blunt abdominal trauma with severe concomitant injuries and an additional craniocerebral trauma (25 patients, ISS 31.08 +/- 1.27, GCS: 10.04 +/- 0.88). Initially, the diagnosis was made in 23 cases by means of diagnostic peritoneal lavage and in 43 cases by means of sonography. The subsequent laparotomy revealed the ultrasound findings to have been false-positive in 3 cases. No false-negative ultrasound findings were demonstrated at all. Peritoneal lavage, on the other hand, was found to have yielded false-negative and false-positive findings in 2 cases each. Counting from the time of admission, the time up to diagnosis of the intra-abdominal injury was 85 +/- 14.3 min in group I, 82 +/- 9.9 min in group II, and 86 +/- 12.9 min in group III. Thus, the presence of severe additional injuries did not lead to any significant delay in the diagnosis of blunt abdominal injury requiring surgery. The total mortality rate was 18.18% (group I, 11.1%; group II, 21.7%; group III, 20.0%). Six patients died in the acute phase and a further six patients during their stay on the intensive care ward.