Current Use of CT in the Evaluation and Management of Injured Patients

How useful are clinical details in blunt trauma referrals for computed tomography of the abdomen?

Background

The relevance of clinical data included in blunt trauma referrals for abdominal computed tomography (CT) is not known.

Objectives

To analyse the clinical details provided on free-text request forms for abdominal CT following blunt trauma and assess their association with imaging evidence of intra-abdominal injury.

Method

A single-institution, retrospective study of abdominal CT scans was performed for blunt trauma between 01 January and 31 March 2018. Computed tomography request forms were reviewed with their corresponding CT images. Clinical details provided and scan findings were captured systematically. The relationship between individual clinical features and CT evidence of abdominal injury was tested using one-way cross tabulation and Fisher’s exact test.

Results

One hundred thirty-nine studies met inclusion criteria. A wide range of clinical details was communicated. Only clinical abdominal examination findings (p = 0.05), macroscopic haematuria (p < 0.01), pelvic fracture or hip dislocation (p = 0.04) and positive focused assessment with sonography in trauma (p < 0.01) demonstrated an associated trend with abdominal injury.

Conclusion

Key abdominal examination and basic imaging findings remain essential clinical details for the appropriate evaluation of CT abdomen requests in the setting of blunt trauma. Methods to improve consistent communication of relevant clinical details are likely to be of value.

Changes in Approach to Solid Organ Injury: What the Radiologist Needs to Know

This review aims to examine the challenges facing radiologists interpreting trauma computed tomography (CT) images in this era of a changing approach to management of solid organ trauma. After reviewing the pearls and pitfalls of CT imaging protocols for detection of traumatic solid organ injuries, we describe the key changes in the 2018 American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Organ Injury Scales for liver, spleen, and kidney and their implications for management strategies. We then focus on the important imaging findings in observed in patients who undergo nonoperative management and patients who are imaged post damage control surgery.

Characteristics of computed tomography in hemodynamically unstable blunt trauma patients: Experience at a tertiary care center

Emergent exploratory laparotomy is recommended for hemodynamically unstable blunt trauma patients suspected of having hemoperitoneum. However, given the unreliability of ultrasonography and rapid scan speed of computed tomography (CT), CT might help clinicians provide accurate information even in hemodynamically unstable trauma patients. This observational study aimed to describe the bleeding site and hospital course of severe blunt trauma patients with hemoperitoneum diagnosed by CT scan.We enrolled all consecutive adult blunt trauma patients (≥18 years old) who underwent whole-body CT before operation between February 2012 and October 2016. Patients with hemoperitoneum on CT images were included and categorized into hemodynamically stable and unstable (persistent hypotension despite fluid resuscitation) groups.Among 1723 severe blunt trauma patients, 136 patients with hemoperitoneum were included. Of these, 98 (72.1%) patients had documented intraperitoneal injury, and the liver (60.2%) was most frequently damaged site, followed by spleen (23.5%) and mesentery (23.5%). The rate of intraperitoneal organ injury did not differ between hemodynamically stable (n = 107) and unstable (n = 29) groups (69.2% vs 82.8%, P = .15), while the documented active internal bleeding was high in the unstable group (29.9% vs 69.0%, P < .001). In the unstable group, 14 (48.3%) patients underwent emergent operation, while 3 patients underwent embolization, and the others were treated in a conservative manner.Even in hemodynamically unstable hemoperitoneum patients, 17.2% had no documented intraperitoneal injury and over half of the patients were treated without emergent operation.

Prediction of blunt traumatic injuries and hospital admission based on history and physical exam

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the ability of experienced trauma surgeons to accurately predict specific blunt injuries, as well as patient disposition from the emergency department (ED), based only on the initial clinical evaluation and prior to any imaging studies. It would be hypothesized that experienced trauma surgeons' initial clinical evaluation is accurate for excluding life-threatening blunt injuries and for appropriate admission triage decisions.

METHODS

Using only their history and physical exam, and prior to any imaging studies, three (3) experienced trauma surgeons, with a combined Level 1 trauma experience of over 50 years, predicted injuries in patients with an initial GCS (Glasgow Coma Score) of 14-15. Additionally, ED disposition (ICU, floor, discharge to home) was also predicted. These predictions were compared to actual patient dispositions and to blunt injuries documented at discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 101 patients with 92 blunt injuries were studied. 43/92 (46.7 %) injuries would have been missed by only performing an initial history and physical exam ("Missed injury"). A change in treatment, though often minor, was required in 19/43 (44.2 %) of the missed injuries. Only 1/43 (2.3 %) of these "missed injuries" (blunt aortic injury) required surgery. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for injury prediction were 53.2, 95.9, and 92.3 % respectively. Positive and negative predictive values were 53.8 and 95.8 % respectively. Prediction of disposition from the ED was 77.8 % accurate. In 7/34 (20.6 %) patients, missed injuries led to changes in disposition. "Undertriage" occurred in 9/99 (9.1 %) patients (Predicted for floor but admitted to ICU). Additionally, 8/84 (9.5 %) patients predicted for floor admission were sent home from the ED; and 5/13 (38.5 %) patients predicted for ICU admission were actually sent to the floor after complete evaluations, giving an "overtriage" rate of 13/99 (13.1 %) patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In a neurologically-intact group of trauma patients, experienced trauma surgeons would have missed 46.7 % of the actual injuries, based only on their history and physical exam. Once accurate diagnoses of injuries were completed, usually with the help of CT scans, admission dispositions changed in 20.6 % of patients. Treatment changes occurred in 44.2 % of the missed injuries, though usually minimal. Broad elimination of early imaging studies in alert, blunt trauma patients cannot be advocated.

Blunt abdominal trauma: imaging and intervention

Interventional radiology, particularly percutaneous angioembolization, plays an important role in the management of blunt abdominal trauma involving solid organs and pelvic fractures. The traumatic injuries of the central nervous system, heart, and great vessels often lead to death at the site of trauma. Although patients with visceral organ injuries can also die at the site of trauma, these patients often reach the hospital thus giving us an opportunity to treat them with surgical or radiological intervention depending on the clinical condition of the patient. The management of these patients with trauma is now well codified-patients who remain unstable despite resuscitation should be shifted either to an operating room for laparotomy if the ultrasound (US) revealed hemoperitoneum or to a interventional room for angioembolization in cases of pelvic fractures. In all other cases, computed tomography is essential. Currently, multidetector computed tomography with contrast is the gold standard imaging modality for the diagnosis of traumatic abdominal injuries; it helps in assessing the extent of injuries, and further management can be planned.

Pancreatic Injury Caused By A Fall From Height: Transection at the Tail

Isolated pancreatic injury due to blunt abdominal trauma is rare and may be clinically difficult to diagnose. Parenchymal injuries may not be recognized during initial evaluation. We report the case of a 30-year-old male presented to the Emergency Department (ED) with the complaint of persistent abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting. His medical history revealed that he fell from a height of approximately 1.5 meters 1 day ago and hit an iron block. He was presented and discharged from another hospital ED. Contrast enhanced computerized tomography (CECT) of the abdomen was ordered during his second presentation and revealed pancreatic parenchymal contusion, laceration, and transection at the tail of pancreas. Our findings suggest that, when there is high index of suspicion for pancreatic injury, a CECT should always be ordered.

Multidetector CT of blunt abdominal trauma

The morbidity, mortality, and economic costs resulting from trauma in general, and blunt abdominal trauma in particular, are substantial. The "panscan" (computed tomographic [CT] examination of the head, neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis) has become an essential element in the early evaluation and decision-making algorithm for hemodynamically stable patients who sustained abdominal trauma. CT has virtually replaced diagnostic peritoneal lavage for the detection of important injuries. Over the past decade, substantial hardware and software developments in CT technology, especially the introduction and refinement of multidetector scanners, have expanded the versatility of CT for examination of the polytrauma patient in multiple facets: higher spatial resolution, faster image acquisition and reconstruction, and improved patient safety (optimization of radiation delivery methods). In this article, the authors review the elements of multidetector CT technique that are currently relevant for evaluating blunt abdominal trauma and describe the most important CT signs of trauma in the various organs. Because conservative nonsurgical therapy is preferred for all but the most severe injuries affecting the solid viscera, the authors emphasize the CT findings that are indications for direct therapeutic intervention.

Radiographic assessment of splenic injury without contrast: is contrast truly needed?

INTRODUCTION

Computed tomography (CT) has become an essential tool in the assessment of the stable trauma patient. Intravenous (i.v.) contrast is commonly relied upon to provide superior image quality, particularly for solid-organ injury. However, a substantial proportion of injured patients have contraindications to i.v. contrast. Little information exists concerning the repercussions of CT imaging without i.v. contrast, specifically for splenic injury.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis using data from our trauma registry and chart review as part of a quality improvement project at our institution. All patients with splenic injury, during a 3-year period (2008-2010), where a CT of the abdomen without i.v. contrast (DRY) early during their admission were selected. All splenic injuries had to have been verified with abdominal CT imaging with i.v. contrast (CONTRAST) or via intraoperative findings. DRY images were independently read by a single, blinded, radiologist and assessed for parenchymal injury or "suspicious" splenic injury findings and compared with CONTRAST imaging results or intraoperative findings.

RESULTS

During the time period of the study, 319 patients had documented splenic injury with 44 (14%) patients undergoing DRY imaging, which was also verified by CONTRAST imaging or operative findings. Splenic parenchymal injury was only visualized in 38% of patients DRY patients. "Suspicious" splenic injury radiographic findings were common. When these less-specific findings for splenic injury were incorporated in the radiographic assessment, DRY imaging had more than 93% sensitivity for detecting splenic injury.

CONCLUSION

DRY imaging is increasingly being performed after injury and has a low sensitivity in detecting splenic parenchymal injury. However, less-specific radiographic findings suspicious for splenic injury in combination provide high sensitivity for the detection of splenic injury. These results suggest CONTRAST imaging is preferred to detect splenic injury; however, in those patients who have contraindications to i.v. contrast, DRY imagining may be able to select those who require close monitoring or intervention.

Can CT Angiography Replace Conventional Bi-Planar Angiography in the Management of Severe Scapulothoracic Dissociation Injuries?

Severe scapulothoracic dissociation (SSTD) (Type III or IV; Zelle classification) is often life-threatening and is commonly associated with other devastating injuries. Rapid evaluation, including of the vascular system, is critical to limit the time to definitive therapy. CT angiography (CTA) has evolved as a diagnostic tool, replacing angiography (angio) as it can simultaneously evaluate bony, soft tissue, and vascular injuries. We hypothesized that CTA would be useful in evaluating patients with SSTD. We retrospectively reviewed the trauma registry between June 2002 and June 2010 to identify patients over 18 years of age who sustained SSTD. Patients that were transferred or died before diagnostic imaging were excluded. Comparisons were made between the group that underwent angio before surgery compared with CTA with regards to outcome and length of hospital and intensive care unit stay. Fourteen patients were identified with Type III or IV SSTD over the study period. In the CTA group, mean Injury Severity Score was higher, but time to definitive operative intervention was significantly shorter. There was no difference in amputation rates or mortality. Replacing arteriography with CTA in the preoperative workup of patients with SSTD reduces time to surgery. Despite a greater injury severity in the group in which CTA was used as the primary imaging modality, length of stay, amputation rates, and mortality were no different. CTA can be safely used to evaluate patients with suspected SSTD.

Nonsurgical management of delayed splenic rupture after blunt trauma

BACKGROUND

Delayed splenic rupture (DSR) is a rare manifestation of blunt splenic trauma, and splenectomy remains the primary treatment for patients with DSR. The purpose of this study was to review our experience with nonsurgical management of DSR with the use of splenic artery embolization (SAE) as an adjunct treatment.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients with DSR treated at our institution from January 2001 to December 2008. Management included initial resuscitation and close observation in the intensive care unit. Further interventions were based on the patient's hemodynamic status and followed a treatment protocol. These interventions included SAE or surgery.

RESULTS

There were 15 patients included in the analysis. Three patients underwent emergent surgery, and 12 patients received nonsurgical management initially. Of these 12 patients, five underwent SAE. One of these five patients subsequently underwent splenectomy because of recurrent bleeding. Of the remaining seven patients who received nonoperative management, one required a splenectomy because of recurrent hemorrhage and hypotension. There were no mortalities; however, two surgery-associated complications occurred. The success rate of nonsurgical therapy was 83%. SAE was used for splenic salvage with a success rate of 80% (4 of 5). The overall failure rate of DSR was 33% (5 of 15).

CONCLUSIONS

Nonsurgical management can safely be used in selected patients with DSR, especially for those with a good response to resuscitation. SAE is as effective for DSR as it is for acute splenic injury. Physicians should consider SAE as an option for the treatment of DSR.

Previous iodinated contrast anaphylaxis in blunt abdominal trauma: management options

A 34-year-old man presented with significant intra-abdominal and orthopaedic injuries following a high-speed motorbike crash. The man had a history of an anaphylactic reaction to iodine. As a result, the gold standard CT of the abdomen with contrast was unable to be performed to ascertain the exact nature of the intra-abdominal injuries. After stabilisation, an MRI of the abdomen was performed which localised the injuries. The previous contrast anaphylaxis delayed full assessment of the patient and subsequent management. This case discusses the current literature and the management guidelines in a patient with previous anaphylaxis to contrast.