CT after emergency surgery in penetrating trauma: a seven-year experience in a level I Nordic trauma center

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe penetrating trauma may require emergency surgery on arrival, and postoperative computed tomography (CT) can reveal significant additional injuries.

PURPOSE

To determine the utility of postoperative CT performed within 48 h of emergency surgery after penetrating trauma.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Trauma registry data were retrieved over a seven-year period at a single level 1 trauma center. All patients aged ≥17 years, admitted with penetrating injury, who underwent urgent surgery and postoperative CT imaging within 48 h, were included. Pre- and intraoperative medical records were compared to CT findings. Age, sex, Injury Severity Score (ISS), New Injury Severity Score (NISS), 30-day mortality, injury mechanism, surgical intervention, and intensive care unit length of stay were extracted.

RESULTS

Out of 1262 patients, 38 fulfilled the study criteria (36 men [94.7%], 2 women [5.3%]; mean age = 31.5 years. Stab wound (SW) was the most common injury mechanism (26/38, 68.4%) followed by gunshot wound (GSW; 10/38, 26.3%). Patients with GSWs were more severely injured than SW victims (median NISS = 34 [range = 3-75]; for GSWs = 34; for SWs = 26; P = 0.045). Out of 38 patients, 20 (52.6%) had additional findings at postoperative CT. Six patients (15.8%) had unidentified or underestimated findings at CT that were severe enough to warrant additional surgery or angiography.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative CT imaging after emergency surgery in penetrating trauma is an important tool in evaluating the injury panorama. Out of 38 patients, 6 (15.8%) had findings at postoperative CT that warranted additional surgical or angiographic intervention.

Use of "Diagnostic Yield" in Imaging Research Reports: Results from Articles Published in Two General Radiology Journals

OBJECTIVE

"Diagnostic yield," also referred to as the detection rate, is a parameter positioned between diagnostic accuracy and diagnosis-related patient outcomes in research studies that assess diagnostic tests. Unfamiliarity with the term may lead to incorrect usage and delivery of information. Herein, we evaluate the level of proper use of the term "diagnostic yield" and its related parameters in articles published in Radiology and Korean Journal of Radiology (KJR).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Potentially relevant articles published since 2012 in these journals were identified using MEDLINE and PubMed Central databases. The initial search yielded 239 articles. We evaluated whether the correct definition and study setting of "diagnostic yield" or "detection rate" were used and whether the articles also reported companion parameters for false-positive results. We calculated the proportion of articles that correctly used these parameters and evaluated whether the proportion increased with time (2012-2016 vs. 2017-2022).

RESULTS

Among 39 eligible articles (19 from Radiology and 20 from KJR), 17 (43.6%; 11 from Radiology and 6 from KJR) correctly defined "diagnostic yield" or "detection rate." The remaining 22 articles used "diagnostic yield" or "detection rate" with incorrect meanings such as "diagnostic performance" or "sensitivity." The proportion of correctly used diagnostic terms was higher in the studies published in Radiology than in those published in KJR (57.9% vs. 30.0%). The proportion improved with time in Radiology (33.3% vs. 80.0%), whereas no improvement was observed in KJR over time (33.3% vs. 27.3%). The proportion of studies reporting companion parameters was similar between journals (72.7% vs. 66.7%), and no considerable improvement was observed over time.

CONCLUSION

Overall, a minority of articles accurately used "diagnostic yield" or "detection rate." Incorrect usage of the terms was more frequent without improvement over time in KJR than in Radiology. Therefore, improvements are required in the use and reporting of these parameters.

Multidetector CT Findings in the Abdomen and Pelvis after Damage Control Surgery for Acute Traumatic Injuries

After experiencing blunt or penetrating trauma, patients in unstable condition who are more likely to die of uncorrected shock than of incomplete injury repairs undergo emergency limited exploratory laparotomy, which is also known as damage control surgery (DCS). This surgery is part of a series of resuscitation steps, with the goal of stabilizing the patient's condition, with rapid surgical control of hemorrhage followed by supportive measures in the intensive care unit before definitive repair of injuries. These patients often are imaged with multidetector CT within 24-48 hours of the initial surgery. Knowledge of this treatment plan is critical to CT interpretation, because there are anatomic derangements and foreign bodies that would not be present in patients undergoing surgery for other reasons. Patients may have injuries beyond the surgical field that are only identified at imaging, which can alter the care plan. Abnormalities related to the resuscitation period such as the CT hypoperfusion complex and ongoing hemorrhage can be recognized at CT. Familiarity with these imaging and clinical findings is important, because they can be seen not only in trauma patients after DCS but also in other patients in the critical care setting. The interpretation of imaging studies can be helped by an understanding of the diagnostic challenges of grading organ injuries with surgical materials in place and the awareness of potential artifacts on images in these patients. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ^©RSNA, 2019 See discussion on this article by LeBedis .

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.

Imaging of penetrating thoracic trauma in a large Nordic trauma center

Background

Penetrating trauma is rarely encountered in Nordic trauma centers, yet the incidence is increasing. Typical imaging findings in penetrating trauma should thus be familiar to all radiologists.

Purpose

To evaluate incidence and imaging findings of penetrating chest trauma, gunshot wound (GSW) and stab wound (SW) injury spectrum, imaging protocols, and outcome in a large trauma center.

Material and Methods

Trauma registry data from 2013–2016 was retrieved, and imaging accessed through hospital PACS. Retrieved variables included age, gender, injury severity scores, mechanism of injury, time to CT, and 30-day mortality. Depth of thoracic, pulmonary, abdominal and skeletal injury, active bleeding, and use of chest tubes were evaluated.

Results

Of 636 patients with penetrating injuries, 443 (69.7%) underwent imaging. Of these, 161 (36.3%) had penetrating thoracic injuries. Of 161 patients with penetrating chest trauma in imaging, 151 (93.8%) were men (mean age = 34.9 years) and 10 (6.2%) were women (mean age = 40.7 years). The majority of patients had SWs (138 SW vs. 15 GSW). Patients with GSWs were more severely injured (mean ISS 17.00 vs. 8.84 [P=0.0014] and ISS≥16 in 53.3% vs. 16.7%) than SW patients. In CT, intrathoracic injuries were found in 49.4% (77/156) and active bleeding in 26.3% (41/156). Emergency surgery was performed in 6.2% (10/161) with postoperative CT imaging. Thirty-day mortality rate was 1.2% (2/161).

Conclusion

Penetrating thoracic trauma often violates intrathoracic structures and nearby compartments. Arterial phase whole-body CT is recommended as multiple injuries and active bleeding are common. CT after emergency surgery is warranted, especially to assess injuries outside the surgical field.

Delayed manifestations of abdominal trauma: follow-up abdominopelvic CT in posttraumatic patients

PURPOSE

Our study aims to investigate the frequency and patterns of delayed manifestations of abdominal and pelvic injuries which may not be identified or which fail to manifest on the initial abdominopelvic CT in posttraumatic patients.

METHODS

For our institutional review board (IRB)-approved retrospective study, our hospital trauma registry was queried for patients with blunt multitrauma and Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 16 between January 2010 and August 2016, yielding 3735 patients. A total of 203 patients received a follow-up abdominopelvic CT within six months from the initial scan and those with new findings on follow-up CT were identified. A retrospective blinded review of the initial CT examinations was performed by two experienced radiologists. The retrospective readings and original reports were compared to categorize the new abnormalities detected on follow-up CT scans. The categories included missed injuries, late presentations and sequelae of trauma, and complications of surgery, hospital admission, and invasive procedures. The patients' notes were reviewed for the clinical indications, time interval for repeat CT examination, and subsequent clinical management. The software used for statistical analysis of the extracted data was Microsoft Excel for Mac (version 15.33).

RESULTS

Out of 3735 patients, 203 patients received 232 follow-up abdominopelvic CTs. The average elapsed time between the initial CT and the follow-up CT was 15 ± 27 days. Evaluation for an abdominal fluid collection was the most common clinical indication, accounting for 40% of the total number (n = 243) of indications. Delayed manifestations and complications of trauma were present in 41 patients due to 47 abnormalities, most commonly related to solid organ injury, followed by abdominal collections and hematoma. Twenty-nine CT findings (62%) were only detectable on follow-up CT, while nine injuries (19%) were missed on initial CT. The findings on repeated CT warranted eight surgical and 15 interventional procedures.

CONCLUSION

A small percentage of traumatic injuries may be unidentified or fail to manifest on the initial CT, resulting in delayed manifestations of abdominopelvic trauma, which may lead to subsequent readmission, delayed management, and more severe medical complications.