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     

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。     

Usefulness of Multidetector Computed Tomography for the Initial Assessment of Blunt Abdominal Trauma Patients

Background The prompt detection and accurate localization of abdominal injuries are difficult. Some diagnostic modalities, including laboratory tests, ultrasound, and diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) were used to evaluate patients with blunt abdominal trauma, with various advantages and pitfalls. We aimed to evaluate the risk and benefit of using multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) as an initial assessment tool for proper diagnosis and treatment planning of patients with blunt abdominal trauma. Methods Two hundred fifty-two patients with blunt abdominal trauma were prospectively enrolled. Multidetector computed tomography was performed during resuscitation. The risk and benefit of using MDCT in the diagnosis and planning of treatment were analyzed. Results The time required for a MDCT examination averaged 10.2 minutes. Of the studies done, 224 revealed abdominal injuries. Of those, 34 were performed in patients with unstable hemodynamic status without adverse effect. Prompt diagnosis and proper treatment were given according to the MDCT findings. A total of 43 (17.1%) MDCTs showed contrast extravasation. Active bleeding was confirmed in all and treated with transarterial embolization (30) or surgery (13). Another 58 patients sustained bowel, mesenteric, or pancreatic injuries (BMPI) necessitating laparotomy. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of MDCT in identifying patients with active bleeding or BMPI were all 100%. Conclusions Multidetector computed tomography was useful as a second line initial assessment tool to identify injuries and determine treatment planning in blunt abdominal trauma patients. No increased risk was found if the facility is readily available, the protocol is well designed, and the patient is well prepared.     

Surgeon-performed ultrasound for the assessment of truncal injuries: lessons learned from 1540 patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of the Focused Assessment for the Sonographic examination of the Trauma patient (FAST) when performed by trauma team members during a 3-year period, and to determine the clinical conditions in which the FAST is most accurate in the assessment of injured patients. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The FAST is a rapid test that sequentially surveys the pericardial region for hemopericardium and then the right and left upper quadrants and pelvis for hemoperitoneum in patients with potential truncal injuries. The clinical conditions in which the FAST is most accurate in the assessment of injured patients have yet to be determined. METHODS: FAST examinations were performed on patients with precordial or transthoracic wounds or blunt abdominal trauma. Patients with a positive ultrasound (US) examination for hemopericardium underwent immediate surgery, whereas those with a positive US for hemoperitoneum underwent a computed tomography scan (if they were hemodynamically stable) or immediate celiotomy (if they were hemodynamically unstable- blood pressure < or = 90 mmHg). RESULTS: FAST examinations were performed in 1540 patients (1227 with blunt injuries, 313 with penetrating injuries). There were 1440 true-negative results, 80 true-positive results, 16 false-negative results, and 4 false-positive results; the sensitivity was 83.3%, the specificity 99.7%. US was most sensitive and specific for the evaluation of patients with precordial or transthoracic wounds (sensitivity 100%, specificity 99.3%) and hypotensive patients with blunt abdominal trauma (sensitivity 100%, specificity 100%). CONCLUSIONS: US should be the initial diagnostic modality for the evaluation of patients with precordial wounds and blunt truncal injuries because it is rapid and accurate. Because of the high sensitivity and specificity of US in the evaluation of patients with precordial wounds and hypotensive patients with blunt torso trauma, immediate surgical intervention is justified when those patients have a positive US examination.     

Emergency center ultrasonography in the evaluation of hemoperitoneum: a prospective study

The reliability of ultrasonographic detection (US) of hemoperitoneum in blunt abdominal trauma was evaluated in a prospective study of 72 patients. Independent of the examiner, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were, respectively, 86.7%, 100%, and 97.2%. Laparotomy was indicated in 76.9% of US hemoperitoneum-positive cases. No negative laparotomies were performed in this study group. If hemoperitoneum is revealed in US and vital signs are unstable, we think laparotomy is indicated. We believe that US in an emergency center is a quick, safe screening method in the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma. US might take over a great part of the role of diagnostic peritoneal lavage.     

A prospective study of 91 patients undergoing both computed tomography and peritoneal lavage following blunt abdominal trauma

Recent reports comparing computed tomography of the abdomen (CTA) and diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) following trauma have been contradictory. A 10-month prospective study was conducted at our trauma center comparing both methods. Criteria for entry into the study included suspected blunt abdominal trauma without indication for immediate laparotomy, with either equivocal abdominal examination, diminished sensorium, or neurologic deficit. Ninety-one patients meeting these criteria underwent CTA followed by DPL. CTA was performed using both oral and intravenous contrast; DPL was performed by the open technique with RBC greater than 100,000 mm3 or WBC greater than 500 mm3 as criteria for a positive examination. CTA was interpreted initially by available radiology staff and residents and retrospectively reviewed by an experienced tomographer blind to DPL and surgical results. Twenty patients in whom either test was positive underwent laparotomy; all others were admitted for observation and/or extra-abdominal surgery. Laparotomy revealed 26 organs injured in the 20 patients explored at admission; none of the observed patients required delayed laparotomy. The results of CTA and DPL were compared to the findings at laparotomy or the clinical course of those not explored. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for initial CTA were 60%, 100%, and 91%; for review CTA 85%, 100%, and 97%; for DPL 90%, 100%, and 98%. We conclude that: even with experienced examiners, CTA offers no diagnostic advantage over DPL in blunt trauma; because of relative costs, we do not recommend the routine application of CTA; CTA is a reliable alternative when circumstances prevent the performance of DPL.     

Computed tomography in the evaluation of children with blunt abdominal trauma.

OBJECTIVE: This study determined the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CT in pediatric patients with blunt trauma. Correlation of the CT-identified injuries and intraoperative findings with comparison to the results of DPL was performed. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Clinical evaluation frequently is unreliable in determining the presence of intra-abdominal injury in children with blunt trauma. Peritoneal lavage has been used to establish the need for operative intervention and has been found to be safe, efficient, and reliable (98%). In many institutions, abdominal CT scans are used to evaluate these children. Because most reports involve nonoperative management, operative confirmation of CT-identified injuries is available only for those children in whom nonoperative treatment is unsuccessful. METHODS: Sixty children sustaining blunt abdominal trauma were included in the study. CT scans with both oral and IV contrast were performed before open lavage, and positive results were confirmed by operation in 18 patients. RESULTS: CT had a sensitivity of 67%, however, only 60% of the actual organ injuries were identified by the scan. In contrast, DPL has a sensitivity of 94%. Both studies were equally specific (100%). DPL was also more accurate, 98% as compared with 89% for CT. CONCLUSIONS: Although the abdominal CT scan is useful in evaluating children with blunt abdominal trauma, a number of significant injuries were missed. Based on the low sensitivity of the CT, the authors suggest diagnostic peritoneal lavage may offer advantages over CT as the initial study in the evaluation of children with blunt abdominal trauma.     

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.     

Does sonographic evidence of blood in the abdomen following blunt abdominal trauma present an indication for surgery in every case?

In a comparative study based on the diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma, the accuracy of ultrasound (US) proved inferior, with 82-91%, to that of diagnostic peritoneal lavage, with 97-100%. The sensitivity of US, i.e. the proportion of patients with blood in the abdomen who had an abnormal test result (positive sonography) was 94%. The reasons for this may be either patient-related (severe obesity, intestinal gas superposition) or examiner-related (differing previous experience). The specificity for correct elimination of abdominal lesions was 100%. When no intra-abdominal liquid was present none appeared in the US picture; however, 3-13% of cases where intra-abdominal liquid was present this was not revealed by US. If only a small amount of intra-abdominal liquid is demonstrated after blunt trauma, the adoption of a wait-and-see attitude is justified. In intensive care conditions US can be repeated several times if necessary. In this study US showed deterioration in these circumstances in 25%, and in 21% it must be expected that an operation will be necessary.     

Accuracy of physical and ultrasonographic examinations by emergency physicians for the early diagnosis of intraabdominal haemorrhage in blunt abdominal trauma

OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of physical examination and ultrasonographic evaluation performed by emergency physicians in cases of blunt abdominal trauma for the early diagnosis of intraabdominal haemorrhage. METHODS: In this clinical prospective study, trauma patients were evaluated with four-quadrant ultrasonography by emergency physicians after initial stabilisation and physical examination. Diagnoses based on demographic data, physical examination and emergency physician's ultrasonography were compared with the subsequent clinical course. RESULTS: A total of 442 patients participated in the study. The sensitivity and specificity of emergency physician's ultrasonographic examination to detect intraabdominal haemorrhage were 86 and 99%, respectively. Pre-test sensitivity and specificity of physical examination to detect intraabdominal haemorrhage were 39 and 90%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Physical examination was not a reliable method to detect intraabdominal haemorrhage in cases of blunt abdominal trauma. In contrast, abdominal ultrasonography performed by emergency physicians was a reliable diagnostic tool. Emergency physicians should be familiar with abdominal ultrasonographic examination, which should be routine in cases of blunt abdominal trauma.     

Management of sonography in blunt abdominal trauma

A standardized management of sonography in blunt abdominal trauma has replaced peritoneal lavage in our department. The sonographic evaluation is performed simultaneously with additional diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in the emergency room. The primary goal is the exclusion of intraabdominal bleeding. The management and the results of the diagnostic procedure are presented with reference to a consecutive series of 314 patients with blunt abdominal trauma or polytrauma. In 71 patients, laparotomy was performed because the sonographic findings were felt to indicate it. Only in two cases was the sonographic assessment incorrect (false-positive). Frequent sonographic and clinical controls are required especially when sonography cannot totally exclude intraabdominal bleeding during the initial assessment. If any discrepancies between negative or uncertain sonographic and suspect clinical findings remain, further high-tech diagnostic methods or exploratory laparotomy become necessary.     

Diagnostic accuracy of CT scan in abdominal blunt trauma

Obiective: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of CT scan findings in Patients ith blunt abdominal trauma admitted to the university hospital.Methods: All the atients ith blunt abdominal trauma admitted at a tertiary teaching trauma center in Iran between 2005 and 2007 were enrolled in this study.In the absence of any clinical anifestations,he patients underwent a diagnostic CT scan.Laparatomy was performed in those with positive CT results.Others were observed for 48 hours and discharged in case no problem as reported;otherwise they underwent laparatomy.Information on patients'demographic ata,mechanism of trauma,indication for CT scan,CT scan findings,results of laparotomy ere gathered.The sensitivity,specificity and accuracy of the CT-scan images in regard ith the organ injured were calculated.The sensitivity,specificity and accuracy of the T scan were calculated in each case.Results: CT Scan had the highest sensitivity for etecting the injuries to liver (100%) and spleen (86.6%).The specificity of the method or detecting retroperitoneal hematoma (100%) and injuries to kidney (93.5%) was higher han other organs.The accuracy of CT images to detect the injuries to spleen,liver,idney and retroperitoneal hematoma was reported to be 96.1%,94.4%,91.6% and 91.6% espectively.Conclusion: The findings of the present study reveal that CT scan could econsidered as a good choice,especially for patients with blunt abdominal trauma in eaching hospitals where the radiologic academic staff is not present in the hospital in the night shifts.     

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.     

What does ultrasonography miss in blunt trauma patients with a low Glasgow Coma Score (GCS)?

BACKGROUND: The role of ultrasound (US) as a screening tool for the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma is still controversial. Determining the types of missed injuries and the accuracy of US in patients with a low GCS will improve the evaluation of these blunt trauma patients. METHODS: Prospectively collected data from the trauma registry of a Level I trauma center was reviewed. RESULTS: 7,952 patients were included in the study. US examination had an accuracy of 89%, sensitivity of 77%, specificity of 97%, positive predictive value (PPV) of 78%, and negative predictive value (NPV) of 98%. GCS correlated with ISS and base deficit levels. US examination had a significantly lower accuracy in patients with a low GCS and in women. CONCLUSION: The sensitivity and specificity of US examination is similar in those with normal and low GCS. Therefore ultrasonographic examination may be considered a good screening tool for the evaluation of patients with blunt abdominal trauma, but its accuracy is diminished in patients with a low GCS. Further imaging may be warranted in these patients.     

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.     

Emergency laparoscopy.

Unnecessary abdominal explorations in severely injured patients can be reduced by employing emergent or urgent laparoscopy in blunt abdominal trauma and the obscured, acute abdominal cases. In 150 blunt abdominal trauma cases, a mini-laparoscopy was used in the emergency room or the intensive care unit without major complications. In 56%, the findings were negative. In 19%, the laparoscopic findings were corroborated by surgery. In 25%, a minimal to moderate hemoperitoneum was found and the laparoscopic impression dictated close observation. Unnecessary exploration was avoided except in one case. In the elderly high-risk patient with a poor history, abdominal examination can be noninformative. Laparoscopy can detect acute appendicitis or organ perforation. In the young female, appendicitis can be differentiated from pelvic inflammatory disease. Laparoscopy is more accurate and gives a larger latitude for decision-making than lavage. It can also be useful in the obscured problematic abdominal case.     

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.     

Sonography versus peritoneal lavage in blunt abdominal trauma

The reliability of sonography and peritoneal lavage in assessing the need for immediate surgical intervention in blunt abdominal trauma was examined in a prospective study (n = 71). Statistical analysis revealed a sensitivity of 100% for peritoneal lavage compared to 84% for sonography; the accuracy was 99% versus 86%, the predictive value 97% vs. 89%. The statistical difference was significant (p less than 0.05). The results demonstrate that sonography cannot replace peritoneal lavage in the diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma. The discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of both methods shows that sonography and peritoneal lavage are not competing, but rather, are complementary examinations.     

Predictive value of focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) forlaparotomy in unstable polytrauma Egyptians patients

Purpose: The emergency physicians face significant clinical uncertainty when multiple trauma patients arrive in the emergency department (ED). The priorities for assessment and treatment of polytrauma patients are established in the primary survey. Focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) is very essential clinical skill during trauma resuscitation. Use of point of care ultrasound among the trauma team working in the primary survey in emergency care settings is lacking in Suez Canal University Hospitals even ultrasound machine not available in ED. This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of FAST in hemodynamically unstable polytraumatized patients and to determine its role as an indication of laparotomy. Methods: This study is a cross-sectional study included 150 polytrauma patients with a blunt mechanism admitted in Suez Canal University Hospital. Firstly primary survey by airway check, cervical spine securing with neck collar, maintenance of breathing/circulation and management of life threading conditions if present were conducted accordingly to ATLS (advanced trauma life support) guidelines. The patients were assessed in the primary survey using the FAST as a tool to determine the presence of intraabdominal collection. Results: A total of 150 patients, and FAST scans were performed in all cases. The sensitivity and specificity were 92.6% and 100%, respectively. The negative predictive value was 92%, while the positive predictive value of FAST was 100%. The accuracy of FAST was 96%. Conclusion: FAST is an important method to detect intra-abdominal fluid in the initial assessment in hemodynamically unstable polytrauma patients with high accuracy.     

Peritoneal lavage in the diagnosis of blunt injuries of hollow intra-abdominal organs]

In some cases of blunt abdominal trauma lesions of gastrointestinal tract are occasionally found. The difficulty with these injuries lies in establishing the diagnosis. Clinical examination alone does not reliable evidence, particularly if the patient is unconscious and therefore unable to respond subjectively. Although abdominal sonography ist becoming increasingly important in the diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma lesions of the gastrointestinal tract frequently remain undetected or are diagnosed to late where this method of examination is used exclusively. In the retrospective analysis of our patients we have encountered serious complications such as peritonitis and even cases resulting in death. On the other hand when peritoneal lavage was employed, no false negative results occurred. Consequently the value of this method in the diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma and possible lesions of the gastrointestinal tract is indisputable.