The Utility of Sonography for the Triage of Blunt Abdominal Trauma Patients to Exploratory Laparotomy

Pediatric Blunt Abdominal Trauma and Point-of-Care Ultrasound

ABSTRACT

Blunt abdominal trauma (BAT) accounts for most trauma in children. Although the focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) is considered standard of care in the evaluation of adults with traumatic injuries, there is limited evidence to support its use as an isolated evaluation tool for intra-abdominal injury as a result of BAT in children. Although a positive FAST examination could obviate the need for a computed tomography scan before OR evaluation in a hemodynamically unstable patient, a negative FAST examination cannot exclude intra-abdominal injury as a result of BAT in isolation. In this article, we review the evaluation of BAT in children, describe the evaluation for free intraperitoneal fluid and pericardial fluid using the FAST examination, and discuss the limitations of the FAST examination in pediatric patients.

A multicenter evaluation of the accuracy of prehospital eFAST by a physician-staffed helicopter emergency medical service

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to report the relative accuracy of prehospital extended focused assessment with sonography in trauma (eFAST) examinations performed by HEMS physicians.

METHODS

Trauma patients who received prehospital eFAST by HEMS clinicians between January 2013 and December 2017 were reviewed. The clinician's interpretations of these ultrasounds were compared to gold standard references of CT imaging or operating room findings. The outcomes measured include the calculated accuracy of eFAST for detecting intraperitoneal free fluid (IPFF), pneumothorax, hemothorax, and pericardial fluid compared to available gold standard results.

RESULTS

Of the 411 patients with adequate data for comparison, the median age was 39.5 years with 73% male and 98% sustaining blunt force trauma. For the detection of IPFF, eFAST had a sensitivity of 25% (95% CI 16-36%) and specificity of 96% (95% CI 93-98%). Sensitivities and specificities were calculated for pneumothorax (38% and 96% respectively), hemothorax (17% and 97% respectively), and pericardial effusion (17% and 100% respectively). These results did not change significantly when reassessed with several sensitivity analyses.

CONCLUSION

Prehospital eFAST is reliable for detecting the presence of intraperitoneal free fluid. This finding should inform receiving trauma teams to prepare for early definitive care in these patients. The low sensitivities across all components of the eFAST highlight the importance of cautiously interpreting negative studies while prompting the need for further studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12618001973202 (Registered on 06/12/2018).

Prehospital ABC Score Accurately Forecasts Patients Who Will Require Immediate Resource Utilization

OBJECTIVES

Scoring systems, such as the Assessment of Blood Consumption (ABC) Score, are used to identify patients at risk for massive transfusion (MT, ≥10 U red blood cells in 24 hours). Our aeromedical transport helicopter uses ultrasound to perform the Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) examination. Our objective was to evaluate the ability of the Prehospital ABC (PhABC) Score to predict blood transfusions and the need for emergent laparotomy.

METHODS

Post hoc analysis of a prospective observational study of trauma patients who underwent an in-flight FAST during aeromedical transport during a 7-month period. PhABC Score was positive if ≥2 of the following were present in flight: penetrating trauma, heart rate >120 bpm, systolic blood pressure <90 mm Hg, or a positive abdominal FAST. The PhABC Score was evaluated by area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curves and logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 291 trauma patients met inclusion criteria, 23 underwent emergent laparotomy, and 12 received an MT. A positive PhABC Score predicted emergent laparotomy, with a positive predictive value of 48% and a negative predictive value of 95% (sensitivity 46%, specificity 96%, AUROC curve 0.83). A positive PhABC Score also predicted receipt of an MT with a positive predictive value of 28% and a negative predictive value of 94% (sensitivity 33%, specificity 93%, AUROC curve 0.77). Multiple logistic regression identified FAST as the most powerful contributor of the PhABC Score to the prediction of both emergent laparotomy (odds ratio 8.5, P < 0.001) and MT (odds ratio 5.9, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The PhABC Score effectively predicts in-hospital resource utilization. It provides an outstanding undertriage rate from the prehospital setting, and it is helpful to improve trauma team activation, mobilize blood products, and prepare the operating room.

Regionalization of trauma care by operative experience: Does the volume of emergent laparotomy matter?

INTRODUCTION

The volume-outcome relationship led to the regionalization of trauma care. The relationship between trauma centers' injury-specific laparotomy volume and outcomes has not been explored. The aim of our study was to examine the relationship between a trauma center's injury-specific laparotomy volume and outcomes in blunt and penetrating trauma patients.

METHODS

We performed a (2017) analysis of the Trauma Quality Improvement Program database. We included adult (age, ≥18 years) blunt and penetrating trauma patients who required emergent laparotomies for hemorrhage control. Trauma centers were stratified based on their blunt and penetrating laparotomy volumes: high volume (HV), ≥25 cases per year; medium volume (MV), 13 to 24 cases per year; and low volume (LV), ≤12 cases per year. Multivariate regression analysis was performed to explore predictors of in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 8,588 patients underwent emergent laparotomy for either blunt (4,936; 57.5%) or penetrating injuries (3,652; 42.5%). Overall, mean ± SD age was 40 ± 17 years, abdomen Abbreviated Injury Scale was 3 (2-4), and Injury Severity Score was 26 (17-35). For American College of Surgeons (ACS) level I centers, 50% were HV; 29%, MV; and 21%, LV. For ACS level II centers, 7% were HV; 23%, MV; and 70%, LV. For ACS level III centers, 100% were LV. On multivariate regression analysis, admission of blunt and penetrating trauma patients to HV blunt and HV penetrating centers, respectively, was independently associated with improved in-hospital mortality. High-volume blunt centers had a significantly lower time to laparotomy (72 [41-144] minutes) versus MV (81 [49-145] minutes) and LV (94 [56-158] minutes) centers (p < 0.001). The same trend was observed for HV penetrating trauma centers (35 [24-52] minutes) versus MV (46 [33-63] minutes) and LV (51 [38-69] minutes) centers (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Blunt and penetrating injury patients requiring emergent laparotomy had higher survival when admitted to trauma centers with HV operative experience for their particular mechanism of injury. The regionalization of trauma care should be based on a thorough evaluation of trauma centers' injury-specific operative experience.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic, Level III; Therapeutic/Care management, Level IV.

FAST Enough? A Validation Study for Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma Ultrasounds in a Level II Trauma Center

The Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) is widely used as the initial screening tool for abdominal trauma. Several recent studies have questioned its use. Using the Trauma Registry, 1 year of data at a Level II trauma center were reviewed. All trauma patients with dictated FAST examinations were identified. Disconcordant findings were reviewed. Predictive values for determining intraperitoneal injuries were calculated. Nine hundred seventy-four designated trauma patients were entered into the Trauma Registry. Of these, 633 had dictated FAST examinations. There were 533 true-negatives, 11 true-positives, 77 false-negatives, and six false-positives. Of the 77 false-negatives, 33 had retroperitoneal injuries and 25 had intra-peritoneal injuries. No adverse outcomes were identified from diagnostic delay. For predicting intraperitoneal injury, FAST had a negative predictive value of 96 per cent, positive predictive value of 63 per cent, sensitivity of 29 per cent, specificity of 99 per cent, and accuracy of 95 per cent. Our data demonstrate that FAST was useful for the initial assessment of intraperitoneal injuries. FAST was 95 per cent accurate and allowed for rapid triage to operative management when indicated. The data also confirm that a negative FAST does not exclude abdominal injury.

Emergency Focused Assessment with Sonography in Blunt Trauma Abdomen

Background:

Focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) being a rapid noninvasive examination is used primarily to evaluate for the evidence of traumatic free fluid suggestive of injury in the peritoneal, pericardial, and pleural cavities. It is widely recognized as a mainstream emergency skill in the management of trauma.

Aim:

The aim of the study is to evaluate the accuracy of FAST in patients presenting with blunt abdominal trauma.

Methods:

Data were collected prospectively from FAST scans conducted in blunt trauma abdomen (BTA) patients. Positive and negative FAST scans were confirmed either with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) abdomen or with exploratory laparotomy, thus dividing it further into four groups, i.e., true-positive, false-positive, true-negative, and false-negative scans. After collecting the data, accuracy of FAST was calculated.

Results:

In this study, a total of 104 patients were included. The mean age was 38.17 years. Most common cause of BTA was road traffic accident. The overall sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of FAST were 69.8%, 92.1%, and 80.8%, respectively.

Conclusion:

This study showed that FAST is of paramount importance in patients who are hemodynamically unstable as it has a high positive predictive value. However, a FAST-negative result should always be confirmed by other modalities.

The focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) in hypotensive injured patients frequently fails to identify the need for laparotomy: a multi-institutional pragmatic study

Background

The ability of focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) to detect clinically significant hemorrhage in hypotensive injured patients remains unclear. We sought to describe the sensitivity and specificity of FAST using findings at laparotomy as the confirmatory test.

Methods

Patients from the Prospective Observational Multicenter Major Trauma Transfusion (PROMMTT) study that had a systolic blood pressure < 90mm Hg and underwent FAST were analysed. Results were compared with findings at laparotomy. A therapeutic laparotomy (T-LAP) was defined as an abdominal operation within 6 hours in which a definitive procedure was performed. The sensitivity and specificity of FAST were calculated.

Results

The cohort included 317 patients that underwent FAST (108 positive, 209 negative). T-LAP was performed in 69% (n=75) of FAST(+) patients and 22% (n=48) of FAST(−) patients. FAST had a sensitivity of 62% and specificity of 83%.

Conclusions

In our multicenter cohort, 22% of FAST(−) patients underwent T-LAP within 6 hours of admission. In hypotensive patients with a negative FAST, clinicians should still maintain a high index of suspicion for significant abdominal hemorrhage.

Level of evidence

Level IV.

Standardised assessment of competence in Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to develop and gather validity evidence for a standardised test of competence in Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) and to define the appropriate cut-off point in simulation-based learning of the FAST protocol.

METHODS

A 20-item simulation-based test for assessing competence in FAST was created. The test was administered to thirteen novices and twelve radiologists experienced in abdominal ultrasound diagnostics. The Contrasting Groups' method was used to establish a credible passing score.

RESULTS

The internal consistency was high (Cronbach's α = 0.90) and the test had good discriminatory ability (P < .001). The mean score was 16.9 (95% CI: 15.5-18.3) in the experienced group and 8.0 (95% CI: 5.8-10.2) in the novice group, corresponding to 85% and 40% of the total score, respectively. A pass/fail standard of 14 points was established using the Contrasting Groups' method.

CONCLUSIONS

The FAST simulation-based test provided valid assessment of competence in FAST. The FAST test could be used to guide training and ensure basic competence of physicians using FAST.

Evaluation of a Novel Wireless Transmission System for Trauma Ultrasound Examinations From Moving Ambulances

Objective

To determine if physicians trained in ultrasound interpretation perceive a difference in image quality and usefulness between Extended Focused Assessment with Sonography ultrasound examinations performed at bedside in a hospital vs. by emergency medical technicians minimally trained in medical ultrasound on a moving ambulance and transmitted to the hospital via a novel wireless system. In particular, we sought to demonstrate that useful images could be obtained from patients in less than optimal imaging conditions; that is, while they were in transport.

Methods

Emergency medical technicians performed the examinations during transport of blunt trauma patients. Upon patient arrival at the hospital, a bedside Extended Focused Assessment with Sonography examination was performed by a physician. Both examinations were recorded and later reviewed by physicians trained in ultrasound interpretation.

Results

Data were collected on 20 blunt trauma patients over a period of 13 mo. Twenty ultrasound-trained physicians blindly compared transmitted vs. bedside images using 11 Questionnaire for User Interaction Satisfaction scales. Four paired samples t-tests were conducted to assess mean differences between ratings for ambulatory and base images.

Conclusion

Although there is a slight tendency for the average rating across all subjects and raters to be slightly higher in the base than in the ambulatory condition, none of these differences are statistically significant. These results suggest that the quality of the ambulatory images was viewed as essentially as good as the quality of the base images.

Clinical Applications of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in the Pediatric Work-Up of Focal Liver Lesions and Blunt Abdominal Trauma: A Systematic Review

In pediatrics ultrasound has long been viewed more favorably than imaging that exposes patients to radiation and iodinated contrast or requires sedation. It is child-friendly and diagnostic capabilities have been improved with the advent of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). The application of CEUS is indeed promising. However, no ultrasound contrast agent manufactured today is registered for pediatric use in Europe. The contrast agent SonoVue^® has recently been approved by the FDA under the name of Lumason^® to be used in hepatic investigations in adults and children. This article reviews the literature with respect to 2 specific applications of CEUS in children: 1) identification of parenchymal injuries following blunt abdominal trauma, and 2) classification of focal liver lesions. Applications were chosen through the CEUS guidelines published by the European Federation of Societies for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology and World Federation for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. Literature was obtained by searching Medline and Pubmed Central (using Pubmed), Scopus database and Embase. CEUS proved to be an effective investigation in the hemodynamically stable child for identifying parenchymal injuries and for the characterization of focal liver lesions. CEUS showed comparable performance to CT and MRI with a specificity of 98% for identifying benign lesions and a negative predictive value of 100%. For the applications reviewed here, CEUS holds promising perspectives and can help reduce radiation exposure and use of iodinated contrast agents in pediatrics, thereby potentially reducing complications in routine imaging.

Laparoscopy in Blunt Abdominal Trauma: for Whom? When?and Why?

The management of blunt abdominal trauma has evolved over time. While laparotomy is the standard of care in hemodynamically unstable patients, stable patients are usually treated by non-operative management (NOM), incorporating adjuncts such as interventional radiology. However, although NOM has shown good results in solid organ injuries, other lesions, namely those involving the hollow viscus, diaphragm, and mesentery, do not qualify for this approach and need surgical exploration. Laparoscopy can substantially reduce additional surgical aggression. It has both diagnostic and therapeutic potential and, when negative, may reduce the number of unnecessary laparotomies. Although some studies have shown promising results on the use of laparoscopy in blunt abdominal trauma, randomized controlled studies are lacking. Laparoscopy requires adequate training and experience as well as sufficient staffing and equipment.

Mesenteric Hematoma: Is there a Role for Selective Management?

Mesenteric hematomas may present as a radiologic finding after blunt abdominal trauma that may be associated with surgically significant mesenteric and/or bowel injury. The question of whether to operate or not to operate on patients with mesenteric hematoma remains a topic of debate, especially with the improved imaging technology. This study sought to identify clinical and radiological characteristics for patient selection for operative management (OM) of mesenteric hematoma. A retrospective review of 33 adults with blunt abdominal trauma and mesenteric hematoma on CT scan (2009–2012) was performed. Patients with other intra-abdominal injuries, penetrating trauma, isolated gastric hematoma, contrast extravasation, extraluminal air, and Glasgow Coma Scale < 14 were excluded. Patients requiring surgical treatment within 24 hours of admission were compared with those who did not using chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test, and t test. Parameters included age, gender, race, Glasgow Coma Scale, vital signs, pain, tenderness, ecchymosis, Injury Severity Score, length of stay, and inhospital mortality. Logistic regression was used to determine positive associations with OM. Of the 33 patients, 19 underwent OM and 14 did not. Both groups were similar at baseline. Regression analysis revealed association for pain [odds ratio (OR) = 9.6, confidence interval (CI) = 1.8–49.9, P < 0.01], tenderness (OR = 32, CI = 4.6–222.2, P < 0.01), and free fluid (OR = 10.3, CI = 1.8–60, P < 0.01) with need for operative intervention. Nonoperative management patients had 100 per cent success rate. Of the OM patients, 100 per cent underwent therapeutic laparotomies. Findings of mesenteric hematoma on CT scan in examinable patients with no abdominal pain, tenderness, or free fluid predict successful nonoperative management.

[Abdominal polytrauma and parenchymal organs]

CLINICAL/METHODOLOGICAL ISSUE

The acute radiological diagnostics of polytrauma patients has become an essential part of the interdisciplinary treatment in the emergency room. The incidence of polytrauma patients with an injury severity score (ISS) >16 is approximately 450 cases/million inhabitants/year in Europe. Injuries of the parenchymal organs are of utmost importance for the prognosis and treatment of these patients. The injury patterns are complex and a great deal of experience is necessary to be able to obtain the correct diagnosis within minutes. This review article deals with the radiological diagnostics and grading of the severity of injuries to the spleen, liver, pancreas and kidneys.

STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS

The use of ultrasound for the evaluation of polytraumatized patients will be discussed. The most important trauma-associated findings for the above mentioned organs using multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) will be described and illustrated by dedicated case findings.

METHODOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS

Ultrasound contrast agents can supply valuable, additional diagnostic information in the evaluation of polytraumatized patients. Computed tomography has become established as the most relevant imaging modality in severe trauma. Innovative organ-adapted and contrast application protocols improve the diagnostic performance of MDCT.

PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS

The use of focused assessment sonography for trauma (FAST) scanning as a screening tool is in agreement with the other clinical disciplines of the trauma team. The use of MDCT is trauma-dependent and the classification of the severity of the different parenchymal organ injuries is ultimately decisive for further treatment and prognosis of trauma victims.

The utility of FAST for initial abdominal screening of major pelvic fracture patients

BACKGROUND

Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) is widely used in pelvic fracture patients. We examined the performance of FAST for detecting hemoperitoneum and predicting the need for intra-abdominal hemorrhage control in major pelvic fracture patients.

METHODS

A 5-year retrospective study of major pelvic fracture patients was performed. The presence of hemoperitoneum was confirmed on CT or at laparotomy. The need for hemorrhage control was defined as requiring a surgical or radiological intervention for intra-abdominal bleeding. Hemorrhagic shock (HS) patients had a systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 mmHg or base deficit of ≥ 6 mEq/L on admission.

RESULTS

A total of 120 patients were included, 42 (35 %) of which had any hemoperitoneum and 21 (18 %) had a moderate-large amount. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of FAST for any hemoperitoneum were 64, 94, 84, and 83 % and for a moderate-large amount they were 86, 86, 56, and 97 %. In HS patients the indices were 68, 93, 88, and 78 % for any hemoperitoneum and 79, 83, 65, and 91 % for a moderate-large amount. For the need for hemorrhage control, FAST had a positive predictive value of 50 % (16/32) in all and 71 % (12/17) in HS patients. The negative predictive value was 99 % (87/88) in all and 97 % (31/32) in HS patients.

CONCLUSION

FAST had a good to excellent diagnostic accuracy, depending on the size of hemoperitoneum. A positive FAST result (even in HS patients) does not reliably predict the need for immediate intra-abdominal hemorrhage control but a negative FAST result renders the need for an intervention highly unlikely.

Do we really rely on fast for decision-making in the management of blunt abdominal trauma?

INTRODUCTION

The Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma examination (FAST) is currently taught and recommended in the ATLS(®), often as an addendum to the primary survey for patients with blunt abdominal trauma. Although it is non-invasive and rapidly performed at bedside, the utility of FAST in blunt abdominal trauma has been questioned. We designed this study to examine our hypothesis that FAST is not an efficacious screening tool for identifying intra-abdominal injuries.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients with confirmatory diagnosis of blunt abdominal injuries with CT and/or laparotomy for a period of 1.5 years (from 7/2009 to 11/2010). FAST was performed by ED residents and considered positive when free intra-abdominal fluid was visualized. Abdominal CT, or exploratory laparotomy findings were used as confirmation of intra-abdominal injury.

RESULTS

A total of 1671 blunt trauma patients were admitted to and evaluated in the Emergency Department during a 1½ year period and 146 patients were confirmed intra-abdominal injuries by CT and/or laparotomy. Intraoperative findings include injuries to the liver, spleen, kidneys, and bowels. In 114 hemodynamically stable patients, FAST was positive in 25 patients, with a sensitivity of 22%. In 32 hemodynamically unstable patients, FAST was positive in 9 patients, with a sensitivity of 28%. A free peritoneal fluid and splenic injury are associated with a positive FAST on univariate analysis, and are the independent predictors for a positive FAST on multiple logistic regression.

CONCLUSION

FAST has a very low sensitivity in detecting blunt intraabdominal injury. In hemodynamically stable patients, a negative FAST without a CT may result in missed intra-abdominal injuries. In hemodynamically unstable blunt trauma patients, with clear physical findings on examination, the decision for exploratory laparotomy should not be distracted by a negative FAST.

Accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the identification and characterization of traumatic solid organ lesions in children: a retrospective comparison with baseline US and CE-MDCT

INTRODUCTION

Localized low-energy abdominal trauma is very frequent in the pediatric population. The findings of several studies have shown that ultrasonography (US) can represent a useful and cost-effective tool in the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma both in adults and children. However, many parenchymal injuries are not correctly visualized at baseline US examination. The introduction of specific US contrast agents contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) has enabled a better identification of traumatic organ injuries. The correct use of CEUS could therefore identify and select the children who need further diagnostic investigation computed tomography (CT), avoiding unnecessary radiation and iodinated contrast medium exposure. The purpose of our study was to assess the sensibility and feasibility of CEUS in the assessment of low-energy abdominal trauma compared to baseline US in pediatric patients, using contrast-enhanced MDCT as the reference standard.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed 73 children (51 M and 22 F; mean age 8.7 ± 2.8 years) who presented in our Emergency Department between October 2012 and October 2013, with history of minor abdominal trauma according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale and who underwent US, CEUS, and CE-MDCT. Inclusion criteria were: male or female, aged 0-16, hemodynamically stable patients with a history of minor blunt abdominal trauma. Exclusion criteria were adulthood, hemodynamical instability, history of major trauma. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were determined for US and CEUS compared to MDCT.

RESULTS

6/73 patients were negative at US, CEUS, and MDCT for the presence of organ injuries. In the remaining 67 patients, US depicted 26/67 parenchymal lesions. CEUS identified 67/67 patients (67/67) with parenchymal lesions: 21 lesions of the liver (28.8 %), 26 lesions of the spleen (35.6 %), 7 lesions of right kidney (9.6 %), 13 lesions of left kidney. MDCT confirmed all parenchymal lesions (67/67). Thus, the diagnostic performance of CEUS was better than that of US, as sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy were 100, 100, 100, 100, and 100 % for CEUS and 38.8, 100, 100, 12.8, and 44 % for US. In some patients CEUS identified also prognostic factors as parenchymal active bleeding in 8 cases, partial devascularization in 1 case; no cases of vascular bleeding, no cases of urinoma. MDCT confirmed all parenchymal lesions. Parenchymal active bleeding was identified in 16 cases, vascular bleeding in 2 cases, urinoma in 2 cases, partial devascularization in 1 case.

CONCLUSIONS

CEUS is more sensitive and accurate than baseline US and almost as sensitive as CT in the identification and characterization of solid organs lesions in blunt abdominal trauma. CT is more sensitive and accurate than CEUS in identifying prognostic indicators, as active bleeding and urinoma. CEUS should be considered as a useful tool in the assessment and monitoring of blunt abdominal trauma in children.

The FAST and E-FAST in 2013: trauma ultrasonography: overview, practical techniques, controversies, and new frontiers

This article reviews important literature on the FAST and E-FAST examinations in adults. It also reviews key pitfalls, limitations, and controversies. A practical "how-to" guide is presented. Lastly, new frontiers are explored.

The initial management of severe trauma patients at hospital admission

The initial management of trauma patient is a critical period aiming at: stabilizing the vital functions; following a rigorous injury assessment; defining a therapeutic strategy. This management has to be organized to minimize loss of time that would be deleterious for the patients outcome. Thus, before patient arrival, the trauma team alert should lead to the initiation of care procedures adapted to the announced severity of the patient. Moreover, each individual should know its role in advance and the team should be managed by only one individual (the trauma leader) to avoid conflicts of decision. A rapid trauma injury assessment aims not only at guiding resuscitation (chest drainage, pelvic contention, to define the mean arterial pressure goal) but also to decide a critical intervention in case of hemodynamic instability (laparotomy, thoracotomy, arterial embolisation). This initial assessment includes a chest and a pelvic X-ray, abdominal ultrasound (extended to the lung) and transcranial Doppler (TCD). The whole body scanner with administration of intravenous contrast material is the cornerstone of the injury assessment but can be done for patients stabilized after the initial resuscitation.

Accuracy of FAST scan in blunt abdominal trauma in a major London trauma centre

INTRODUCTION

Blunt abdominal trauma (BAT) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality. Rapid diagnosis and treatment with the Advanced Trauma Life Support guidelines are vital, leading to the development of Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST).

METHODS

A retrospective study carried out from January 2007-2008 on all patients who presented with BAT and underwent FAST scan. All patients subsequently had a CT scan within 2 h of admission or a laparotomy within two days. The presence of intra-peritoneal free fluid was interpreted as positive.

RESULTS

100 patients with BAT presented; 71 had complete data. The accuracy of FAST in BAT was 59.2%; in these 31 (43.7%) were confirmed by CT and 11 (15%) by laparotomy. There were 29 (40.8%) inaccurate FAST scans, all confirmed by CT. FAST had a specificity of 94.7% (95% CI: 0.75-0.99) and sensitivity of 46.2% (95% CI: 0.33-0.60). Positive Predictive Value of 0.96 (0.81-0.99) and Negative Predictive Value of 0.39 (0.26-0.54). Fisher's exact test shows positive FAST is significantly associated with Intra-abdominal pathology (p=0.001). Cohen's chance corrected agreement was 0.3. 21 out of 28 who underwent laparotomies had positive FAST results indicating accuracy of 75% (95% CI: 57%-87%).

CONCLUSION

Patients with false negative scans, requiring therapeutic laparotomy is concerning. In unstable patients FAST may help in triaging and identifying those requiring laparotomy. Negative FAST scans do not exclude abdominal injury. Further randomised control trials are recommended if the role of FAST is to be better understood.

Evaluation of gastrointestinal injury in blunt abdominal trauma "FAST is not reliable": the role of repeated ultrasonography

Background

To determine the diagnostic Accuracy of Focused Assessment Sonography for Trauma (FAST) and repeated FAST in the patients with blunt abdominal trauma.

Methods

In this retrospective study we collected the data of all patients from September 2007 to July 2011 with gastrointestinal injury. The intraoperative outcome was compared with FAST technique and the repeated or delayed sonography.

Results

A total number of 1550 patients with blunt abdominal trauma underwent FAST in a period of 4 years in our hospital. Eighty-eight (5.67%) patients were found to have gastrointestinal injury after exploratory laparotomy. Fifty-five (62.5%) patients had isolated gastrointestinal injury and 33 (37.5%) patients had concomitant injury to the other solid organs. In those with isolated gastrointestinal injury, the sensitivity of FAST was 38.5%. Repeated ultrsonography was performed in 34 patients with false negative initial FAST after 12-24 hours. The sensitivity of repeated ultrasonography in negative initial FAST patients in detection of gastrointestinal injury was 85.2% (95% CI, 68.1%, and 94.4%).

Conclusion

Repeated sonography after 12 to 24 hours in patients with negative initial FAST but sustain abdominal symptom can facilitated a diagnosis of GI tract injury and can be as effective method instead of Computed tomography in developing country.

Splenic trauma: what is new?

Evaluation for splenic injury is an important component of patient assessment after blunt abdominal trauma. Key imaging modalities include ultrasound, particularly for rapid identification of hemoperitoneum, and computed tomography (CT), which permits a more detailed and accurate determination of splenic integrity. Specific findings at contrast-enhanced multidetector CT (MDCT) should prompt the consideration of catheter angiography with arterial embolization as an adjunct to nonsurgical management. This article reviews the roles of imaging in the management of splenic trauma, illustrates the MDCT appearance of various splenic injuries, and discusses imaging-based indications for operative and angiographic intervention.

Use of imaging in trauma decision-making

Damage Control Radiology describes the process where imaging aids the decision making process in a trauma setting and is an important part of Damage Control Surgery and Resuscitation. This article outlines how radiology fits in to the primary and secondary surveys and discusses the role of imaging modalities such as ultrasound and CT. The importance of deployed radiology to aid rapid diagnosis and decision making is described.

Allocating scarce resources in disasters: emergency department principles

Decisions about medical resource triage during disasters require a planned structured approach, with foundational elements of goals, ethical principles, concepts of operations for reactive and proactive triage, and decision tools understood by the physicians and staff before an incident. Though emergency physicians are often on the front lines of disaster situations, too often they have not considered how they should modify their decisionmaking or use of resources to allow the "greatest good for the greatest number" to be accomplished. This article reviews key concepts from the disaster literature, providing the emergency physician with a framework of ethical and operational principles on which medical interventions provided may be adjusted according to demand and the resources available. Incidents may require a range of responses from an institution and providers, from conventional (maximal use of usual space, staff, and supplies) to contingency (use of other patient care areas and resources to provide functionally equivalent care) and crisis (adjusting care provided to the resources available when usual care cannot be provided). This continuum is defined and may be helpful when determining the scope of response and assistance necessary in an incident. A range of strategies is reviewed that can be implemented when there is a resource shortfall. The resource and staff requirements of specific incident types (trauma, burn incidents) are briefly considered, providing additional preparedness and decisionmaking tactics to the emergency provider. It is difficult to think about delivering medical care under austere conditions. Preparation and understanding of the decisions required and the objectives, strategies, and tactics available can result in better-informed decisions during an event. In turn, adherence to such a response framework can yield thoughtful stewardship of resources and improved outcomes for a larger number of patients.

FAST scan: is it worth doing in hemodynamically stable blunt trauma patients?

BACKGROUND

During the last decade, focused assessment with sonography for trauma increasingly has become the initial diagnostic modality of choice in trauma patients. It is still questionable, however, whether its use results in the underdiagnosis of intra-abdominal injury. It also remains doubtful whether a positive focused assessment with sonography for trauma affects clinical decision making in hemodynamically stable blunt trauma patients as evidenced through abdominal computerized tomography use. The aim of this study was to evaluate the results of focused assessment with sonography for trauma in hemodynamically stable blunt trauma patients and to determine its role in the diagnostic evaluation of these patients.

METHODS

We reviewed our prospectively maintained trauma database. In trauma patients at our institute, focused assessment with sonography for trauma examinations are performed by surgery residents and are considered positive when free intra-abdominal fluid is visualized. Abdominal computerized tomography, diagnostic peritoneal lavage, or exploratory laparotomy findings were used as confirmation of intra-abdominal injury.

RESULTS

In our 7-year study period, 2,980 trauma patients were evaluated at our institute, of which 2,130 patients underwent a focused assessment with sonography for trauma. In all, 18 patients had an inconclusive focused assessment with sonography for trauma, whereas 7 patients died on arrival, leaving 2,105 patients for our analysis. A total 88 true positive focused assessment with sonography for trauma were conducted. All hemodynamically stable blunt trauma patients who had a positive focused assessment with sonography for trauma (70/88) were confirmed by computerized tomography. Patients who underwent exploratory laparotomy directly (17/88) or diagnostic peritoneal lavage (1/88) as confirmation either had penetrating trauma or became hemodynamically unstable. A total of 1,894 true negative focused assessments with sonography for trauma scans were conducted, with 1,201 confirmed by computerized tomography and the rest by observation. In all, 118 false negative focused assessment with sonography for trauma were performed, of which 44 (37.3%) subsequently required exploratory laparotomy. Five patients had false positive focused assessment with sonography for trauma scans. Focused assessment with sonography for trauma scan had an overall sensitivity of 43%, a specificity of 99%, and positive and negative predictive values of 95% and 94%, respectively. Accuracy was 94.1%. In the hemodynamically stable blunt trauma group, there were 60 patients with true positive focused assessment with sonography for trauma examinations and 87 patients with false negative focused assessment with sonography for trauma examinations. In this group of patients, focused assessment with sonography for trauma had a sensitivity of 41%, specificity of 99%, and positive and negative predictive values of 94% and 95%, respectively. The overall accuracy was 95%.

CONCLUSION

Given the low sensitivity, a negative focused assessment with sonography for trauma without confirmation by computerized tomography may result in missed intra-abdominal injuries. It is also observed in all focused assessment with sonography for trauma positive hemodynamically stable blunt trauma patients, confirmation is preferred through the use of a computerized tomography for better understanding of the intra-abdominal injuries and to decide on operative versus no-operative management. Thus, the use of focused assessment with sonography for trauma in hemodynamically stable blunt trauma patients seems not worthwhile. It should be reserved for hemodynamically unstable patients with blunt trauma.

Ultrasonographic applications after mass casualty incident caused by Wenchuan earthquake

BACKGROUND

Ultrasonography has been widely applied in clinical settings, and its role in the assessment of trauma has been approved. However, there are very few reports about its role in the management of mass casualties.

METHODS

In our hospital, we retrospectively analyzed the application, the methods, and the role of ultrasonography in rescuing the Wenchuan earthquake victims.

RESULTS

On a total of 3,307 wounded patients, 1,207 were examined by ultrasonography, and on a part of them, a follow-up was also performed. A total number of 1,386 ultrasound examinations were performed. Among them, 115 patients received ultrasound-guided interventional diagnosis and treatments. Ultrasound screening detected 23 cases of hemoperitoneum, 45 cases of pleural effusion (blood), 1 case of traumatic intimal tear of femoral artery, 3 cases of deep veins phlebothrombosis of lower limbs, 12 cases of deep-part hematoma of soft tissues. In five cases of negative results by ultrasonography, visceral injury was confirmed later by surgery or computed tomography or contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. All the ultrasound-guided interventional treatments were performed successfully, without any serious complication. The detection rate of trauma-related diseases was 6.96% (84 of 1,207) without false positive; however, the false negative rate was 5.6% (5 of 89). The bedside ultrasound became the preferred examination for the majority of injuries in middle and later stage after earthquake (72 hours to 6 weeks), accounting for 73.9% (458 of 620) of examinations. Ultrasonography-based FAST method was the primary examination tool of trauma in the early stage after earthquake.

CONCLUSION

In our hospital, ultrasonography was widely used in the triage of earthquake victims, bedside examination of severe cases, and interventional treatments. The advantages of ultrasonography such as convenience, noninvasiveness, high accuracy, and repeatability have been sufficiently demonstrated in this mass casualty, where ultrasonography played a great role in the rescue of victims of Wenchuan earthquake.

Validation of nurse-performed FAST ultrasound

BACKGROUND

Patients presenting to Emergency Departments (EDs) with abdominal trauma benefit from FAST (Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma). Not all doctor members of the trauma team are credentialed in FAST; therefore occasionally no one is available in the hospital to undertake a FAST. Hence, the aim of this study was to determine the accuracy of nurse-performed FAST as a practical alternative where suitably trained doctors are not available.

METHODS

This was a prospective study of a convenience sample of patients with multisystem trauma in whom abdominal injury was clinically suspected. Senior nurses trained in FAST performed and reported FAST scans for each patient. Accuracy of nurse-performed FAST was determined by comparing results with computerised tomography (CT) scan or operation report.

RESULTS

242 indicated nurse-performed FAST scans were included in the study. Nurse-performed FAST demonstrated sensitivity of 84.4% (95% CI 72.1-92.2) and specificity of 98.4% (CI 94.9-99.6), a positive predictive value (PPV) of 94.2% (CI 83.1-98.5) and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 95.3% (91.0-97.7). Overall accuracy of nurse-performed FAST for the detection of free fluid was 95.0% (95% CI 91.3-97.3).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that, in a convenience sample of injured patients, nurse-performed FAST achieved similar accuracy to previously published results of doctor-performed FAST. Future studies with greater patient numbers would be valuable.

The value of focused assessment with sonography in trauma examination for the need for operative intervention in blunt torso trauma: a rebuttal to “emergency ultrasound-based algorithms for diagnosing blunt abdominal trauma (review)”, from the Cochrane Collaboration

Background and significance

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published a manuscript critical of the use of the FAST examination. The reference is Stengel D. Bauwens K. Sehouli J. Rademacher G. Mutze S. Ekkernkamp A. Porzsolt F. Emergency ultrasound-based algorithms for diagnosing blunt abdominal trauma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. (2):CD004446, 2005. UI: 15846717. The stated objective was the assessment of the “efficiency and effectiveness” of ultrasound-inclusive evaluative algorithms in patients with suspected blunt abdominal trauma (BAT). The primary outcome measures explored were Mortality, CT and DPL use, and laparotomy rates. Little or no benefit was seen and the conclusion was that “there is insufficient evidence from randomized controlled trials to justify promotion” of FAST in patients with BAT. While the review used the same rigorous methods employed in all Cochrane Reviews, it appears that several serious flaws plagued the manuscript. The finest methodological rigor cannot yield usable results, if it is not applied to a clinically relevant question. In a world of increasingly conservative management of BAT, do we need FAST, a rapid, repeatable screening modality at the point-of-care to visualize any amount of free fluid or any degree of organ injury? The obvious answer is no. However, quantifying the value of FAST to predict the need for immediate operative intervention (OR) is essential.

Methods

To rebut this recurrent review, a systematic literature review was conducted using verbatim methodologies as described in the Cochrane Review with the exception of telephone contacts. Data were tabulated and presented descriptively.

Results

Out of 487 citations, 163 articles were fully screened, 11 contained prospectively derived data with FAST results, patient disposition and final diagnoses, and a description of cases considered false negatives or false positives. Of the 2,755 patients, 448 (16%) went to the OR. There were a total of 5 patients with legitimately false-negative diagnoses made based on the FAST: 3 involving inadequate scans and 2 of blunt trauma-induced small bowel perforations without hemoperitoneum.

Conclusion

The FAST examination, adequately completed, is a nearly perfect test for predicting a “Need for OR” in patients with blunt torso trauma.

Findings and limitations of focused ultrasound as a possible screening test in stable adult patients with blunt abdominal trauma: a Greek study

Our objective is to underline the place of FAST (focus assessment by sonography for trauma) ultrasonography (US) in the investigation of blunt abdominal trauma. We retrospectively examined the ultrasound findings in 1,999 haemodynamically stable adult patients. These people were admitted to the emergency room (ER) for possible blunt abdominal trauma. All were stable at admission and a FAST ultrasound examination was made. Initial findings were compared with the clinical course after at least 24 h of observation time and CT results. Among the 1,999 US examinations, abnormalities were found in 109 (5.5%) cases. Among them, 102 had free peritoneal fluid, and in 58 examinations, ruptures, lacerations or haematomas were demonstrated. Despite its limitations, such as in cases involving uncooperative patients, excessive bowel gas, obesity and empty bladder, the FAST technique seems to be an accurate method to evaluate the possibility of abdominal blunt trauma in stable patients. Because of the high negative predictive value of the FAST technique in stable patients with blunt abdominal trauma, we recommend that a stable patient with negative ultrasound results at admission remain under close observation for at least 12 or preferably 24 h before being discharged.

[The value of sonography in traumatology and orthopedics : Part 2: emergency diagnostics in blunt abdominal and thoracic trauma]

Ultrasound examinations in trauma patients should be done in the emergency department using curved-array (3.5-7.5 MHz) probes. Blunt trauma of the abdomen and thorax must be regarded as a single organ injury. Sonography is the imaging technique of first choice and has completely replaced peritoneal lavage. Paramount advantages are its ability to provide rapid information and reproducible results at short intervals and in a noninvasive manner. The sensitivity and specificity of sonography in detecting intraabdominal fluid are 97-100% and 80-90%, respectively. To achieve such good results, though, adequate education in ultrasound and state-of-the-art devices is crucial. Clinical experiences prove that standardized sonography must be part of polytrauma management and should be integrated in advanced trauma life support courses. Technical improvements with better image quality and miniaturization of hardware will contribute to increase the use of this technique. However, ultrasound does not replace computed tomography for follow-up in answering more sophisticated questions in multiple injured patients.

Hemorrhage is More Prevalent than Brain Injury in Early Trauma Deaths: The Golden Six Hours

INTRODUCTION

Under the trimodal distribution, most trauma deaths occur within the first hour. Determination of cause of death without autopsy review is inaccurate. The goal of this study is to determine cause of death, in hourly intervals, in trauma patients who died in the first 24 h, as determined by autopsy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Trauma deaths that occurred within 24 h at a Level I trauma center were reviewed over a six-year period ending December 2005. Timing of death was separated into 0-1, 1-3, 3-6, 6-12 and 12-24 h intervals. Cause of death was determined by clinical course and AIS scores, and was confirmed by autopsy results.

RESULTS

Overall, 9,388 trauma patients were admitted, of which 185 deaths occurred within 24 h, with 167 available autopsies. Blunt and penetrating were the injury mechanisms in 122 (73%) and 45 (27%) patients, respectively. Of 167 deaths, 73 (43.7%) occurred within the first hour. Brain injury, when compared to other body areas, was the most likely cause of death in all hourly intervals, but hemorrhage was as or more important than brain injury as the cause of death during the first 3 h and up to 6 h. No deaths were attributable to hemorrhage after 12 h.

CONCLUSIONS

The temporal distribution of the cause of death varies in the first 24 h after admission. Hemorrhage should not be overlooked as the cause of death, even after survival beyond 1 h. Understanding the temporal relationship of causes of early death can aid in the targeting of management and surgical training to optimize patient outcome.

Current Role of Emergency US in Patients with Major Trauma

In patients with major trauma, focused abdominal ultrasonography (US) often is the initial imaging examination. US is readily available, requires minimal preparation time, and may be performed with mobile equipment that allows greater flexibility in patient positioning than is possible with other modalities. It also is effective in depicting abnormally large intraperitoneal collections of free fluid, which are indirect evidence of a solid organ injury that requires immediate surgery. However, because US has poor sensitivity for the detection of most solid organ injuries, an initial survey with US often is followed by a more thorough examination with multidetector computed tomography (CT). The initial US examination is generally performed with a FAST (focused assessment with sonography in trauma) protocol. Speed is important because if intraabdominal bleeding is present, the probability of death increases by about 1% for every 3 minutes that elapses before intervention. Typical sites of fluid accumulation in the presence of a solid organ injury are the Morison pouch (liver laceration), the pouch of Douglas (intraperitoneal rupture of the urinary bladder), and the splenorenal fossa (splenic and renal injuries). FAST may be used also to exclude injuries to the heart and pericardium but not those to the bowel, mesentery, and urinary bladder, a purpose for which multidetector CT is better suited. If there is time after the initial FAST survey, the US examination may be extended to extra-abdominal regions to rule out pneumothorax or to guide endotracheal intubation, vascular puncture, or other interventional procedures.

Blunt abdominal trauma: diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced US in children--initial experience

PURPOSE

To prospectively compare the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography (US) with those of contrast material-enhanced US in the depiction of solid organ injuries in children with blunt abdominal trauma, with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) as the reference standard.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study protocol was approved by the ethics board, and written informed consent was obtained from parents. US, contrast-enhanced US, and contrast-enhanced CT were performed in 27 consecutive children (19 boys, eight girls; mean age, 8.9 years +/- 2.8 [standard deviation]) with blunt abdominal trauma to determine if solid abdominal organ injuries were present. Sensitivity, specificity, agreement, accuracy, number of lesions correctly identified, and positive and negative predictive values were determined for US and contrast-enhanced US, as compared with contrast-enhanced CT.

RESULTS

In 15 patients, contrast-enhanced CT findings were negative. Contrast-enhanced CT depicted 14 solid organ injuries in 12 patients. Lesions were in the spleen (n = 7), liver (n = 4), right kidney (n = 1), right adrenal gland (n = 1), and pancreas (n = 1). Contrast-enhanced US depicted 13 of the 14 lesions in 12 patients with positive contrast-enhanced CT findings and no lesions in the patients with negative contrast-enhanced CT findings. Unenhanced US depicted free fluid in two of 15 patients with negative contrast-enhanced CT findings and free fluid, parenchymal lesions, or both in eight of 12 patients with positive contrast-enhanced CT findings. Overall, the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced US was better than that of US, as sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 92.2%, 100%, 100%, and 93.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Contrast-enhanced US was almost as accurate as contrast-enhanced CT in depicting solid organ injuries in children.