Usefulness of CT-scan in the management of chest stab trauma: a prospective observational study

Diagnostic utility of multidetector CT scan in penetrating diaphragmatic injuries: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Penetrating diaphragmatic injuries pose diagnostic and management challenges. Computed tomography (CT) scans are valuable for stable patients, but concern exists for missed injuries and complications in nonoperatively managed cases. The objective of this study was to explore the diagnostic utility of multidetector CT scan (MDCT) in identifying diaphragmatic injuries resulting from penetrating trauma. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted, following established guidelines, by searching PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases up to July 6, 2023. Eligible studies reporting MDCT's diagnostic accuracy in detecting penetrating diaphragmatic injuries were included. Relevant data elements were extracted and analyzed using STATA software. The study included 9 articles comprising 294 patients with confirmed penetrating diaphragmatic injuries through surgical procedures. MDCT's diagnostic performance revealed a pooled sensitivity of 74% (95% CI: 56%-87%) and a pooled specificity of 92% (95% CI: 79%-97%) (Fig. two), with significant heterogeneity in both sensitivity and specificity across the studies. The Fagan plot demonstrated that higher pre-test probabilities correlated with higher positive post-test probabilities for penetrating diaphragmatic injury diagnosis using MDCT, but even with negative results, there remained a small chance of having the injury, especially in cases with higher pre-test probabilities. This study highlights MDCT's effectiveness in detecting diaphragmatic injury from penetrating trauma, with moderate to high diagnostic accuracy. However, larger sample sizes, multicenter collaborations, and prospective designs are needed to address observed heterogeneity, enhancing understanding and consistency in MDCT's diagnostic capabilities in this context.

A Comparative Study of Intravital CT and Autopsy Findings in Fatal Traumatic Injuries

Objectives: Traumatic injuries are one of the severe health problems of our time. In the 21st Century, approximately 4.5 million people worldwide die each year due to trauma. Computed tomography (CT) is widely used to diagnose injuries and offers information on the specific location and extent of organ and tissue damage. In cases of severe trauma, whole-body CT is increasingly used as a standard diagnostic technique. An autopsy is the final diagnostic examination and is still considered the gold standard in diagnostic methods in medicine. The aim of the study was to assess the reliability and accuracy of CT scan results, as well as limits in detecting trauma for forensic purposes. It aims to compare traumatic findings in the antemortem CT results to those observed at autopsy. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective–prospective study involving 510 deaths due to trauma. We compared selected traumatic changes in the antemortem CT scan results with the autopsy findings. We obtained data with a detailed analysis of autopsy protocols, photographic documentation from the autopsies, and the interpretation of CT scans from medical documentation. In cases of discrepancies in the findings, we borrowed CT scans, which were repeatedly reviewed by clinical radiologists. Results: By comparing the findings of selected injuries detected by antemortem CT and autopsy, we found a correlation of findings in 75.3% and a discrepancy of findings in 24.7% in a set of 510 cases. After repeated targeted assessment of CT images by clinical radiologists in cases of discrepancies in the findings, which were detected by autopsy and undescribed by CT, the discrepancy decreased to 17%. Conclusions: The results of the study are comparable with data from many studies and professional publications. They show that CT compared to autopsy is a good method for diagnosing gunshot wounds to the head and bone fractures, with a limited diagnosis of cranial base fractures, while an autopsy is better for detecting minor injuries to organs and soft tissues.

Surgical exploration for stable patients with penetrating cardiac box injuries: when and how? A cohort of 155 patients from Marseille area

BACKGROUND

The management of penetrating thoracic injuries in moribund or unstable patients is clearly described in contrast to that of stable patients, particularly for those with a cardiac box injury. This anatomic location suggests a potentially lethal cardiac injury and requires urgent therapeutic decision making. The present study aims at determining when surgical exploration is beneficial for stable patients presenting with penetrating cardiac box injuries (PCBI).

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of stable civilian patients with PCBI referred to level I trauma centers in the Marseille area between January 2009 and December 2019. Using post-hoc analysis of the management outcomes, patients whose surgery was considered therapeutic (group A) were compared with those surgery was considered non-therapeutic and with non-operated patients (group B).

RESULTS

A total of 155 patients with PCBI were included, with 88% (n = 137) of stab wound injuries (SW). Overall, surgical exploration was performed in 54% (n = 83), considered therapeutic in 71% (n = 59), and performed by video-assisted thoracoscopy (VATS) in 42% (n = 35) with a conversion rates of 14% (n = 5). Initial extended Fast Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (eFAST) revealed the presence of hemopericardium in 29% (n = 29) in group A vs 9.5% (n = 7) in group B, p = 0.010, and was associated with a negative predictive value of 93% regarding the presence of a cardiac injury. Chest tube flow was significantly higher in patients who required surgery, with a median (IQR) of 600.00 (350.00, 1200.00) mL vs. 300.0 (150.00, 400.00) mL (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

eFAST and chest tube flow are the cornerstones of the management of stable PCBI. Video-assisted thoracoscopy represents an interesting approach to check intra thoracic wounds while minimizing surgical morbidity.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, prognostic study.