Prospective comparison of diagnostic peritoneal lavage, computed tomographic scanning, and ultrasonography for the diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma

From the RSNA refresher courses: focused abdominal US for trauma

Focused abdominal ultrasonography (US) has been introduced in Europe as a method to evaluate blunt abdominal trauma. The main focus of the examination is detection of free fluid in the abdomen secondary to injury of the abdominal organs. The examination takes only a few minutes to perform. In the authors' experience, trauma patients in unstable condition and in whom significant free fluid is detected are immediately taken to the operating room for surgical exploration without undergoing computed tomographic (CT) correlation. The authors have also used US to identify the specific site of organ injury. Injuries to solid organs such as the liver, spleen, and kidney that are identified with US usually appear heterogeneous or hyperechoic. A hematoma surrounding the injured organ may appear echogenic or hypoechoic. However, pitfalls of focused abdominal US for trauma include failure to show contained solid-organ injuries; injuries to the diaphragm, pancreas, and adrenal gland; and some bowel injuries. Thus, negative findings at US do not exclude an intraperitoneal injury, and close clinical observation or CT is warranted.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of emergency ultrasonography for blunt abdominal trauma

BACKGROUND

How precise and reliable is ultrasonography as a primary tool for injury assessment in blunt abdominal trauma?

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted of prospective clinical trials of ultrasonography for blunt abdominal trauma. Publications were retrieved by structured searching among databases, review articles and major text books. Authors and experts in the field were contacted for original and unpublished data. For statistical analysis, summary receiver operating characteristic curves (SROCs) were computed using weighted and robust regression models, with Q* denoting the shoulder of the curve. Post-test probabilities were calculated as a function of pooled likelihood ratios (LRs).

RESULTS

Thirty of 123 trials enrolling 9047 patients were eligible for final analysis. With respect to targeting organ lesions, ultrasonography showed a summary Q* value of 0.91 (inverse variance weights, 95 per cent confidence interval (c.i.) 0.76-1.07); negative predictive values ranged from 0.72 to 0.99. A similar SROC slope was calculated for screening for free fluid (Q* = 0.89 (95 per cent c.i. 0.73-1.05)). Ultrasonography detects the presence of organ lesions, but fails to exclude abdominal injuries (random effects negative LR 0.23 (95 per cent c.i. 0.18-0.28)). Given a pretest probability of 50 per cent for blunt abdominal injury, a post-test probability of nearly 25 per cent remains in the case of a negative sonogram.

CONCLUSION

Despite its high specificity, ultrasonography has an unexpectedly low sensitivity for the detection of both free fluid and organ lesions. In clinically suspected abdominal trauma, another assessment (e.g. helical computed tomography) must be performed regardless of the initial ultrasonographic findings.

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.

Operative versus nonoperative management of blunt abdominal trauma: Role of ultrasound-measured intraperitoneal fluid levels

This study's objective was to analyze whether the quantity of free intraperitoneal fluid on ultrasonography, alone or in combination with unstable vital signs, is sensitive in determining the need for laparotomy in patients presenting with blunt trauma. Adult patients who presented with blunt abdominal trauma to 2 level I trauma centers were enrolled. Combined intraperitoneal fluid levels (anechoic stripe) of 5 intraperitoneal areas were measured and defined as small (< 1.0 cm), moderate (> 1.0 cm, < 3.0 cm), or large (> 3.0 cm). Unstable vital signs were defined as pulse > 100 bpm or systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg. Exploratory laparotomy or computed tomography scan confirmed hemoperitoneum. Of 270 patients entered into the study, ultrasound detected free intraperitoneal fluid in 33 patients. Of the 18 patients with a large fluid accumulation, 16 underwent exploratory laparotomy (89% sensitivity), and all 8 patients with unstable vital signs underwent exploratory laparotomy (100% sensitivity). Of the 10 patients with a moderate fluid accumulation, 6 underwent exploratory laparotomy (60% sensitivity), and 4 of the 6 patients with unstable vital signs underwent exploratory laparotomy (67% sensitivity). A large intraperitoneal fluid accumulation on ultrasonography in combination with unstable vital signs, is sensitive for determining the need for exploratory laparotomy in patients presenting with blunt trauma.

Focused abdominal US in patients with trauma

PURPOSE

To evaluate the accuracy of focused abdominal ultrasonography (US) in detecting abdominal injuries that require in-hospital patient treatment in the setting of blunt abdominal trauma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One thousand ninety patients with blunt abdominal trauma were assessed with focused abdominal US within 30 minutes of arrival at the hospital. Focused abdominal US results were positive if intra- or retroperitoneal fluid was detected. Patients with negative US results and no other major injuries were observed in the emergency department for 12 hours before discharge. Patients who deteriorated clinically after negative initial US underwent repeat US and/or emergency abdominopelvic computed tomography (CT). Patients with positive or indeterminate US results underwent emergency abdominopelvic CT.

RESULTS

Nine hundred seventy-four (89%) patients had negative focused abdominal US results; eight of these underwent CT. Sixty-six (6%) had positive US results. Four (0.4%) had false-negative and 19 (1.7%) had false-positive US results. Twenty-seven (2.5%) had indeterminate US results; of these, five (18.5%) had positive CT results. One hundred twenty-four (11.4%) required emergency CT. After indeterminate cases were excluded, focused abdominal US had 94% sensitivity, 98% specificity, 78% positive predictive value, 100% negative predictive value, and 95% accuracy.

CONCLUSION

Focused abdominal US has a high negative predictive value for major abdominal injury in patients with blunt abdominal trauma.

Blunt bowel and mesenteric injuries: the role of screening computed tomography

BACKGROUND

Early generation scanners have demonstrated poor sensitivity detecting blunt bowel/mesenteric injuries (BBMI). This study was aimed at determining the accuracy and role of helical scanners in BBMI.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of patients with BBMI, or computed tomographic scans suspicious of BBMI, from August of 1995 to December of 1998.

RESULTS

One hundred of 8,112 scans (1.2%) were suspicious of BBMI. Of these suspicious scans, 53 patients had BBMI (true positive-TP) and 47 patients did not (false positive-FP). Seven patients with negative scans had BBMI (false negative-FN). Computed tomography contributed toward early surgery in 77% of patients who may have been delayed. Six patients developed intra-abdominal abscess. The abscess group had a significantly longer time interval from injury to surgery. Multiple findings were seen in 57% of true positive scans, whereas in 13% of false positive scans (p < 0.0001). An algorithm for management of BBMI is presented.

CONCLUSION

Helical scanners have high accuracy in detecting BBMI. Single versus multiple findings are useful in managing these injuries.

Abdominal CT scanning for trauma: how low can we go?

PURPOSE

computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen is an established, albeit expensive and perhaps overused, diagnostic modality for the evaluation of the injured patient. We developed a practice management guideline for blunt abdominal trauma intended to reduce the percentage of negative CT scans, yet minimize delayed recognition of injury and non-therapeutic laparotomy.

PROCEDURES

between April 1996 and March 1997, 1147 adult patients at risk for blunt abdominal injury were admitted to our Level I trauma centre and underwent abdominal evaluation according to the practice management guideline.

MAIN FINDINGS

abdominal CT was performed in 522 patients (45%), and 441 scans were negative (85%). Delayed recognition of injury and non-therapeutic laparotomy rates were low, 4% and 1.6%, respectively.

PRINCIPAL CONCLUSION

abdominal CT scanning in trauma patients can achieve low non-therapeutic laparotomy and delayed recognition of injury rates but at the expense of high negative CT scan rates. Greater reliance on the physical examination and perhaps abdominal ultrasound may reduce negative CT scan rates and yet preserve low non-therapeutic laparotomy and delayed recognition of injury rates.

Institutional and individual learning curves for focused abdominal ultrasound for trauma: cumulative sum analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate both institutional and individual learning curves with focused abdominal ultrasound for trauma (FAST) by analyzing the incidence of diagnostic inaccuracies as a function of examiner experience for a group of trauma surgeons performing the study in the setting of an urban level I trauma center.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Trauma surgeons are routinely using FAST to evaluate patients with blunt trauma for hemoperitoneum. The volume of experience required for practicing trauma surgeons to be able to perform this examination with a reproducible level of accuracy has not been fully defined.

METHODS

The authors reviewed prospectively gathered data for all patients undergoing FAST for blunt trauma during a 30-month period. All FAST interpretations were validated by at least one of four methods: computed tomography, diagnostic peritoneal lavage, celiotomy, or serial clinical evaluations. Cumulative sum (CUSUM) analysis was used to describe the learning curves for each individual surgeon at target accuracy rates of 85%, 90%, and 95% and for the institution as a whole at target examination accuracy rates of 85%, 90%, 95%, and 98%.

RESULTS

Five trauma surgeons performed 546 FAST examinations during the study period. CUSUM analysis of the aggregate experience revealed that the examiners as a group exceeded 90% accuracy at the outset of clinical examination. The level of accuracy did not improve with either increased frequency of performance or total examination experience. The accuracy rates observed for each trauma surgeon ranged from 87% to 98%. The surgeon with the highest accuracy rate performed the fewest examinations. No practitioner demonstrated improved accuracy with increased experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Trauma surgeons who are newly trained in the use of FAST can achieve an overall accuracy rate of at least 90% from the outset of clinical experience with this modality. Interexaminer variations in accuracy rates, which are observed above this level of performance, are probably related more to issues surrounding patient selection and inherent limitations of the examination in certain populations than to practitioner errors in the performance or interpretation of the study.

Videolaparoscopia no trauma abdominal

A videolaparoscopia (VL) vem contribuindo de forma crescente, para diagnóstico e terapêutica de várias afecções cirúrgicas abdominais, introduzindo profundas mudanças na cirurgia contemporânea. Esse avanço incorporou-se também às urgências traumáticas, fazendo parte da avaliação diagnóstica e, às vezes, da terapêutica do trauma abdominal. Os autores apresentam uma revisão concisa da literatura sobre a VL no trauma, atualizando o tema e discutindo os aspectos mais relevantes das indicações, limitações e complicações do método.

Abdominal trauma in infants and children: prompt identification and early management of serious and life-threatening injuries. Part I: injury patterns and initial assessment

Evaluation of children with abdominal trauma can be a difficult process. Unique anatomic features predispose children to specific injuries and potentially make identification of life-threatening injuries difficult. While Part I of this review discusses the initial assessment and diagnostic testing in children with abdominal trauma, Part II will review specific injuries and ED management of children with possible abdominal trauma. Knowledge of each of these factors will improve the ability of general and pediatric emergency physicians to expeditiously identify children with potential serious injury and initiate appropriate treatment.

Diagnostic evaluation of patients with blunt abdominal trauma: a decision analysis

OBJECTIVES

Using decision analysis, to compare the expected utility (EU) of diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL), computed tomography (CT), and ultrasonography (US) to determine the optimal modality for the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma (BAT) in hemodynamically stable adults.

METHODS

Data points for the decision analysis were obtained from three sources: 1) prevalence of BAT and the sensitivity and specificity of each diagnostic modality were determined through a criteria-based review of the literature; 2) rate of BAT necessitating immediate intervention, perioperative complication rate, and operative mortality rate were calculated using data from the authors' institution's trauma registry; and 3) outcome utilities were determined by telephone survey of adults in a random sample of households in the region. The decision tree was constructed and evaluated in standard fashion. For each diagnostic modality, the authors calculated the EU using the minimum, mean, and maximum sensitivity and specificity across a range of prevalence. Mean outcome utilities were used for each branch of the tree when calculating the EU.

RESULTS

The EU of CT was consistently lower than the EUs of DPL and US at all levels of prevalence. However, the rank order of the EUs of US and DPL varied with the prevalence of BAT. When the prevalence was <30%, the EU of US was higher than that for DPL. When the prevalence was 30-40%, the EUs were similar. When the prevalence was >40%, the EU of US was less than that of DPL.

CONCLUSIONS

Among institutions operating under constraints similar to those used in this model, the optimal diagnostic modality for the evaluation of BAT can be determined based on the sensitivity and specificity of the modality at their institution and the prevalence of BAT in their patient population.

Relatively short diagnostic delays (<8 hours) produce morbidity and mortality in blunt small bowel injury: an analysis of time to operative intervention in 198 patients from a multicenter experience

OBJECTIVE

Blunt small bowel injury (SBI) is uncommon, and its timely diagnosis may be difficult. The impact of operative delays on morbidity and mortality has been unclear. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship of diagnostic delays to morbidity and mortality in blunt SBI.

METHODS

Patients with blunt SBI with perforation were identified from the registries of eight trauma centers (1989-1997). Patients with duodenal injuries were excluded. Data were extracted by individual chart review. Patients were classified as multi-trauma (group 1) or near-isolated SBI (group 2 with Abbreviated Injury Scale score < 2 for other body areas). Time to operation and its impact on mortality and morbidity was determined for each patient.

RESULTS

A total of 198 patients met inclusion criteria: 66.2% were male, mean age was 35.2 years (range, 1-90 years) and mean Injury Severity Score was 16.7 (range, 9-47). 100 patients had multiple injuries (group 1). There were 21 deaths (10.6%) with 9 (4.5%) attributable to delay in operation for SBI. In patients with near-isolated SBI, the incidence of mortality increased with time to operative intervention (within 8 hours: 2%; 8-16 hours: 9.1%; 16-24 hours: 16.7%; greater than 24 hours: 30.8%, p = 0.009) as did the incidence of complications. Delays as short as 8 hours 5 minutes and 11 hours 15 minutes were associated with mortality attributable to SBI. The rates of delay in diagnosis were not significantly associated with age, gender, intoxication, transfer status, or presence of associated injuries.

CONCLUSION

Delays in the diagnosis of SBI are directly responsible for almost half the deaths in this series. Even relatively brief delays (as little as 8 hours) result in morbidity and mortality directly attributable to "missed" SBI. Further investigation into the prompt diagnosis of this injury is needed.

A preliminary evaluation of emergency ultrasound in the setting of an emergency medicine training program

In this article we seek to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of emergency physicians performing emergency ultrasonography in the setting of an emergency medicine training program. A prospective observational study was performed at an inner city Level I trauma center with an emergency medicine residency training program. From July 1994 to December 1996 a convenience sample of ultrasound exams was recorded. The diagnostic quality ("acceptable or technically limited") was determined by a board-certified cardiologist or radiologist with fellowship training in ultrasonography. The emergency department interpretations were then compared to those of the blinded cardiologist or radiologist. Four hundred and fifty-six ultrasound examinations were videotaped and entered into the study; 408 (89%) of the studies performed were determined to be "acceptable." The diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values) of these studies were as follows: cardiac, to rule out effusion (n = 67; 0.83, 0.98, 0.88, 0.98); transabdominal, to rule out abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA), cholelithiasis, or free peritoneal fluid (n = 263; 0.91, 0.89, 0.88, 0.92); renal, to rule out hydronephrosis (n = 45; 0.94, 0.96, 0.94, 0.96); pelvic, to rule in intrauterine pregnancy (n = 33; 1.0, 0.90, 0.96, 1.0). The 48 "technically limited studies" included: 39 transabdominal (33 gallbladder, 1 abdominal aortic aneurysm, 5 free peritoneal fluid), 6 cardiac, 2 renal, and 1 pelvic ultrasound. This study suggests that emergency physicians with a minimal amount of training display acceptable technical skill and interpretive acumen in their approach to emergency ultrasonography.

Hemoperitoneum as the sole indicator of abdominal visceral injuries: a potential limitation of screening abdominal US for trauma

PURPOSE

To determine, at screening ultrasonography, the prevalence, severity, and clinical outcome of clinically important abdominal visceral injuries, without associated hemoperitoneum, that result from blunt abdominal trauma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Computed tomography (CT) was performed at admission in 466 patients with visceral injury. A retrospective review was performed of findings from surgery and contrast material-enhanced spiral and conventional CT performed to verify abdominal visceral injuries in 467 (4%) of 11,188 patients with blunt trauma. These patients were admitted to a level 1 trauma center over 33 months to determine the presence of hemoperitoneum and to identify the grade of injury. Medical records of patients with abdominal visceral injury without hemoperitoneum were reviewed for the management required and for results of focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST).

RESULTS

A total of 575 abdominal visceral injuries were identified at CT and/or surgery. Findings of CT at admission (n = 156) and of surgery (n = 1) revealed no evidence of hemoperitoneum in 157 (34%) patients with abdominal visceral injury; 26 (17%) of whom also had negative FAST studies. Abdominal visceral injuries diagnosed in patients without hemoperitoneum included 57 (27%) of 210 splenic injuries, 71 (34%) of 206 hepatic injuries, 30 (48%) of 63 renal injuries, four (11%) of 35 mesenteric injuries, and two (29%) of seven pancreatic injuries. Surgical and/or angiographic intervention was required in 26 (17%) patients without hemoperitoneum.

CONCLUSION

Reliance on the presence of hemoperitoneum as the sole indicator of abdominal visceral injury limits the value of FAST as a screening diagnostic modality for patients who sustain blunt abdominal trauma.

Ultrasound in the emergency department: Emergency department ultrasound for the assessment of abdominal trauma: an overview

Diagnostic ultrasound (U/S) has been used in medicine for over 40 years, and reports describing the use of abdominal U/S in trauma date back to 1971. Recently, however, trauma ultrasonography has become a controversial issue in Canada.

U/S provides the speed and accuracy we associate with diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) in a noninvasive format. It is safe, inexpensive, repeatable, accessible at the bedside, and requires little patient preparation. U/S is now the initial test for the assessment of blunt abdominal trauma in most European and Australasian centres. More recently U/S has become common in US trauma centres.

Analysis of laparoscopy in trauma

BACKGROUND

The optimum roles for laparoscopy in trauma have yet to be established. To date, reviews of laparoscopy in trauma have been primarily descriptive rather than analytic. This article analyzes the results of laparoscopy in trauma.

STUDY DESIGN

Outcome analysis was done by reviewing 37 studies with more than 1,900 trauma patients, and laparoscopy was analyzed as a screening, diagnostic, or therapeutic tool. Laparoscopy was regarded as a screening tool if it was used to detect or exclude a positive finding (eg, hemoperitoneum, organ injury, gastrointestinal spillage, peritoneal penetration) that required operative exploration or repair. Laparoscopy was regarded as a diagnostic tool when it was used to identify all injuries, rather than as a screening tool to identify the first indication for a laparotomy. It was regarded as a diagnostic tool only in studies that mandated a laparotomy (gold standard) after laparoscopy to confirm the diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopic findings. Costs and charges for using laparoscopy in trauma were analyzed when feasible.

RESULTS

As a screening tool, laparoscopy missed 1% of injuries and helped prevent 63% of patients from having a trauma laparotomy. When used as a diagnostic tool, laparoscopy had a 41% to 77% missed injury rate per patient. Overall, laparoscopy carried a 1% procedure-related complication rate. Cost-effectiveness has not been uniformly proved in studies comparing laparoscopy and laparotomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Laparoscopy has been applied safely and effectively as a screening tool in stable patients with acute trauma. Because of the large number of missed injuries when used as a diagnostic tool, its value in this context is limited. Laparoscopy has been reported infrequently as a therapeutic tool in selected patients, and its use in this context requires further study.

Ultrasound: Impact on Diagnostic Peritoneal Lavage, Abdominal Computed Tomography, and Resident Training

Our objective was to determine the impact of abdominal ultrasound (US) on 1) the use of diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) and abdominal computed tomography (ACT) for diagnosing blunt abdominal trauma (BAT) and on 2) surgical resident training. The study design was a retrospective chart review. Patients sustaining BAT who had ACT or DPL done during the 1-year period before the introduction of US (pre-US) were compared with those from a 1-year period beginning 6 months after US (post-US). Data collected included diagnostic modality, demographic data, mortality, associated injuries, length of stay, mechanism of injury, and number of exploratory laparotomies. Of 128 patients in the pre-US group, 35 patients (27%; P < 0.001) underwent DPL, 0 patients (0%; P < 0.001) received US, and 92 patients (72%) received ACT, with positive results for 31 patients (34%). Exploratory laparotomy was performed on 35 patients (27%) in the pre-US group. Of 140 patients in the post-US group, 8 patients (6%; P < 0.001) underwent DPL, 120 patients (85%; P < 0.001) received US, and 108 patients (77%) received ACT, with positive results for 44 patients (42%). Exploratory laparotomy was performed on 22 patients (15%; P < 0.001) in the post-US group. Resident experience with DPL before and after the introduction of US and availability of US for graduated residents was documented. Chi-square and Fisher's exact test were used for statistical analysis. Resident experience changed from 22 to 3 DPLs per year in the pre- and post-US groups, respectively. Ten per cent of graduating residents had US available for use after leaving this institution. US replaced DPL and resulted in slightly more positive ACT scans in assessing BAT at our institution. Paradoxically, only 10 per cent of graduating residents had US available after leaving this institution. Until the use of US for diagnosing BAT has widespread use in the community, we must question our adequacy of resident preparation for diagnosing BAT.

The role of ultrasound in the assessment of the trauma patient

Ultrasound assessment of the patient with blunt abdominal trauma will enhance diagnostic accuracy and facilitate decision making about the need for urgent surgery. Numerous studies have reported the role of ultrasound in the assessment of the trauma patient. Focused ultrasound has been shown to compare in sensitivity to diagnostic peritoneal lavage and is helpful in assessing the need for a laparotomy. Ultrasound is safe, cheap and portable. The investigation is non-invasive and painless. The trauma ultrasound scan can be completed in under 3 minutes and should be performed during the initial trauma assessment. The technique is not difficult to learn. Advances in technology are likely to make portable ultrasound increasingly appropriate to rural clinical practice. Detection of haemoperitoneum will be more accurate when ultrasound is available in the early care of trauma on a 24 hour basis and, to achieve this, clinicians managing trauma will need to become competent in the application of the focused ultrasound exam.

Approach to the polytraumatized patient with musculoskeletal injuries

The management of the multiply injured patient is a challenge for even experienced clinicians. Because many community hospitals lack a dedicated trauma team, it is often the orthopaedic surgeon who will direct treatment. Therefore, the orthopaedic surgeon must have an understanding of established guidelines for the evaluation, resuscitation, and care of the severely injured patient. Initial evaluation encompasses assessment and intervention for airway, breathing, circulation, disability (neurologic injury), and environmental and exposure considerations. Resuscitation requires not only administration of fluids, blood, and blood products but also emergent management of pelvic trauma and stabilization of long-bone fractures. Judicious early use of anterior pelvic external fixation can be lifesaving in many cases. The secondary survey, which is often neglected, must incorporate a thorough physical evaluation. Although the method of fracture stabilization is still controversial, most clinicians agree that early fixation offers many benefits, including early mobilization, improved pulmonary toilet, decreased cardiovascular risk, and improved psychological well-being. Without an understanding of the complexities of the multiply injured patient, delays in the diagnosis and treatment of a patient's injuries are likely to adversely affect outcome.

The efficacy of focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) as a screening tool in the assessment of injured children

PURPOSE

Focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) is rapidly gaining acceptance as an effective and accurate way to determine significant abdominal injury. The authors analyzed their experience in 94 children with blunt torso trauma (BTT) to assess FAST accuracy in identifying operative lesions and utility in avoiding additional diagnostic studies.

METHODS

The authors' pediatric trauma registry was queried to identify all children with BTT who underwent FAST as part of their initial trauma assessment. Accuracy was determined by calculating sensitivity and specificity using as true positives those children with lesions requiring operative intervention. Utility was analyzed by reviewing the need for additional diagnostic or therapeutic intervention in those patients with negative FAST findings and negative clinical examination findings.

RESULTS

Three of these 94 children had lesions that required laparotomy. One was FAST positive (sensitivity, 33.3%). One of two FAST-negative patients was a child in extremis from a suspected thoracic aortic disruption, and the other was a child with an intestinal disruption in whom peritoneal signs developed 24 hours after injury. Of 89 FAST-negative children, 20 underwent abdominal computed tomography (CT) at the surgeon's request. Eight of these patients were found to have minor visceral injury that required no further treatment. The remaining 69 included the child with the aortic disruption and 68 patients whose hospital course was uneventful and required no additional intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

From the practical perspective of indicating need for operative intervention in BTT, FAST has a high specificity (95%); however, it is not particularly sensitive (33%). This excellent specificity in combination with clinical examination underscores FAST utility by avoiding unnecessary diagnostic intervention in 72% of the patients in this study.

Increased Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness in the Evaluation of the Blunt Abdominal Trauma Patient with the Use of Ultrasound

The efficacy and effectiveness of ultrasound (US) in evaluating patients suspected of having blunt abdominal trauma are near that of computed tomography (CT) and diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL). Because no cost-effectiveness study has been reported, the purpose of this study was to demonstrate that US is more efficient and cost-effective than CT/DPL in evaluating blunt abdominal trauma. Over a 9-month period, 331 patients suspected of sustaining blunt abdominal trauma were evaluated at a Level I trauma center by US, CT, and/or DPL. Cost data and time to disposition were determined for analysis. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of US were similar to those reported in previous studies. There was a significant difference in time to disposition with the US group being significantly lower (P = 0.001). The total procedural cost was 2.8 times greater for the CT/DPL group than for the US group. US is not only effective in diagnosing blunt abdominal trauma, but it is also more efficient and cost-effective than is CT/DPL.

Incidence and significance of free fluid on abdominal computed tomographic scan in blunt trauma

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence and significance of free fluid on abdominal CT in blunt trauma.

DESIGN

Retrospective chart review.

METHODS

All blunt trauma patients with an abdominal computed tomographic scan from August of 1993 to December of 1995 were identified from the trauma registry at a Level 1 trauma center. A total of 1,159 computed tomographic scans were performed; records of 18 patients were excluded for incomplete records. Official reports of computed tomographic scans were reviewed for free fluid, solid organ injury, bladder injury, and pelvic fracture.

RESULTS

Free fluid without solid organ injury was found in 3% (34 of 1141). Laparotomy was performed because of free fluid in 13 patients. There were six small bowel injuries and one diaphragm injury for a therapeutic laparotomy rate of 54%. Ten patients had trace free fluid and did not undergo laparotomy; none had a missed small bowel injury.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of more than trace amounts of free fluid without solid organ injury in patients with blunt trauma is a strong indication for exploratory laparotomy. Patients with isolated trace amounts of free fluid can be safely observed.

A comparison of sonographic examinations for trauma performed by surgeons and radiologists

BACKGROUND

It has been demonstrated that surgeons and surgery residents, trained in the focused abdominal sonographic examination, are able to accurately and reliably evaluate trauma patients. Despite this, radiologists have objected to surgeon-performed sonography for several reasons. We set out to compare the accuracy of sonographic examinations performed by surgery residents and radiologists.

METHODS

A retrospective review of medical records of all trauma patients who received focused ultrasound examinations from January 1, 1995, through June 30, 1996, at one of two American College of Surgeons-verified Level I trauma centers in the same city was undertaken. Ultrasound examinations were performed by surgery residents at trauma center A (TCA) and by radiologists or radiology residents at trauma center B (TCB). Findings for each patient were compared with the results of computed tomography, diagnostic peritoneal lavage, operative exploration, or observation. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated for each group of patients. Comparison of patient charges for the trauma ultrasound examinations at each of the trauma centers was also made.

RESULTS

Patient populations at the two centers were similar except that the mean Injury Severity Score at TCB was higher than at TCA (11.74 vs. 9.6). Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, or negative predictive value were not significantly different between the two cohorts. A significantly lower positive predictive value for examinations performed by surgery residents was noted and attributed to a lower threshold of the surgery residents to confirm their findings by computed tomography. Billing data revealed that the average charge for trauma sonography by radiologists (TCB) was $406.30. At TCA, trauma sonography did not generate a specific charge; however, a $20.00 sum was added to the trauma activation fee to cover ultrasound machine maintenance and supplies.

CONCLUSION

Focused ultrasound examination in the trauma suite can be as safely and accurately performed by surgery residents as by radiologists and radiology residents and should be a routine part of the initial trauma evaluation process.

The emerging role of bedside ultrasonography in trauma care

Ultrasonography has emerged as a primary imaging modality in the evaluation of the trauma victim. Both emergency physicians and surgeons have been proven capable of performing this rapid, noninvasive evaluation of the chest and abdomen. This article describes the trauma ultrasound examination and illustrates how bedside ultrasonography can be incorporated into routine trauma care.

Survey of abdominal ultrasound and diagnostic peritoneal lavage for suspected intra-abdominal injury following blunt trauma

Over a 3 year period all severely injured blunt trauma patients who were investigated with abdominal ultrasound examinations (AUS) or diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) to exclude intra-abdominal injury were evaluated. The ultrasound examinations were performed by radiologists in 220 severely injured patients (20 of whom also had DPL). The overall sensitivity and specificity of abdominal ultrasound were 82.7% and 99.5%, respectively. The sensitivity increased to 89.1% by repeat scanning. In comparison, 72 DPLs were performed in severely injured patients; the overall sensitivity and specificity of DPL were 82.8% and 97.2%, respectively. DPL resulted in more non-therapeutic laparotomies, 9/25 (36%) compared with 3/23 (13%) with AUS. Abdominal ultrasound is now the first line investigation at this centre for evaluation of possible intra-abdominal injury in injured patients.

Evaluation of an instructional model for emergency ultrasonography

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a 4-hour ultrasonography course in the setting of an emergency medicine (EM) training program.

METHODS

EM residents and faculty at a large urban center were provided a 4-hour emergency ultrasonography course. Then, during an 18-month period, a nonconsecutive sample of ultrasonographic examinations were videotaped and later reviewed. The interpretations of the emergency, physician examinations were compared with the following reference standards: 1) an official ultrasound performed and interpreted by the departments of radiology or cardiology; 2) an operative report; 3) A CT scan or i.v. pyelogram (IVP); or 4) a cardiologist's or a radiologist's interpretation of the videotaped examinations.

RESULTS

Of 258 examinations reviewed, 28 (11%) of these were excluded because the cardiologist or radiologist reviewing the videotape determined them to be "technically limited" studies. Of the remaining 230 examinations, there were: 127 gallbladder studies [disease prevalence = 0.58; sensitivity = 0.89; specificity = 0.80; kappa (kappa) = 0.69; 95% CI: 56-82%]; 39 echocardiograms to rule out pericardial effusions [disease prevalence = 0.15; sensitivity = 0.83; specificity = 0.97 kappa = 0.80; 95% CI: 54-100%]; 25 abdominal ultrasounds to rule out free peritoneal fluid [disease prevalence = 0.32; sensitivity = 0.88; specificity = 0.94; kappa = 0.81; 95% CI: 26-95%]; 16 renal ultrasounds to rule out hydronephrosis [disease prevalence = 0.25; sensitivity = 1.0; specificity = 0.92; kappa = 0.84; 95% CI: 56-100%]; 12 pelvic ultrasounds to rule in an intrauterine pregnancy [disease prevalence = 0.67; sensitivity = 1.0; specificity = 0.75; kappa = 0.80; 95% CI: 43-100%]; and 11 abdominal ultrasounds to rule out abdominal aortic aneurysms [disease prevalence = 0.09; sensitivity = 1.0; 95% CI: 2.5-91%; specificity = 1.0; 95% CI: 68-100%].

CONCLUSIONS

This 4-hour ultrasonography course has potential to serve as a foundation for an instructional model for ultrasonography training in the setting of an EM residency program.

The role of minimal access surgery in the acute abdomen

The improvement in surgical decision-making for patients with abdominal pain but an uncertain diagnosis using DL has now been shown to decrease both negative and nontherapeutic laparotomy rates. Once the diagnosis is established, DL can be taken a step further in many cases, as therapeutic intervention via laparoscopy is possible for a number of these conditions without resorting to a laparotomy. Conditions amenable to therapeutic laparoscopy include appendicitis, perforated peptic ulcer, diverticulitis, small bowel obstruction, acute cholecystitis, diaphragmatic rupture, and splenic or hepatic injuries, to name but a few. However, a number of unanswered questions remain such as: Who should perform emergency laparoscopic procedures? What should the selection criteria be? What are the cost implications? and Is patient outcome actually better with laparoscopy? Only randomized controlled trials can answer these questions. Until such data are available, it is important that common sense prevail. Laparoscopy should be incorporated into the general surgeon's armamentarium for the management of patients with abdominal pain as just another tool to be used selectively when indicated. It is also important that new technologies be carefully evaluated in an unbiased manner under strict protocol so that objective data can be obtained which can be used to devise guidelines for safe and effective use of new devices.

CT findings of bowel and mesenteric injury

Bowel and mesenteric injuries are common sequelae of blunt abdominal trauma. CT represents a valuable modality in the diagnosis of bowel and mesenteric injuries. While certain findings on CT are highly specific, such as free air and extravasation of oral contrast agent, they are insensitive and seen only in the minority of patients. Therefore, radiologists must focus their attention on the bowel wall and mesentery to improve their diagnostic accuracy in these injuries. Bowel wall thickening and/or abnormal bowel wall enhancement must be noted. Mesenteric abnormalities, which can consist of mesenteric infiltration, interloop fluid, or fluid trapped in the leaves of the small bowel mesentery, may be crucial yet subtle clues. Knowledge of their typical appearance may aid in their diagnosis. This pictorial essay illustrates the range of findings in bowel and mesenteric injuries as well as possible pitfalls to help in their prompt recognition and diagnosis.

Role of ultrasonography in blunt abdominal trauma

Patients with blunt abdominal trauma (BAT) often have equivocal signs of intra-abdominal injury. Diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) has been the 'gold standard' for evaluating these patients, the use of ultrasound (US) being a recent phenomenon. Seventy-three patients with BAT and equivocal physical signs were subjected to both DPL and US for detection of intra-abdominal injury. Based on clinical status, DPL and US findings, the patients underwent laparotomy or non-operative management. DPL was positive in 35 patients. There was one false positive and one false negative result (sensitivity 97.1%, specificity 97.4%, accuracy 97.3%). US was positive in 31 patients. There were 5 false positive and 4 false negative results (sensitivity 86.7%, specificity 88.4%, accuracy 87.7%). Solid viscus injury was documented at laparotomy in 24 patients. DPL failed to detect one pancreatic injury, while US failed to detect 4 splenic and 2 liver injuries. US additionally detected a single case of haemopericardium. Although DPL outperformed US in this study, US can complement DPL in defining the organs injured and in follow up of patients undergoing non-operative management for BAT.

Ultrasonography in blunt abdominal trauma

This article discusses studies of the use of ultrasound in patients with blunt abdominal trauma, both in initial assessment and ongoing evaluation. Reviews of studies of children and adults to detect the presence and extent of hemoperitoneum and organ injuries are presented. Ultrasound results are compared with diagnostic peritoneal lavage, computed tomography, clinical course, and autopsy results. The central question addressed is to what extent can ultrasonography replace or supplement other techniques, particularly diagnostic peritoneal lavage, in the assessment of patients with blunt abdominal trauma. Ultrasound equipment, technique, scoring scales, limitations, and training issues are also addressed.

[Severe trauma in children]

Trauma are responsible for approximately 50% of the deaths of the pediatric population between 1-15 years of age. This high mortality rate, associated with frequent sequelae, leading sometimes to severe handicaps, is a major problem of public health in the developed countries. Pediatric trauma have some particularities, due to anatomical and physiological differences, and to specific injury mechanisms. Management of a patient with severe trauma is best performed by trained physicians, working in a multidisciplinary team with a two steps approach: 1) emergency rapid clinical assessment and resuscitation. 2) a secondary complete clinical evaluation associated with medical imaging, mainly based on CT scan. Head injuries are frequent and represent the main prognosis factor, mass lesions being less frequent and cerebral oedema more frequent in children, than in adult; brain swelling appears to be less frequent than initially reported. Management of head trauma has evolved in recent years, and is now largely directed towards the prevention of secondary ischemic brain injury: new monitoring devices are proposed to pursue that goal: transcranial doppler and continuous jugular vein oxygen saturation monitoring. Spinal cord injuries are rare but may be severe: cervical and spinal cord injuries without radiological abnormality (SC/WORA) appear to be more frequent than in adult. Most often, abdominal plain viscera injuries are treated with a conservative non operative approach. Among chest injuries, pulmonary contusion is the most frequent, with a favorable outcome in most cases within 3-4 days. Child abuse must be suspected in any case where there is no clear injury mechanism or when there is a discrepancy between the severity of the injury and the alleged mechanism.

The value of physical examination in the diagnosis of patients with blunt abdominal trauma: a retrospective study

Between 1 January 1993 and 1 January 1994, 204 consecutive patients with possible blunt abdominal injury were analysed retrospectively. All patients underwent a standardized diagnostic approach on admission to the emergency room. Abdominal ultrasound (AUS) was performed in all cases. If there was evidence of intra-abdominal injury on physical examination or AUS, without signs of persistent hypovolaemia after initial assessment, contrast-enhanced computed tomographic scanning (CECT) of the abdomen was carried out without exception. Physical examination was equivocal in 13 and 3 per cent, respectively, of patients with 'isolated' abdominal trauma (N = 23) or with fractures of lower ribs 7-12 as a sole diagnosis (N = 30). In multiple injury patients (N = 95) or those with suspected 'isolated' head injury (N = 56), these figures reached 45 and 84 per cent, respectively. AUS (N = 204) revealed intra-abdominal injury in 20 per cent of patients, and CECT (N = 43) resulted in additional information in 49 per cent. Patients with 'isolated' head injury showed 9 per cent abnormalities on abdominal evaluation versus 32 per cent in multiple injury patients. In lower rib fractures (7-12) in multiple injury patients abdominal injury was diagnosed in 67 per cent of the cases. We conclude that: (1) negative findings following reliable physical examination of patients with 'isolated' head injury show very high values (NPV 100 per cent), but reliable physical examination is very infrequent (16 per cent); (2) NPV in lower rib fractures due to low energy impact is very high (100 per cent), with a reliable physical examination in most patients (97 per cent); (3) in patients with isolated abdominal trauma 87 per cent have a reliable physical examination with a moderately high NPV (71 per cent); (4) almost half the multiple injury patients have an unequivocal physical examination (45 per cent), with a high NPV following reliable physical examination for abdominal injury (85 per cent); (5) abdominal ultrasonography should be the first step in the radiological assessment of all patients with possible blunt abdominal injury; (6) in multiply injured patients with fractures of their lower ribs (7-12) due to high energy impact the incidence of abdominal injury is very high and CECT might be indicated even in the case of normal AUS findings.

Abdominal injuries without hemoperitoneum: a potential limitation of focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST)

BACKGROUND

Focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) relies on hemoperitoneum to identify patients with injury. Blunt trauma victims (BTVs) with abdominal injury, but without hemoperitoneum, on admission are at risk for missed injury.

METHODS

Clinical, radiologic, and FAST data were collected prospectively on BTVs over a 12-month period. All patients with FAST-negative for hemoperitoneum were further analyzed. Examination findings and associated injuries were evaluated for association with abdominal lesions.

RESULTS

Of 772 BTVs undergoing FAST, 52 (7%) had abdominal injury. Fifteen of 52 (29%) had no hemoperitoneum by admission computed tomographic scan, and all had FAST interpreted as negative. Four patients with splenic injury underwent laparotomy. Six other patients with splenic injury and five patients with hepatic injury were managed nonoperatively. Clinical risk factors significantly associated with abdominal injury in BTVs without hemoperitoneum include: abrasion, contusion, pain, or tenderness in the lower chest or upper abdomen; pulmonary contusion; lower rib fractures; hemo- or pneumothorax; hematuria; pelvic fracture; and thoracolumbar spine fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

Up to 29% of abdominal injuries may be missed if BTVs are evaluated with admission FAST as the sole diagnostic tool. Consideration of examination findings and associated injuries should reduce the risk of missed abdominal injury in BTVs with negative FAST results.

Prospective study investigating routine usage of ultrasonography as the initial diagnostic modality for the evaluation of children sustaining blunt abdominal trauma

In this prospective study, 217 children sustaining blunt abdominal trauma were initially evaluated with ultrasonography (US) and those with any abnormal ultrasonographic findings were further evaluated with computed tomography. Results of ultrasonographic examination were normal in 157 children and showed abnormalities such as free intraperitoneal fluid (FIF), intra-abdominal organ injury, and intrapleural fluid in 60 children. Computed tomographic examination of the 42 children with organ injury, the seven children with minimal FIF of no definite source, and the three children with intrapleural fluid revealed findings consistent with ultrasonographic findings. Computed tomographic examination of the eight children with more than minimal FIF of no definite source detected by US showed the source as liver injury in one and spleen injuries in two patients. The source of FIF could not be identified with computed tomography in five patients. After clinic follow-up examination, one of these five patients was operated on for abdominal tenderness, fever, and air-fluid levels detected on plain abdominal radiographs, and duodenal perforation was encountered. Clinical courses of the patients with normal ultrasonographic findings were uneventful. We conclude that US, aside from being a screening tool, is alone sufficient in the evaluation of the majority of the children sustaining blunt abdominal trauma. Although this is a preliminary study with further work needed to be done, we propose that further evaluation with computed tomography should be performed on those children in whom more than minimal FIF of no definite source is detected with US.

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.

Ultrasound in the evaluation and management of blunt abdominal trauma

Failure to detect intraabdominal injury in the patient with blunt trauma may result in significant morbidity and mortality. The diagnosis of abdominal injury remains a clinical challenge. Presented here is a review of recent literature comparing ultrasound with diagnostic peritoneal lavage and computed tomography in the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma.

Ultrasound evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma: program implementation, initial experience, and learning curve

OBJECTIVE

Although sonographic screening for blunt abdominal trauma is gaining acceptance, standards for implementation, training, credentialing, and quality control remain to be established.

DESIGN

This prospective study examines a Level I trauma service experience with the de novo establishment of a trauma ultrasound (US) program credentialed through the Department of Surgery under the auspices of Continuous Quality Improvement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All trauma surgeons attended a combined didactic and "hands on" 8-hour trauma US course. Abdominal sonography was subsequently performed on patients with potential blunt abdominal trauma followed by a standard diagnostic evaluation, which included computed tomographic scan, diagnostic peritoneal lavage, or observation.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Three hundred patients were studied over a 4-month period. They averaged 35 years of age with an average injury severity score of 12. The time required to perform the US examination averaged less than 3 minutes. Standard diagnostic evaluation included computed tomographic scan (21%), diagnostic peritoneal lavage (45%), and observation (34%). US examinations resulted in 277 true negatives, 17 true positives, two false positives, and four false negatives for a sensitivity of 81.0%, a specificity of 99.3%, and an accuracy of 98.0%. Annualized cost savings with the use of US evaluation versus standard diagnostic evaluation would amount to over $100,000.00.

CONCLUSIONS

This experience with the de novo implementation of a trauma US program suggests that the training and credentialing requirements in this study are sufficient to provide surgeon ultrasonographers with acceptable competence in US diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma.

Emergency department ultrasound services by emergency physicians: model for gaining hospital approval

We anticipate that over the next few years, emergency physician use of emergency department ultrasound will become the standard of care. However, many EDs are hampered in their efforts to gain hospital approval for emergency physician use of ultrasound because of the lack of publicized information regarding the goals of such use, the scope of emergency physician ultrasound privileges, emergency physician ultrasound credentialing criteria, and ED ultrasound quality-improvement plans. In this article we address these issues and provide an example of a proposal used successfully to gain hospital approval for ED use of ultrasound by emergency physicians.

Radiographic imaging modalities for the patient in the emergency department with abdominal complaints

The emergency physician should be aware of the sensitivity and specificity of any radiologic study being considered. Radiographic examinations should be used to answer specific questions raised by the history and physical examination. The need to obtain a given radiologic evaluation should be based on the potential information it may reveal and the likelihood that this information will alter patient care. This cost-effective approach minimizes unnecessary radiation exposure and has been advocated by many authorities. The emergency physician should resist the "knee jerk" tendency to order radiographs to reassure himself or herself of the safety of the patient at discharge. Documentational and legal concerns are equally invalid reasons, as is the feeling that "it's what we always order for patients with this abdominal complaint." A given study may be indicated if the yield is acceptable and treatment of the patient may be altered by the results.

Emergency physician use of ultrasonography in blunt abdominal trauma

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic utility of abdominal diagnostic ultrasonography (DUS) performed by emergency physicians for intraperitoneal fluid caused by blunt abdominal trauma (BAT).

METHODS

The design was a prospective, blind, observational study. During a 15-month period, a convenience sample of patients presenting to the ED with BAT necessitating CT scan of the abdomen, diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL), or laparotomy was studied. Scans were performed by an emergency medicine (EM) attending, or a resident supervised by an attending, using a real-time sector ultrasound scanner with a 3.5-MHz probe. Training in DUS included a 1-hour didactic session and 1 hour of practice on human volunteers. Free intraperitoneal fluid was defined as an anechoic stripe in the hepatorenal, bladder-rectal, or splenorenal space, and constituted a positive DUS study. Free intraperitoneal fluid detected on abdominal CT scan, DPL, and/or laparotomy was the criterion standard.

RESULTS

Of 110 patients scanned, 13 were excluded secondary to technical difficulty or lack of diagnostic follow-up modalities. Of the remaining 97 patients, there were 24 females and 73 males, ranging from ages 2 to 78 years. DUS detected intraperitoneal fluid in 21 subjects, including 3 false positives. There were 6 false-negative DUS examinations. DUS had a sensitivity of 75% (95% CI 53-90%), a specificity 96% of (95% CI 89-99%), and an accuracy of 91% (95% CI 83-96%). No false-positive or false-negative DUS study occurred after the first 67 cases. The mean interval for a DUS scan was 4.9 +/- 2.9 minutes, ranging from 0.5 to 16 minutes, and the mean intervals were not different between the positive and the negative studies. The accuracies of DUS were similar in the pediatric patients, 97% (95% CI 83-100%), and in the adults, 88% (95% CI 78-95%). The hepatorenal view provided the highest sensitivity as well as the least number of uninterpretable scans of the 3 DUS views.

CONCLUSION

Emergency physicians with minimal training can use DUS with fair sensitivity and good specificity and accuracy to detect free intraperitoneal fluid in both pediatric and adult BAT victims. The hepatorenal view provides the highest sensitivity for intraperitoneal fluid, although the 3-view series (with hepatorenal, bladder-rectal, and splenorenal spaces) can typically be performed within 5 minutes and may increase the specificity and accuracy.

Nonoperative Management of Solid Abdominal Visceral Injury: Part I. Spleen

The relatively recent recognition of the immunological consequences of splenectomy in both children and adults, coupled with an increased use of noninvasive methods of detecting splenic injuries, has resulted in the development of a nonoperative approach to selected patients with blunt splenic trauma. Currently, nonoperative management of pediatric splenic injuries is the treatment of choice, with success rates greater than 90%. Due to the increased severity of injury in adult trauma patients, this method of treatment is applicable in only 50% of older patients with mild to moderate splenic trauma. As experience with nonoperative treatment has accumulated, the need for large blood transfusions, missed intestinal injuries, and delayed splenic rupture have been found to be uncommon events. However, patients selected for nonoperative management must be monitored in a setting where the treating surgeon is readily available for both serial examinations and operative intervention should nonoperative management fail.

The complexities of managing severe burns with associated trauma

A high incidence of severe inhalation injuries can be expected in the combined injury patient. The initial management remains attention to the ATLS priorities of airway, breathing, and circulation, with prompt and safe transfer to a regional center of excellence. The treatment of either the burn or the associated injuries may be compromised by their combined presence, and a team approach is essential to their optimal management. Circulatory management goals based on oxygen consumption and delivery allow greater understanding and control of the physiologic demands placed on the patient by the disease process. The management of inhalation injury and ARDS is at an exciting turning point in history, and we now have in hand and use many techniques that allow salvage of these mortal conditions. Pain management is essential to humane care and requires frequent assessment and patient control to be effective. Rehabilitation of the burn and trauma patient starts on the day of injury and requires team dedication to the areas of greatest morbidity early in the planning of surgical priorities and physical therapy.

Ultrasound in the diagnosis of injury

Ultrasound is one of several modalities useful in the work-up of an injured patient. It is a bedside technique which is quick, economical and highly reliable in filtering out the patients who are in urgent need of laparotomy. For the moment, this is the prime and only function of this modality. The US examination can and should be repeated with a very low threshold. Apart from the complication rate, which is zero for US, it shares many virtues with DPL. Ultrasonography in a badly injured victim is a challenging investigation which should be done by an expert. In most situations, this will be a radiologist whose presence in the emergency room could further be used for expert film reading and development as well as the unhampered implementation of a rational follow-up imaging strategy. Follow-up modalities, however impressive, should not be compared with first-line investigations. In expert hands, accuracy figures between DPL and US do not differ decisively but one must bear in mind that DPL spans only one compartment while US gives information about much more vital areas. DPL is complementary to US; it is of paramount importance to understand that DPL spoils the US examination (and CT as well) but is not hindered by repeated US. DPL can and should be used to investigate the nature of free intra-peritoneal fluid when the amount does not warrant laparotomy. Neither US nor DPl are substitutes for sound clinical judgement.