This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (10)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

David W. Easter, MD; Steven R. Shackford, MD; Robert F. Mattrey, MD

Arch Surg. 1991;126(9):1115-1119.

Abstract
• We prospectively compared computed tomography with conventional diagnostic methods in the evaluation of penetrating injuries to the back and flank in 85 patients. Immediate laparotomy was performed in 24 patients because of physical findings, and these patients were not randomized. Nine unnecessary operations were performed in this group, and these nine patients had significantly higher hospital costs than patients in either randomized group. In the randomized patients, there were only three true-positive and three false-positive findings. Both computed tomographic evaluation (31 patients) and conventional evaluation (30 patients) were highly accurate and specific for injuries that required operation. Evaluation with computed tomography required a longer time to make a hospital disposition but required fewer diagnostic tests. Computed tomography can be useful in the assessment of penetrating injuries to the back and flank.

(Arch Surg. 1991;126:1115-1119)

Author Affiliations
From the Departments of Surgery (Dr Easter) and Radiology (Dr Mattrey), University of California, San Diego, Medical Center, and the Department of Surgery, University of Vermont, Burlington (Dr Shackford).

Footnotes
Accepted for publication May 5, 1991.

Reprints not available.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Gunshot Wounds of Abdomen: Evaluation of Stable Patients with Triple-Contrast Helical CT
Munera et al.
Radiology 2004;231:399-405.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT