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

Karl Glaser, MD; Jörg Tschmelitsch, MD; Paul Klingler, MD; Gerald Wetscher, MD; Ernst Bodner, MD

Arch Surg. 1994;129(7):743-747.

Abstract
Objective
To assess the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of ultrasonography in patients with blunt abdominal or thoracic trauma in regard to the indication for immediate operation, delayed abdominal exploration, or conservative treatment.

Design
A retrospective study was conducted after consecutive sampling of 1151 patients in a nonrandomized control trial.

Setting
The study was conducted at the University Hospital of Innsbruck (Austria), which serves as a general community hospital and a major primary care and referral center.

Patients
All patients with blunt abdominal or thoracic trauma with or without polytraumatization were eligible for the study; a total of 1151 patients were observed from 1980 to 1990. According to the ultrasonographic findings, patients were divided into three groups: immediate operation, primary conservative treatment, and conservative treatment (normal ultrasonographic findings). Ultrasonography was repeated when the clinical findings or laboratory test results showed the development of intra-abdominal hemorrhage or signs of organ laceration.

Intervention
Ultrasonography in the emergency department or intensive care unit.

Main Outcome Measures
Conservative or operative treatment based on ultrasonographic and clinical findings.

Results
Ultrasonography showed a sensitivity of 99%, a specificity of 98%, a positive predictive value of 0.97, and a negative predictive value of 0.99 in regard to the indication for surgery in cases of blunt abdominal or thoracic trauma. Ultrasonography is not reliable in patients with intestinal perforation and large retroperitoneal hematomas.

Conclusion
Ultrasonography saves time and money, can be performed in the emergency department, shows high sensitivity and specificity, and is the method of first choice in the evaluation of blunt trauma.

(Arch Surg. 1994;129:743-747)

Author Affiliations
From the Second Department of Surgery, University of Innsbruck (Austria).

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

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Evaluation of focussed assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) by UK emergency physicians.
Brenchley et al.
Emerg. Med. J. 2006;23:446-448.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Bedside Ultrasonography in the ICU: Part 2
Beaulieu and Marik
Chest 2005;128:1766-1781.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Contrast-Enhanced Two- and Three-dimensional Sonography for Evaluation of Intra-abdominal Hemorrhage
Liu et al.
J Ultrasound Med 2002;21:161-169.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Focused Abdominal US in Patients with Trauma
Lingawi and Buckley
Radiology 2000;217:426-429.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Imaging in abdominal trauma
Wherry and Punzalan
Trauma 2000;2:283-290.
ABSTRACT  

Echoes of things to come. Ultrasound in UK emergency medicine practice
Brenchley et al.
Emerg. Med. J. 2000;17:170-175.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Role of US in the Diagnosis of Intraabdominal Catastrophes
McKenney
RadioGraphics 1999;19:1332-1339.
FULL TEXT  

Hemoperitoneum as the Sole Indicator of Abdominal Visceral Injuries: A Potential Limitation of Screening Abdominal US for Trauma
Shanmuganathan et al.
Radiology 1999;212:423-430.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Current technology: laparoscopic surgery in trauma
Brooks and Boffard
Trauma 1999;1:53-60.
ABSTRACT  

"Alternative" Surgery in Trauma Management
Britt and Cole
Arch Surg 1998;133:1177-1181.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT