Comparative study of National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) chest algorithm and extended focused assessment with sonography for trauma (E-FAST) in the early detection of blunt chest injuries in polytrauma patients.

Introduction: Chest imaging plays a prominent role in the assessment of patients with blunt trauma. Selection of the right approach at the right time is fundamental in the management of patients with blunt chest trauma.[1] A reliable, economic, bedside, and rapidly accomplished screening test can be pivotal. [2]. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of extended- focused assessment with sonography for trauma (E-FAST) to that of the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilisation Study (NEXUS) chest algorithm in detecting blunt chest injuries. Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study included 50 polytrauma patients with blunt chest trauma from the emergency centre of Suez Canal University Hospital. E-FAST and computed tomography (CT) were conducted, followed by reporting of NEXUS criteria for all patients. Blinding of the E-FAST performer and CT reporter were confirmed. The results of both the NEXUS algorithm and E-FAST were compared with CT chest results. Results: The NEXUS algorithm had 100% sensitivity and 15.3% specificity, and E-FAST had 70% sensitivity and 96.7% specificity, in the detection of pneumothorax.In the detection of hemothorax, the sensitivity and specificity of the NEXUS algorithm were 90% and 7.5%, respectively, whereas E-FAST had a lower sensitivity of 80% and a higher specificity of 97.5%. Conclusion: E-FAST is highly specific for the detection of hemothorax, pneumothorax, and chest injuries compared with the NEXUS chest algorithm, which demonstrated the lowest specificity. However, the NEXUS chest algorithm showed a higher sensitivity than E-FAST and hence can be used effectively to rule out thoracic injury.

Perforated duodenal ulcer in high risk patients: is percutaneous drainage justified?

BACKGROUND: Conservative treatment was recommended as the treatment of choice in perforated acute peptic ulcer. Here, we adjunct percutaneous peritoneal drainage with nonoperative conservative treatment in high risk elderly patients with perforated duodenal ulcer. AIM: The work was to study the efficacy of percutaneous peritoneal drainage under local anesthesia supported by conservative measures in high risk elderly patients, according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists grading, with perforated duodenal ulcer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty four high risk patients with age >65 years having associated medical illness with evidence of perforated duodenal ulcer. RESULTS: The overall morbidity and mortality were comparable with those treated by conservative measures alone. CONCLUSION: In high risk patients with perforated peptic ulcer and established peritonitis, percutaneous peritoneal drainage under local anesthesia seems to be effective with least operative trauma and mortality rate.