The role of follow-up ultrasound and clinical parameters after abdominal MDCT in patients with multiple trauma

Abstract

Background

Beside its value during the initial trauma work-up (focused assessment with sonography for trauma), ultrasound (US) is recommended for early follow-up examinations of the abdomen in multiple injured patients. However, multidetector CT (MDCT) has proven to reliably diagnose traumatic lesions of abdominal organs, to depict their extent, and to assess their clinical relevance.

Purpose

To evaluate the diagnostic impact of follow-up US studies after MDCT of the abdomen and to identify possible clinical parameters indicating the need of a follow-up US.

Material and Methods

During a 30-month period, patients with suspected multiple trauma were allocated. Patients with admission to the ICU, an initial abdominal MDCT scan, and an US follow-up examination after 6 and 24 h were included. Two patient cohorts were defined: patients with normal abdominal MDCT (group 1), patients with trauma-related pathologic abdominal MDCT (group 2). In all patients, parameters indicating alteration of vital functions or hemorrhage within the first 24 h were obtained by reviewing the medical charts.

Results

Forty-four of 193 patients were included: 24 were categorized in group 1 (mean age, 41.1 years; range, 21–90 years), 20 in group 2 (mean age, 36.6 years; range, 16–71 years). In group 1, US did not provide new information compared to emergency MDCT. In group 2, there were no contradictory 6- and 24-h follow-up US findings. In patients with positive MDCT findings and alterations of clinical parameters, US did not detect progression of a previously diagnosed pathology or any late manifestation of such a lesion. In none of the patients with negative abdominal MDCT and pathological clinical parameters US indicated an abdominal injury.

Conclusion

Routine US follow-up does not yield additional information after abdominal trauma. In patients with MDCT-proven organ lesions, follow-up MDCT should be considered if indicated by abnormal clinical and/or laboratory findings.

Keywords

Multiple trauma follow-up examination whole-body computed tomography ultrasound clinical parameters

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Poletti

Wintermark

Schnyder

. Traumatic injuries: role of imaging in the management of the polytrauma victim (conservative expectation). Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 969–978.

Linsenmaier

Krotz

Hauser

. Whole-body computed tomography in polytrauma: techniques and management. Eur Radiol 2002; 12: 1728–1740.

Geyer

Körner

Reiser

. Value of conventional radiography and ultrasound during initial treatment of traumatized patients. Notfall + Rettungsmedizin 2010; 13: 428–435.

Becker

Mentha

Terrier

. Blunt abdominal trauma in adults: role of CT in the diagnosis and management of visceral injuries. Part 1: liver and spleen. Eur Radiol 1998; 8: 553–562.

Becker

Mentha

Schmidlin

. Blunt abdominal trauma in adults: role of CT in the diagnosis and management of visceral injuries. Part 2: Gastrointestinal tract and retroperitoneal organs. Eur Radiol 1998; 8: 772–780.

Huber-Wagner

Lefering

Qvick

. Effect of whole-body CT during trauma resuscitation on survival: a retrospective, multicentre study. Lancet 2009; 373: 1455–1461.

Gibson

Canfield

Levy

. Selective nonoperative management of blunt abdominal trauma. J Emerg Med 2006; 31: 215–221.

Miller PR, Croce MA, Bee TK, et al. Associated injuries in blunt solid organ trauma: implications for missed injury in nonoperative management. J Trauma 2002;53:238–242; discussion 42–44.

Stürmer

Dresing

Bonnaire

. Recommended Guidelines for Diagnostics and Therapy in Trauma Surgery. Recommended Guidelines for Polytrauma Eur J Trauma 2001; 27: 137–150.

10.

Blackbourne

Soffer

McKenney

. Secondary ultrasound examination increases the sensitivity of the FAST exam in blunt trauma. J Trauma 2004; 57: 934–938.

11.

Maurer

Winkler

Wichlas

. Costs and role of ultrasound follow-up of polytrauma patients after initial computed tomography. Rofo 2012; 184: 53–58.

12.

Rozycki

Knudson

Shackford

. Surgeon-performed bedside organ assessment with sonography after trauma (BOAST): a pilot study from the WTA Multicenter Group. J Trauma 2005; 59: 1356–1364.

13.

Miller

Shanmuganathan

. Multidetector CT evaluation of abdominal trauma. Radiol Clin North Am 2005; 43: 1079–1095.

14.

Scalea

Rodriguez

Chiu

. Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST): results from an international consensus conference. J Trauma 1999; 46: 466–472.

15.

Knaus

Zimmerman

Wagner

. APACHE-acute physiology and chronic health evaluation: a physiologically based classification system. Crit Care Med 1981; 9: 591–597.

16.

Knaus

Wagner

Draper

. The APACHE III prognostic system. Risk prediction of hospital mortality for critically ill hospitalized adults. Chest 1991; 100: 1619–1636.

17.

Moore

Shackford

Pachter

. Organ injury scaling: spleen, liver, and kidney. J Trauma 1989; 29: 1664–1666.

18.

Körner

Krötz

Degenhart

. Current role of emergency US in patients with major trauma. Radiographics 2008; 28: 225–242.

19.

Baker

O'Neill

Haddon

Jr . The injury severity score: a method for describing patients with multiple injuries and evaluating emergency care. J Trauma 1974; 14: 187–196.

20.

Richards

Schleper

Woo

. Sonographic assessment of blunt abdominal trauma: a 4-year prospective study. J Clin Ultrasound 2002; 30: 59–67.

21.

Stengel D, Bauwens K, Sehouli J, et al. Emergency ultrasound-based algorithms for diagnosing blunt abdominal trauma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2005;(2):CD004446.

22.

Poletti

Kinkel

Vermeulen

. Blunt abdominal trauma: should US be used to detect both free fluid and organ injuries? Radiology 2003; 227: 95–103.

23.

Gracias

Frankel

Gupta

. Defining the learning curve for the Focused Abdominal Sonogram for Trauma (FAST) examination: implications for credentialing. Am Surg 2001; 67: 364–368.

24.

Gracias

Frankel

Gupta

. The role of positive examinations in training for the focused assessment sonogram in trauma (FAST) examination. Am Surg 2002; 68: 1008–1011.

25.

Brasel

Olson

Stafford

. Incidence and significance of free fluid on abdominal computed tomographic scan in blunt trauma. J Trauma 1998; 44: 889–892.

26.

Ahvenjarvi

Mattila

Ojala

. Value of multidetector computed tomography in assessing blunt multitrauma patients. Acta Radiol 2005; 46: 177–183.

27.

Fang

Wong

Lin

. Usefulness of multidetector computed tomography for the initial assessment of blunt abdominal trauma patients. World J Surg 2006; 30: 176–182.

28.

Waydhas

Nast-Kolb

. Intensive care for patients with multiple injuries. Unfallchirurg 1999; 102: 474–491.

29.

Roissaint

Coats Duranteau Frenandez-Mondejar Gordini Stahel Hunt Neugebauer Spahn . Key issues in advanced bleeding care in trauma. SHOCK 2006; 26: 322–331.

30.

Beck

Marley

Salvator

. Prospective study of the clinical predictors of a positive abdominal computed tomography in blunt trauma patients. J Trauma 2004; 57: 296–300.

31.

Cox JC, Fabian TC, Maish GO 3rd, et al. Routine follow-up imaging is unnecessary in the management of blunt hepatic injury. J Trauma 2005;59:1175–1178; discussion 8–80.

32.

Sharma

Oswanski

Singer

. Role of repeat computerized tomography in nonoperative management of solid organ trauma. Am Surg 2005; 71: 244–249.

33.

Livingston DH, Lavery RF, Passannante MR, et al. Admission or observation is not necessary after a negative abdominal computed tomographic scan in patients with suspected blunt abdominal trauma: results of a prospective, multi-institutional trial. J Trauma 1998;44:273–280; discussion 80–82.