Distracting injuries in patients with vertebral injuries.

To describe the prevalence and types of distracting injuries associated with vertebral injuries at all levels of the spine in blunt trauma patients. A prospective cohort study was conducted at an urban Level I trauma center. All patients undergoing radiographic evaluation of the cervical, thoracic, or lumbar vertebrae after blunt trauma were enrolled. Patients had a data collection form completed by the treating physician before radiographic imaging and were evaluated for the following upon initial presentation: tenderness to the cervical, thoracic, or lumbar spine, distracting injuries, altered mental status, alcohol or drug intoxication, or neurological deficits. Patients with distracting injuries as the sole documented indication for vertebral radiographs were reviewed for the types of injuries present. A total of 4698 patients were enrolled in the study. There were 336 (7.2%) patients who had distracting injuries as the sole documented indication for obtaining radiographic studies of the vertebrae. Eight (2.4%, 95% CI 1.0-4.6%) of the 336 patients had 14 acute vertebral injuries including compression fractures (5), transverse process fractures (7), spinous process fracture (1), and cervical spine rotatory subluxation (1). There were 13 thoracolumbar injuries and one cervical spine injury. Distracting injuries in the eight patients with acute vertebral injuries included 13 bony fractures. Distracting injuries in those patients without vertebral injuries included bony fractures (333), lacerations (63), soft tissue contusions (62), head injuries (15), bony dislocations (12), abrasions (11), visceral injuries (8), dental injuries (5), burns (3), ligamentous injuries (3), amputation (1), and compartment syndrome (1). In conclusion, in patients with distracting injuries, bony fractures of any type were important for identifying patients with vertebral injuries. Other types of distracting injuries did not contribute to the sensitivity of the clinical screening criteria in the detection of patients with vertebral injuries.

Performance of helical computed tomography without oral contrast for the detection of gastrointestinal injuries.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We describe the performance of helical abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan without oral contrast for the detection of blunt gastrointestinal injuries. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records of a consecutive series of patients who underwent helical abdominal CT scanning for evaluation of blunt intra-abdominal injury and were admitted to a Level I trauma center from May 1996 to September 2001. Abdominal CT scans were performed with intravenous contrast but without oral contrast. Patients were considered to have gastrointestinal injuries if an injury was identified to the gastrointestinal tract from the duodenum to the sigmoid colon or associated mesentery and considered to have major gastrointestinal injuries if gastrointestinal perforation, active mesenteric hemorrhage, or mesenteric devascularization occurred. All gastrointestinal injuries were confirmed by laparotomy, autopsy, or additional imaging studies. RESULTS: Six thousand fifty-two patients underwent abdominal CT scan (mean age 35.5 +/- 21.1 years), and 106 (1.8%) patients had gastrointestinal injuries identified by laparotomy, autopsy, or additional (nonabdominal CT) imaging studies. Abdominal CT scan result was abnormal in 91 (86%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 78% to 92%) of the 106 patients with gastrointestinal injuries and revealed findings suggestive of gastrointestinal injury in 81 (76%; 95% CI 67% to 84%) patients. Abdominal CT scan demonstrated findings suggestive of gastrointestinal injury in 58 of 64 (91%; 95% CI 81% to 96%) patients with major gastrointestinal injuries. Two hundred thirty-eight (4.0%) patients had findings suspicious for gastrointestinal injuries on abdominal CT scan, but gastrointestinal injury was never confirmed. CONCLUSION: Helical abdominal CT scan without oral contrast identified nearly three fourths of patients with blunt gastrointestinal injuries who were selected for abdominal CT scanning. Sensitivity of this diagnostic test improves in the subset of patients with major gastrointestinal injuries.

Performance of abdominal ultrasonography in pediatric blunt trauma patients: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to obtain the best estimates of the test performance of abdominal ultrasonography (US) for identifying children with intraabdominal injuries (IAIs). METHODS: We gathered studies on the use of abdominal US in injured children from the following sources: a MEDLINE and Embase search, hand searches of 5 specialty journals and 4 clinical textbooks, the bibliographies of all identified articles, and contact with experts. Both prospective and retrospective studies were included if they used abdominal US for the detection of intraperitoneal fluid or IAIs in blunt trauma patients less than 18 years of age. All authors independently abstracted data from the selected studies. Disagreements between abstractors were resolved by mutual agreement. RESULTS: Twenty-five articles met the inclusion criteria, and 3838 children evaluated with abdominal US were included. Abdominal US had the following test characteristics for identifying children with hemoperitoneum: sensitivity, 80% (95% confidence interval [CI] 76%-84%); specificity, 96% (95% CI 95%-97%); positive likelihood ratio, 22.9 (95% CI 17.2-30.5); and negative likelihood ratio, 0.2 (95% CI 0.16-0.25). Using the most methodologically rigorous studies, however, yielded the following test characteristics of abdominal US for identifying children with hemoperitoneum: sensitivity, 66% (95% CI 56%-75%); specificity, 95% (95% CI 93%-97%); positive likelihood ratio, 14.5 (95% CI 9.5-22.1); and negative likelihood ratio, 0.36 (95% CI 0.27-0.47). CONCLUSIONS: Abdominal US has a modest sensitivity for the detection of children with hemoperitoneum; however, its test performance characteristics worsen when only the most methodologically rigorous articles are included. A negative US examination has questionable utility as the sole diagnostic test to rule out the presence of IAI. Because of the high risk of IAI, a hemodynamically stable child with a positive US examination should immediately undergo abdominal computed tomographic scanning.