Straight Leg Raise Cannot Replace Computed Tomography in the Detection of Spinal Column Fractures.

INTRODUCTION: An active straight leg raise (SLR) is a weight bearing test which assesses pain upon movement and a patient's ability to load their pelvis, lumbar, and thoracic spine. Since many stable patients undergo computed tomography (CT) scanning solely for spinal tenderness, our hypothesis is that performing active straight leg raising could effectively rule out lumbar and thoracic vertebral fractures. METHODS: Blunt trauma patients ≥18 years of age with Glasgow Coma Scale 15 presenting in hemodynamically stable condition were screened. Patients remaining in the supine position were asked to perform SLR at 12, 18, and 24 inches above the bed. The patient's ability to raise the leg, baseline pain, and pain at each level were assessed. Patients also underwent standard CT scanning of the chest, abdomen and pelvis. The clinical examination results were then matched post hoc with the official radiology reports. RESULTS: 99 patients were screened, 65 males and 34 females. Spinal fractures were present in 15/99 patients (16%). Mechanisms of injury included motor vehicle collision 51%, pedestrian struck 25%, fall1 9%, and other 4%. The median pain score of patients with and without significant spinal fractures at 12, 18, 24 inches was 7.5, 7, 6 and 5, 5, 4, respectively. At 24 inches, active SLR had sensitivity of 0.47, a specificity of 0.59, a positive predictive value of 0.17, and an negative predictive value of 0.86. CONCLUSIONS: Although SLR has been discussed as a useful adjunct to secondary survey and physical exam following blunt trauma, its positive and more importantly negative predictive value are insufficient to rule out spinal column fractures. Liberal indications for CT based upon mechanism and especially pain and tenderness are necessary to identify all thoraco-lumbar spine fractures.

Diagnostic utility of whole-body computed tomography/pan-scan in trauma: a systematic review and meta-analysis study.

Trauma is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity. It is crucial to diagnose trauma patients quickly to provide effective treatment interventions in such conditions. Whole-body computed tomography (WBCT)/pan-scan is an imaging technique that enables a faster and more efficient diagnosis for polytrauma patients. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy of WBCT in diagnosing injuries in polytrauma patients. We will also assess its impact on the mortality rate and length of hospital stay among trauma centers between patients who underwent WBCT and those who did not (non-WBCT). Twenty-seven studies meeting our inclusion criteria were selected among PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. The criteria were centered on the significance of WBCT/pan-scan application in trauma patients. Stata version 15 was used to perform statistical analysis on the data. The authors have also used I2 statistics to evaluate heterogeneity. Egger and Begg's tests were performed to rule out any publication bias. Total of twenty-seven studies including 68,838 trauma patients with a mean age of 45.0 ± 24.7 years were selected. Motor vehicle collisions were the most common cause of blunt injuries (80.0%). Head, neck, and face injuries were diagnosed in 44% (95% CI, 0.28-0.60; I2 = 99.8%), 6% (95% CI, 0.02-0.09; I2 = 97.2%), and 9% (95% CI, 0.05-0.13; I2 = 97.1%), respectively. Chest injuries were diagnosed by WBCT in 39% (95% CI, 0.28-0.51; I2 = 99.8%), abdominal injuries in 23% (95% CI, 0.03-0.43; I2 = 99.9%) of cases, spinal injuries 19% (95% CI, 0.11-0.27; I2 = 99.4%), extremity injuries 33% (95% CI, 0.23-0.43; I2 = 99.2%), and pelvic injuries 11% (95% CI, 0.04-0.18; I2 = 97.4%). A mortality odd ratio of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.83-1.06; I2 = 40.1%) was calculated while comparing WBCT and non-WBCT groups. This systematic review and meta-analysis provide insight into the possible safety, efficacy, and efficiency of WBCT/pan-scan as a diagnostic tool for trauma patients with serious injuries, regardless of their hemodynamic status. In patients with serious injuries from trauma, whether or not there are indicators of hemodynamic instability, our recommended approach is to, wherever possible, perform a WBCT without stopping the hemostatic resuscitation. By using this technology, the optimal surgical strategy for these patients can be decided upon without causing any delays in their final care or greatly raising their radiation dose.

Expecting the unexpected: incidental findings at a level 1 trauma center.

INTRODUCTION: Incidental findings on comprehensive imaging in the adult trauma population occur at rates as high as 54.8%. We sought to determine the incidence of potentially malignant or pre-malignant incidental findings in a high-volume level 1 trauma center and to evaluate follow-up recommendations. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of all patients with incidental findings on imaging who were admitted to the trauma service at our level 1 trauma center between January 1st, 2014, and October 1st, 2019. A multi-disciplinary team characterized findings as potentially malignant or pre-malignant. RESULTS: The study included 495 patients who had incidental findings, 410 of whom had potentially malignant or pre-malignant findings on imaging, resulting in a cumulative incidence of 6.6%. The mean age was 65 and 217 (52.9%) patients were male. The majority of "incidentalomas" were discovered on CT imaging (n=665, 98.1%); over half were solid (n=349, 51.5%), while 27.4% were cystic (n=186) in nature. The lungs (n=199, 29.4%), kidneys (n=154, 22.8%), liver (n=74, 10.9%), thyroid gland (n=58, 8.6%), and adrenal glands (n=53, 7.8%) harbored the most incidentalomas. Less than half of patients with incidental findings received specific follow-up recommendations on the radiologist's report (n=150, 39%). Sixty-one percent of patients (n=250) had their incidentalomas detailed in the discharge paperwork. CONCLUSION: The results of our study suggest that potentially malignant or pre-malignant incidental findings are common among trauma patients. Specific follow-up recommendations were not presented in 61% of the radiology reports, highlighting the need to standardize medical record capture of an incidentaloma to ensure adequate and appropriate follow-up.

Low Yield of Paired Head and Cervical Spine Computed Tomography in Blunt Trauma Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: With increased computed tomography (CT) utilization, clinicians may simultaneously order head and neck CT scans, even when injury is suspected only in one region. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine: 1) the frequency of simultaneous ordering of a head CT scan when a neck CT scan is ordered; 2) the yields of simultaneously ordered head and neck CT scans for clinically significant injury (CSI); and 3) whether injury in one region is associated with a higher rate of injury in the other. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of all adult patients who received neck CT scans (and simultaneously ordered head CT scans) as part of their blunt trauma evaluation at an urban level 1 trauma center in 2013. An expert panel determined CSI of head and neck injuries. We defined yield as number of patients with injury/number of patients who had a CT scan. RESULTS: Of 3223 patients who met inclusion criteria, 2888 (89.6%) had simultaneously ordered head and neck CT scans. CT yield for CSI in both the head and neck was 0.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.3-0.8%), and the yield for any injury in both the head and neck was 1.4% (95% CI 1.0-1.8%). The yield for CSI in one region was higher when CSI was seen in the other region. CONCLUSIONS: The yield of CT for CSI in both the head and neck concomitantly is very low. When injury is seen in one region, there is higher likelihood of injury in the other. These findings argue against paired ordering of head and neck CT scans and suggest that CT scans should be ordered individually or when injury is detected in one region.

A review of split-bolus single-pass CT in the assessment of trauma patients.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to review and compare the image quality and radiation dose of split-bolus single-pass computed tomography(CT) in the assessment of trauma patients in comparison to standard multi-phase CT techniques. METHODS: An online electronic database was searched using the MESH terms "split-bolus," "dual phase," and "single pass." Inclusion criteria required the research article to compare a split contrast bolus protocol in a single-pass scan in the assessment of trauma patients. Studies using split-bolus CT technique in non-traumatic injury assessment were excluded. Six articles met the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Parenchymal and vascular image qualities, as well as subjective image quality assessments, were equal or superior in comparison to non-split-bolus multi-phase trauma CT protocols. Split-bolus single-pass CT decreased radiation exposure in all studies. Further research is required to determine the superior split-bolus protocol and the specificity and sensitivity of detecting blunt cerebrovascular injury screening, splenic parenchymal vascular lesions, and characterization of pelvic vascular extravasation.

Whole body CT versus selective radiological imaging strategy in trauma: an evidence-based clinical review.

BACKGROUND: Trauma patients often present with injuries requiring resuscitation and further evaluation. Many providers advocate for whole body computed tomography (WBCT) for rapid and comprehensive diagnosis of life-threatening injuries. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate the literature concerning mortality effect, emergency department (ED) length of stay, radiation, and incidental findings associated with WBCT. DISCUSSION: Physicians have historically relied upon history and physical examination to diagnose life-threatening injuries in trauma. Diagnostic imaging modalities including radiographs, ultrasound, and computed tomography have demonstrated utility in injury detection. Many centers routinely utilize WBCT based on the premise this test will improve mortality. However, WBCT may increase radiation and incidental findings when used without considering pre-test probability of actionable traumatic injuries. Studies supporting WBCT are predominantly retrospective and incorporate trauma scoring systems, which have significant design weaknesses. The recent REACT-2 trial randomized trauma patients with high index of suspicion for actionable injuries to WBCT versus selective imaging and found no mortality difference. Additional prospective trials evaluating WBCT in specific trauma subgroups (e.g. polytrauma) are needed to evaluate benefit. In the interim, the available data suggests clinicians should adopt a selective imaging strategy driven by history and physical examination. CONCLUSIONS: While observational data suggests an association between WBCT and a benefit in mortality and ED length of stay, randomized controlled data suggests no mortality benefit to this diagnostic tool. The literature would benefit from confirmatory studies of the use of WBCT in trauma sub-groups to clarify its impact on mortality for patients with specific injury patterns.

Low Yield of Clinically Significant Injury With Head-To-Pelvis Computed Tomography in Blunt Trauma Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Many trauma centers have adopted routine head-to-pelvis computed tomography (CT) imaging for the evaluation of adults with blunt trauma. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the yields of detecting clinically significant injuries (CSIs) with CT in >1 anatomic region. METHODS: We conducted this observational cohort study of all trauma activation patients >14 years of age who received CT imaging during blunt trauma evaluation at a Level 1 trauma center from April to October 2014. Expert panels determined the clinical significance of head, neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis injuries seen on CT. We calculated yields of CSI, defined as the number of patients with CSI divided by the total number of patients who underwent CT imaging. The 3 specified anatomic regions considered were head/neck, chest, and abdomen/pelvis. RESULTS: The median age of 1236 patients who had CT was 48 years; 69% were male; 51.2% were admitted; and hospital mortality was 4.4%. Yields of CSI with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were: head/neck region injury 11.3% (9.6-13.3%); chest region injury only 7.9% (6.0-10.4%); abdomen/pelvis region injury only 5.1% (3.7-7.0%); both head/neck and chest CSI 2.8% (1.7-4.5%); both head/neck and abdomen/pelvis CSI 1.6% (0.9-2.9%); and both chest and abdomen/pelvis CSI 1.1% (0.5-2.4%). The yield of CSI in all 3 anatomic regions with head-to-pelvis CT was 0.6% (0.2-1.7%), and 76.7% (68.8-83.1%) of CSIs occurred in isolation. CONCLUSIONS: During multiple anatomic region CT imagng for adult blunt trauma evaluation, the yield for CSI in >1 region is low. In low-risk populations, selective CT imaging of anatomic regions (instead of reflexive head-to-pelvis CT imaging) may be more appropriate.

Incidental findings in blunt trauma patients: prevalence, follow-up documentation, and risk factors.

PURPOSE: The frequency of computed tomography (CT) imaging of trauma patients has given rise to an increase in the discovery of incidental findings. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the frequency and documentation of follow-up recommendations of incidental findings during the initial trauma evaluation. Secondarily, trauma patients with and without incidental findings were compared. We hypothesized that there would be a high rate of incidental findings in trauma patients and that these findings would be poorly documented. METHODS: A retrospective review of CT imaging performed during trauma assessment at an urban level 1 trauma center was conducted. Prospectively documented incidental findings over a 6-month period were recorded. The frequency of incidental findings and follow-up referrals were analyzed. Mann-Whitney non-parametric test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare patients with and without incidental findings, and logistic regression was performed to identify independent risk factors. RESULTS: Of the 1573 CT scans performed, 478 (30.4%) revealed incidental findings. The abdomen/pelvis had the highest rate of incidental findings (61.7%). Of the 416 patients, 295 (70.9%) had a total of 858 incidental findings, with an average of 3 findings per patient. Follow-up was required for 24 (2.8%) incidental findings, and admission/immediate intervention was required for 6 (0.7%) findings. Only 12 (1.4%) incidental findings were documented in the discharge note. Increasing age (p < 0.001), a higher body mass index (BMI) (p = 0.015), and receiving a pan-CT (p < 0.001) increased the odds of having an incidental finding. CONCLUSION: A large percentage of trauma patients have incidental findings. Therefore, better documentation and follow-up are needed to determine the long-term outcomes of patients with clinically relevant incidental findings.

Utilization of torso computed tomography for the evaluation of ground level falls: More imaging does not equal better care.

INTRODUCTION: Computed tomography (CT) of the chest (CTC), abdomen, and pelvis (CTAP) is common when assessing trauma patients in the emergency department. However, unnecessary imaging can expose patients to unneeded radiation and increase healthcare costs. Here, we characterize the use of torso CT imaging for the evaluation of ground level falls (GLF) at a single level 1 trauma center. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of all patients ≥18 years old presenting to a single level 1 trauma center with a GLF (1m or less) in 2015-2019. Data were obtained through chart review. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize patient characteristics. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess factors leading to patients obtaining torso CT imaging. The utility of CT imaging in identifying injuries that changed management was also evaluated. RESULTS: Of the 1,195 patients captured during the study period, 492 patients had a positive torso physical exam (PE), and 703 had a negative torso PE. Of patients with a negative torso PE, 127 CTC and 142 CTAP were obtained, with only 5.5% CTC identifying traumatic injuries not previously diagnosed on chest radiograph (CXR), and only 0.7% CTAP identifying new injuries not identified on pelvic radiograph (PXR). Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that only a positive PE was significantly associated with the identification of abnormal imaging findings on torso CT. A negative PE, CXR, and PXR have a negative predictive value of 98%. DISCUSSION: These data suggest that patients with a negative PE, even if intoxicated, intubated, or with a decreased GCS, are highly unlikely to have new, clinically relevant findings on torso CT imaging. CONCLUSION: Using PE, CXR, and PXR as a screening tool in patients sustaining GLF, which if negative close to obviates the need for torso CT, may reduce healthcare costs and radiation exposure without compromising patient care.

Usefulness and outcome of whole-body computed tomography (pan-scan) in trauma patients: A prospective study.

Background: Severe trauma can cause multi-organ injuries, and the mortality rate may increase if significant organ injuries are missed. This study was performed to determine whether whole-body computed tomography scan (pan-scan) can detect significant injury and leads to proper management, including alteration the priority of management. Methods: This prospective study was conducted from January 2019 to March 2021 and involved trauma patients level 1, level 2, and dangerous mechanism of trauma. Additionally, the data of trauma patients who had selective computed tomography scan were retrospectively reviewed to compared the clinical benefits. Results: Twenty-two patients were enrolled in the prospective study. The pan-scan detected significant organ injury in 86% of the patients. Prioritization of organ injury management changed after performance of the pan-scan in 64% (major change in 64.29% and minor change in 35.71%). Skull base fracture, small bowel injury, retroperitoneal injury, kidney and bladder injury, and occult pneumothorax were the majority of injuries which was not consider before underwent pan-scan (p < 0.05). The door-to-scan time tended to be shorter in the pan-scan group than in the selective scan group without a significant difference [mean (SD), 59.5 (34) and 72.0 (86) min, respectively; p = 0.13]. Pan-scan contribute 100% confidence for trauma surgeon in diagnosis of specific organ injuries in severe injured patients. Conclusions: The pan-scan facilitates timely detection of significant unexpected organ injuries such as the skull base, occult pneumothorax, small bowel, and retroperitoneum. It also helps to prioritize management and increases the diagnostic confidence of trauma surgeons, leading to better outcomes without delay.

Tertiary Survey in the Days of Modern Imaging: Assessing the Detection Rate of Clinically Significant Injuries on Tertiary Survey in a Level 2 Trauma Centre.

AIM: To determine the utility of tertiary survey (TS) in patients subjected to whole-body CT (WBCT) or selective CT (SCT) following trauma. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on trauma patients admitted to a level 2 trauma centre following the introduction of a standardised TS form in 2017. The initial imaging protocol (WBCT versus selective CT versus x-ray), subsequently requested imaging, standardised injury data, and length of stay (LOS) were recorded. Clinically significant injuries were defined as those with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 1 on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS). RESULTS: Five hundred and seven patients were included. The rate of additional significant injuries at the time of TS was 1.18% (n=6), each requiring conservative management only. There was no significant difference in injury detection based on the initial imaging protocol; however, there were three near-misses identified. Of these patients, two underwent selective CT and one was subjected to a plain film series, with clinically significant injuries identified early upon completion of trauma imaging. Overall, 2.9% (n=15) of patients had completed trauma imaging during the same admission. WBCT was associated with higher ISS and length of stay (p<0.05). After controlling for ISS, there was no difference in length of stay between imaging modalities except in those patients with an ISS of 0 (no clinically significant injuries), who appeared to have longer admissions if subject to WBCT (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The rate of missed injuries identified at TS is low. The imaging modality did not alter this. This may allow for the omission of the tertiary survey and earlier discharge in many trauma patients.

Incidental Findings on Whole-body Computed Tomography in Major Trauma Patients: Who and What?

PURPOSE: Whole-body computed tomography (WBCT) scans are frequently used for trauma patients, and sometimes, nontraumatic findings are observed. We aimed to investigate the characteristics of patients with nontraumatic findings on WBCT. METHODS: From 2013 to 2016, adult trauma patients who underwent WBCT were enrolled. The proportions of nontraumatic findings in different anatomical regions were studied. Nontraumatic findings were classified and evaluated as clinically important findings and findings that needed no further follow-up or treatment. The characteristics of the patients with nontraumatic findings were analyzed and compared with those of patients without nontraumatic findings. RESULTS: Two hundred seventeen patients were enrolled in this study during the 3-year study period, and 89 (41.0%) patients had nontraumatic findings. Nontraumatic findings were found more frequently in the abdomen (69.2%) than in the head/neck (17.3%) and chest regions (13.5%). In total, 31.3% of the findings needed further follow-up or treatment. Patients with nontraumatic findings that needed further management were significantly older than those without nontraumatic findings (57.3 vs. 38.9; P < .001), particularly those with abdominal nontraumatic findings (57.9 vs. 41.3; P < .001). A significantly higher proportion of women were observed in the group with head/neck nontraumatic findings that needed further management than in the group without nontraumatic findings (56.3% vs 24.9%; P = .015). CONCLUSIONS: Whole-body computed tomography could provide alternative benefits for nontraumatic findings. Whole-body computed tomography images should be read carefully for nontraumatic findings, particularly for elderly patients or the head/neck region of female patients. A comprehensive program for the follow-up of nontraumatic findings is needed.

Open pelvic fracture with bilateral common iliac arteriovenous injury successfully treated with hemicorporectomy following damage control interventional radiology in a hybrid emergency room.

BACKGROUND: In severe pelvic fracture, keys of successful treatment are early hemostasis and timely definitive care. We present a case in which the patient was treated by fast and reliable hemostasis and subsequent comprehensive hemicorporectomy. CASE PRESENTATION: We describe the case of a 47-year-old man with severe pelvic trauma. He received early intervention by the helicopter emergency medical service, which included rapid transarterial embolization as damage control interventional radiology in the hybrid emergency room, and hemicorporectomy as a multidisciplinary approach. This series of treatments saved his life and he was discharged home. CONCLUSION: Hemicorporectomy could be the only treatment option in patients with severe pelvic injury when there are no reconstruction options. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first case of severe open pelvic fractures with blood vessel damage, successfully treated by initial hemostasis using the helicopter emergency medical service, hybrid emergency room system, and following hemicorporectomy as a definitive care.

Injury patterns and incidence of intra-abdominal injuries in elderly ground level fall patients: Is the PAN-SCAN warranted?

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the incidence of intra-abdominal injuries in elderly patients after a ground-level fall. METHODS: A 6-year retrospective review was conducted on patients 65 years of age or older involved in a fall from standing and evaluated at a level 1 trauma center. Each patient presented with a pelvic, thoracolumbar, and/or lower rib fracture. Data collection included demographics, injury characteristics, FAST exam results, CT imaging results, and hospitalization outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 324 patients met study inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were white (95.1%) females (65.4%) with an average age of 82.0 ±â€¯7.3 years. Only 22 patients (6.8%) reported abdominal pain, although an abdominal CT was performed in 91 patients (28.1%). Only 1 patient (0.3%) was found to have an intra-abdominal injury when no abdominal pain was reported and the FAST exam was negative. This injury was not clinically significant enough to warrant surgical intervention. CONCLUSION: Elderly patients who suffer a ground-level fall do not benefit from PAN-SCAN, even when presenting with rib, thoracolumbar, and/or pelvic fractures.