CT对急诊腹部闭合性损伤的诊断价值

目的：分析CT对急诊腹部闭合性损伤的诊断价值。方法回顾性分析63例本院接诊的急诊腹部闭合性损伤患者的CT资料,对比手术所见,评价CT对急诊腹部闭合性损伤的诊断符合率。结果63例腹部闭合性损伤中共发现腹腔内实质性脏器和空腔脏器损伤77处,损伤脏器主要包括脾脏、肝脏、肾脏、胰腺、胃、空肠等,并且在CT平扫时可清晰显示腰椎部骨折及腹水情况,其中有1例漏诊,漏诊率为1.59%。结论 CT不仅能清楚显示闭合性的盆、腹腔脏器的损伤,还能对损伤进行初步的分级,对急诊腹部闭合性损伤有很重要的诊断价值,可快速精准的对患者进行诊断。     

急诊床边超声对腹部闭合伤肝脾胰损伤临床诊断与治疗中的价值

目的探讨急诊床边超声检查对腹部闭合伤致肝脾胰损伤的诊断的应用价值。方法应用B超对急诊腹部外伤行床边超声检查,观察肝脾胰等腹部脏器声像图有无异常改变,重点观察腹腔内有无液体。结果全组221例,有肝、脾、胰损伤的腹部外伤共164例,超声对肝脾胰实质性脏器损伤诊断总符合率92.07%,单纯肝、脾、胰损伤诊断符合率为96.77%,肝脾或脾胰联合损伤诊断符合率为80.95%,合并有其它脏器损伤的肝脾胰损伤诊断符合率为73.68%。漏诊11例,误诊2例,漏、误诊率7.92%。所有164例经手术治疗（122例）或CT、MRI检查保守治疗（42例）证实。结论急诊床边行超声检查对腹部闭合性外伤致肝脾胰损伤的诊断符合率高,是临床诊断的重要手段,能为临床提供快速、可靠诊断依据。     

超声重点评估检查对急诊腹部闭合性损伤的诊断作用研究

目的 对急诊腹部闭合性损伤行超声创伤重点评估诊断的效果研究。方法 选取2019年3月至2022年1月绍兴市越城区人民医院收治的急诊腹部闭合性损伤者经手术治疗共66例作为研究对象，根据休克指数将66例患者分为2组，其中观察组24例，为失血性休克患者，对照组42例，为非失血性休克患者，对其均行超声超声创伤重点评估（FAST）及CT检查。比较FAST、CT检查对腹部闭合性损伤的诊断时间及诊断率，比较观察组与对照组IVC-CI指数情况。结果 所有患者经手术后均确诊为腹部闭合性单脏器损伤，66例患者中，肾损是21例，肝损伤17例，脾损伤14例，空腔脏器破裂10例，腹膜后血肿4例；FAST检查对各脏器损伤的诊断率与CT检查无明显差异（P>0.05）;FAST检查时间明显小于CT检查时间，差异具有统计学意义（t=8.0419,P<0.05）;FAST检查下，观察组IVC-CI指数平均为0.49±0.02，对照组IVC-CI指数平均0.32±0.03，观察组IVC-CI指数明显高于对照组，差异具有统计学意义（t=10.1368,P<0.05）。结论 超声FAST检查能在更短的时间内发...     

腹部闭合性损伤临床和超声结合诊断方法介绍

腹部闭合性损伤临床和超声结合诊断方法介绍天津市天津医院急创中心（天津３００２１１）金晓琴，金鸿宾我院自１９８８～１９９４年期间，急诊临床医师结合临床直接操作Ｂ超，对２０００例腹部闭合性损伤病人做出了明确诊断。从中查出有内脏破裂的３８５例，腹部Ｂ超假阳...     

实时超声检查在腹部闭合性损伤早期估价和观察中的作用

自1980年超声检查已作为我科诊断腹部闭合性损伤的常规手段,本文回顾分析1980～1990年间818例腹部闭合性损伤,在结合临床表现,术中诊断以及需手术治疗而又误诊的病例的基础上,来确定超声检查对诊断腹部闭合性损伤的可信性.818例中不包括没有用超声检查的92例.726例     

影像学检查在腹部闭合性损伤中的应用及评价

腹部影像学检查在腹部闭合性损伤的诊断中具有重要作用。本文结合我们的体会 ,介绍如下。一、B超1.能快速准确地判断腹腔内出血 :B超对腹部闭合性损伤所致的腹腔积液的诊断敏感性为 10 0 %。典型腹部闭合性内脏损伤 ,诊断性腹腔穿刺 (diagnosticperitoneallavage ,DPL)阳性者 ,诊断多不困难。但是对于受伤时间较短 ,出血量少 ,特别是腹腔积血被包裹或体型较胖者 ,少量积液 (血 )于肠袢间或腹内间隙者 ,DPL阳性率较低。适时B超检查和B超定位穿刺可提高DPL的阳性率 ,降低假阴性率。2 .可行床旁检查 :由于腹部闭合性损伤常伴严重休克等各…     

腹部闭合性损伤138例超声检查体会

目的探讨超声检查在腹部闭合性损伤诊断中的应用体会。方法应用超声诊断仪对全腹内脏进行多切面的重点扫查。结果本组超声检查总符合率达88.4%,对实质性脏器损伤能做出直接诊断,对空腔脏器损伤可以提供间接征象。结论超声检查对腹部闭合性损伤诊断独特的价值,对临床治疗方案的选择有重要意义。     

外伤性腹部血管损伤85例诊治体会

腹部血管损伤可引起腹部大出血和重度休克,如诊断和治疗不及时,其死亡率可高达30%以上。失血性休克为近期主要死因。我科1996年6月至2002年12月共收治85例腹部血管损伤患者,现报告如下。临床资料1.一般资料:85例腹部血管损伤患者占同期1 113例腹部创伤患者的13.1%。其中男71例,女14例;年龄12~83岁,平均28.6岁。闭合性腹部损伤51例,开放性损伤34例。2例腹主动脉瘤外伤破裂。全组均有休克,失血量均>2 000 ml,ISS评分>25,合并腹内脏器损伤80例,受伤至就诊时间0.5~4 h,全部患者腹穿抽出不凝血、床旁B超示腹腔积血(100%)。2.方法:入院后立即建…     

隐蔽性腹部闭合性损伤的早期诊断与术中处理86例

目的探讨隐蔽性腹部闭合性损伤的早期诊断及术中处理要点。方法对86例（多发伤合并）隐蔽性腹部闭合性损伤患者的诊治资料进行回顾分析。结果明确诊断用时3-109 h;腹腔单一脏器伤67例（77.91%）,2个以上脏器伤19例（22.09%）;多发伤合并腹部闭合性损伤27例（31.40%）。治愈75例（87.21%）,死亡11例（12.79%）。结论及时明确诊断;控制出血、修复损伤、彻底清理腹腔和通畅引流,对腹部闭合性损伤的诊治尤显重要。     

超声诊断闭合性腹部损伤后小肠损伤

目的评价超声诊断闭合性腹部损伤后小肠损伤的价值。方法分析34例闭合性腹部损伤后小肠损伤超声声像图表现,并与X线、CT等诊断方法比较。结果闭合性腹部损伤后小肠损伤超声表现为腹腔内积液、游离气体、腹部低回声团块、局部肠壁回声改变、门静脉内流动性气体微泡。结论腹部超声检查在闭合性腹部损伤后小肠损伤的诊断中具有重要价值。     

Clinical value of bedside abdominal sonography performed by certified sonographer in emergency evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma

Purpose: To investigate the accuracy and efficiency of bedside ultrasonography application performed by certified sonographer in emergency patients with blunt abdominal trauma. Methods: The study was carried out from 2017 to 2019. Findings in operations or on computed tomography (CT) were used as references to evaluate the accuracy of bedside abdominal ultrasonography. The time needed for bedside abdominal ultrasonography or CT examination was collected separately to evaluate the efficiency of bedside abdominal ultrasonography application. Results: Bedside abdominal ultrasonography was performed in 106 patients with blunt abdominal trauma, of which 71 critical patients received surgery. The overall diagnostic accordance rate was 88.68%. The diagnostic accordance rate for liver injury, spleen injury, kidney injury, gut perforation, retroperitoneal hematoma and multiple abdominal organ injury were 100%, 94.73%, 94.12%, 20.00%, 100% and 81.48%, respectively. Among the 71 critical patients, the diagnostic accordance rate was 94.37%, in which the diagnostic accordance rate for liver injury, spleen injury, kidney injury, gut perforation and multiple abdominal organ injury were 100%, 100%, 100%, 20.00% and 100%. The mean time for imaging examination of bedside abdominal ultrasonography was longer than that for CT scan (4.45 ± 1.63 vs. 2.38 ± 1.19) min; however, the mean waiting time before examination (7.37 ± 2.01 vs. 16.42 ± 6.37) min, the time to make a diagnostic report (6.42 ± 3.35 vs. 36.26 ± 13.33) min, and the overall time (17.24 ± 2.33 vs. 55.06 ± 6.96) min were shorter for bedside abdominal ultrasonography than for CT scan. Conclusion: Bedside ultrasonography application provides both efficiency and reliability for the assessment of blunt abdominal trauma. Especially for patients with free peritoneal effusion and critical patients, bedside ultrasonography has been proved obvious advantageous. However, for negative bedside ultrasonography patients with blunt abdominal trauma, we recommend further abdominal CT scan or serial ultrasonography scans subsequently.     

Standardized ultrasound study with computer-assisted documentation of findings in diagnosis of polytrauma patients]

Based on the results of a prospective trial to establish the value of routine ultrasound examination in cases of polytrauma or blunt abdominal trauma, we report on our standard ultrasound examination and computer assisted documentation of the findings. Between May 1988 and December 1990 we examined 233 patients with polytrauma or blunt abdominal trauma. The results were compared with those of abdominal lavage (n = 47) performed during the same period. We found a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 99.5% for the ultrasound findings and a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 100% for the abdominal lavage. We conclude that ultrasonography should be the first diagnostic procedure used in the emergency room in cases of polytrauma and blunt abdominal trauma.     

Abdominal ultrasound examination in pregnant blunt trauma patients

BACKGROUND: The ability of abdominal ultrasound to detect intraperitoneal fluid in the pregnant trauma patient has been questioned. METHODS: Pregnant blunt trauma patients admitted to a Level I trauma center during an 8-year period were reviewed. Ultrasound examinations were used to detect intraperitoneal fluid and considered positive if such fluid was identified. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-seven (61%) of 208 pregnant patients had abdominal ultrasound during initial evaluation in the emergency department. Seven patients had intra-abdominal injuries, and six had documented hemoperitoneum. Ultrasound identified intraperitoneal fluid in five of these six patients (sensitivity, 83%; 95% confidence interval, 36-100%). In the 120 patients without intra-abdominal injury, ultrasound was negative in 117 (specificity, 98%; 95% confidence interval, 93-100%). The three patients without intra-abdominal injury but with a positive ultrasound had the following: serous intraperitoneal fluid and no injuries at laparotomy (one) and uneventful clinical courses of observation (two). CONCLUSION: The sensitivity and specificity of abdominal ultrasonography in pregnant trauma patients is similar to that seen in nonpregnant patients. Occasional false negatives occur and a negative initial examination should not be used as conclusive evidence that intra-abdominal injury is not present. Ultrasound has the advantages of no radiation exposure.     

Emergent extra-abdominal trauma surgery: is abdominal screening necessary?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the necessity of abdominal screening beyond physical examination in awake and alert blunt trauma patients who require emergent extra-abdominal trauma surgery. METHODS: Data from an urban Level I trauma center was reviewed for all blunt trauma patients who underwent extra-abdominal emergency procedures during the period from January 1995 through August 1998. Awake and alert patients (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score > or = 14) with negative abdominal physical examination results who underwent extra-abdominal emergent surgery were entered in the study. All patients entered were older than 14 years of age, hemodynamically stable, and underwent further abdominal evaluation with computed tomographic scan or diagnostic peritoneal lavage after the decision for extra-abdominal surgical intervention. Emergent surgery occurred within 8 hours of admission. Data was collected for results of diagnostic studies, hemodynamic status, mechanism of injury, indications for operative intervention, and admission blood ethanol (EtOH) levels. RESULTS: A total of 210 patients with an average age of 33 years (range, 14-92 years) were entered in the study. The most common mechanism of injury was motor vehicle crash (67%). Sixty-six (32%) patients presented with EtOH levels > 100 mg/dL; 181 (86%) patients presented with a GCS score of 15, and 29 (14%) presented with a GCS score of 14. The majority of surgical procedures were orthopedic (86%). Diagnostic peritoneal lavage was performed in 55 (26%) patients, and computed tomographic scans were obtained in 155 (74%) patients. Three (1.4%) intraperitoneal injuries were diagnosed in the study population. Two of the injuries were stable grade 1 liver injuries, and missed diaphragmatic injury was diagnosed on postadmission day 1. CONCLUSION: Before emergent extra-abdominal trauma surgery, abdominal evaluation with physical examination is sufficient to identify surgically significant abdominal injury in the awake and alert blunt trauma patient. Screening with additional studies does not impact patient outcome.     

诊断性腹腔灌洗及CT和B超对钝性腹部创伤诊断的比较

目的 比较诊断性腹腔灌洗（DPL），CT和B超对钝性腹部创伤诊断的准确性。方法 前瞻性分析61例血流动力学稳定的钝性腹部创伤病例，病人入院后首先行B超和CT检查，之后再完成DPL。如3项检查中有1项阳性则剖腹探查，并将手术发现与检查结果作比较。结果 DPL，CT，B超对钝性腹部创伤诊断的敏感性，特异性，准确性分别为97．4％，81．7％，91．8％，97．3％，91．3％，95．1％及92．3％，90．9％，91．5％。3项检查对钝性腹部创伤诊断的准确性相似，但B超与DPL和CT相比具有迅速，方便，重复性好，可在床旁进行等优点。结论 在对钝性腹部创伤的诊断中B超可以取代DPL，CT可作为补充诊断手段。     

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.     

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.     

Hepatic injury

Hepatic trauma occurs in approximately 5% of all admissions in emergency rooms. The anatomic location and the size of the liver make the organ even more susceptible to trauma and frequently in penetrating injuries. The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma established a detailed classification system that provides for uniform comparisons of hepatic injury. Diagnosis of hepatic injury can be sometimes easy; however the use diagnostic modalities as diagnostic peritoneal lavage, ultrasound and computed tomography allow faster and more accurate diagnosis. Nonoperative management of the hemodynamically stable patient with blunt injury has become the standard of care in most trauma centers. Few penetrating abdominal lesions allow conservative management; exceptions can be some penetrating wounds to right upper abdominal quadrant. Operative treatment of minor liver injuries requires no fixation or can only be managed with eletrocautery or little sutures. Major liver injuries continue, despite technical advances, a challenge to surgeons. Many procedures can be done as direct repair, debridement associated to resections, or even in more severe lesions, packing. This constitutes a damage control which can allow time to recovery of patient and decreasing mortality shortly after trauma.     

Schockraumdiagnostik: Initiale Diagnostik beim stumpfen Abdominaltrauma

OBJECTIVE: Blunt abdominal trauma is most common in the polytraumatized patient and beside neurocranial trauma one major determinant of early death in these patients. Therefore, immediate recognition of an abdominal injury is of life-saving importance. METHODS: Clinical trials were systematically collected (Medline, Cochrane and hand searches) and classified into evidence levels (1 to 5 according to the Oxford system). RESULTS: Clinical examination is not reliable for evaluation of abdominal injury. Abdominal ultrasound, especially if only focusing on free fluid (FAST) is not sensitive enough. Today, CT-scan of the abdomen is the gold-standard in diagnosing abdominal injury. Diagnostic Peritoneal Lavage (DPL) has a high sensitivity but in our region only is used in exceptional cases. The patient with continuing hemodynamical instability after abdominal trauma and evidence of free intraperitonial fluid has to undergo laparotomy. CONCLUSION: After blunt abdominal trauma, initially ultrasound investigation should be performed in the emergency room. This should not only focus on free intraabdominal fluid but also on organ lesions. Regardless of the findings from ultrasound or clinical examination, the hemodynamically stable patient should undergo a CT-scan of the abdomen in order to proof or exclude an abdominal injury.     

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.