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

Reliability of Focused Assessment With Sonography for Trauma in the Diagnosis of Blunt Torso Trauma

Objective:

Focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) is a widely used imaging technique for the diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma and has its limitations and advantages. A meta-analysis was completed to evaluate the reliability of FAST, in the diagnosis of blunt torso trauma.

Materials and Methods:

A search was completed with Google Scholar, PubMed, National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), MEDLINE, and Medscape databases, from 1993 up to 2020. Eligible studies were included for information about FAST examination of abdominal trauma. The animal research was excluded from this review process. The eligible studies were first categorized and then data analysis was performed, according to specific pathologic conditions. This literature review retrieved studies’ sample size, application, sensitivity, and a specificity of diagnosis using FAST for abdominal trauma.

Results:

In total, 100 articles were identified through the database search. Besides, five articles were identified through other sources. Then, screening was performed, and as such, 46 published studies were included that had a qualitative synthesis.

Conclusion:

FAST has a high sensitivity and specificity in the diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma. However, a large range of sensitivity and specificity of FAST in the evaluation of torso trauma reveal that sonography is operator, technique, and equipment dependent.

Radiology and A Radiologist: A Keystone in the Turmoil of Trauma Setting

Traumatic injuries are one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. Precise diagnosis and management in the golden hour are key to decrease morbidity and mortality. History and physical examination alone are insufficient to avoid misdiagnosis. In this article, we tried to determine the role of a radiologist and an appropriate imaging modality in a trauma setting. We conducted a literature review of published research articles. We used the keywords imaging, trauma, imaging and trauma, and trauma imaging essentials were used on PubMed and Google Scholar. The articles published in the English language from 2015 to 2020 with full free text available were included. Using the medical subject heading (MeSH) strategy, "diagnostic imaging" (Major {Majr}) and "multiple trauma/diagnostic imaging" (Mesh) on PubMed, we identified 34 papers after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Twenty articles were finally selected which included studies from 2015 to 2020 with articles focusing on the adult population and acute cases. A radiologist and imaging modalities are the essential parts of a trauma setting to lower morbidity and mortality. X-rays and Extended Focussed Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (eFAST) are the first-line imaging modality in the acute trauma setting. However, the CT scan is the most sensitive modality that should be done to avoid misdiagnosis depending upon the patient's history and physical examination.

Too fast, or not fast enough? The FAST exam in patients with non-compressible torso hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) performance metrics are unknown in patients with non-compressible torso hemorrhage (NCTH).

METHODS

Retrospective review of a dedicated NCTH database from four level 1 trauma centers (2008-2012). NCTH was defined as (1) named axial torso vessel disruption; (2) AIS chest or abdomen >2 with shock (base deficit < -4) or truncal operation in ≤ 90 min; or (3) pelvic fracture with ring disruption. Patients were grouped by cavity of hemorrhage source and by shock (SBP ≤ 90).

RESULTS

274 patients had a FAST prior to diagnosis of NCTH. FAST was positive in 51% of patients with abdominal/pelvic hemorrhage for a false negative rate (FNR) of 49%. FNR was higher for pelvic (61%) versus abdominal (43%) sources (p = 0.02). There was no difference between FAST negative or positive patients for ISS, shock, length of stay, or mortality (all p = NS). FNR was not improved among the subgroup of NCTH patients with shock (p = NS).

CONCLUSION

FAST identified abdominal/pelvic hemorrhage in approximately half of NCTH patients, and this was not improved among patients presenting with shock.

Point-of-care ultrasonography for diagnosing thoracoabdominal injuries in patients with blunt trauma

BACKGROUND

Point-of-care sonography (POCS) has emerged as the screening modality of choice for suspected body trauma in many emergency departments worldwide. Its best known application is FAST (focused abdominal sonography for trauma). The technology is almost ubiquitously available, can be performed during resuscitation, and does not expose patients or staff to radiation. While many authors have stressed the high specificity of POCS, its sensitivity varied markedly across studies. This review aimed to compile the current best evidence about the diagnostic accuracy of POCS imaging protocols in the setting of blunt thoracoabdominal trauma.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of POCS for detecting and excluding free fluid, organ injuries, vascular lesions, and other injuries (e.g. pneumothorax) compared to a diagnostic reference standard (i.e. computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), thoracoscopy or thoracotomy, laparoscopy or laparotomy, autopsy, or any combination of these) in patients with blunt trauma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 2017) and Ovid Embase (1974 to July 2017), as well as PubMed (1947 to July 2017), employing a prospectively defined literature and data retrieval strategy. We also screened the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and BIOSIS for potentially relevant citations, and scanned the reference lists of full-text papers for articles missed by the electronic search. We performed a top-up search on 6 December 2018, and identified eight new studies which may be incorporated into the first update of this review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We assessed studies for eligibility using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We included either prospective or retrospective diagnostic cohort studies that enrolled patients of any age and gender who sustained any type of blunt injury in a civilian scenario. Eligible studies had to provide sufficient information to construct a 2 x 2 table of diagnostic accuracy to allow for calculating sensitivity, specificity, and other indices of diagnostic test accuracy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts of reports using a prespecified data extraction form. Methodological quality of individual studies was rated by the QUADAS-2 instrument (the revised and updated version of the original Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies list of items). We calculated sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI), tabulated the pairs of sensitivity and specificity with CI, and depicted these estimates by coupled forest plots using Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). For pooling summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity, and investigating heterogeneity across studies, we fitted a bivariate model using Stata 14.0.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 34 studies with 8635 participants in this review. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were 0.74 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.81) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.98). Pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios were estimated at 18.5 (95% CI 10.8 to 40.5) and 0.27 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.37), respectively. There was substantial heterogeneity across studies, and the reported accuracy of POCS strongly depended on the population and affected body area. In children, pooled sensitivity of POCS was 0.63 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.77), as compared to 0.78 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.84) in an adult or mixed population. Associated specificity in children was 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.96) and in an adult or mixed population 0.97 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.99). For abdominal trauma, POCS had a sensitivity of 0.68 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.75) and a specificity of 0.95 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.97). For chest injuries, sensitivity and specificity were calculated at 0.96 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00). If we consider the results of all 34 included studies in a virtual population of 1000 patients, based on the observed median prevalence (pretest probability) of thoracoabdominal trauma of 28%, POCS would miss 73 patients with injuries and falsely suggest the presence of injuries in another 29 patients. Furthermore, in a virtual population of 1000 children, based on the observed median prevalence (pretest probability) of thoracoabdominal trauma of 31%, POCS would miss 118 children with injuries and falsely suggest the presence of injuries in another 62 children.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In patients with suspected blunt thoracoabdominal trauma, positive POCS findings are helpful for guiding treatment decisions. However, with regard to abdominal trauma, a negative POCS exam does not rule out injuries and must be verified by a reference test such as CT. This is of particular importance in paediatric trauma, where the sensitivity of POCS is poor. Based on a small number of studies in a mixed population, POCS may have a higher sensitivity in chest injuries. This warrants larger, confirmatory trials to affirm the accuracy of POCS for diagnosing thoracic trauma.