Can ultrasonography replace computed tomography in the initial assessment of children with blunt abdominal trauma?

S, Katz; Lazar, Ludwig; Rathaus, Valerie; Erez, Ilan

doi:10.1016/s0022-3468(96)90666-1

Cited by 66 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is similar to findings by Srisussadaporn S. (8) In this study, spleen and liver were the most common organs injured followed by kidney, which was similar to study by Barry D. Toombs, Richard G. Lester, Yoram Ben Menachem et al (11) In this study USG showed sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 62.5% and overall diagnostic accuracy of 94% as compared to that of CT, which showed 100% sensitivity, 100% specificity and diagnostic accuracy of 100% for detection of free intraperitoneal fluid, which were very well comparable with other studies by Paolo Lucciarini, Schmuel Katz, Sattam S. Lingawi, Vivian W. Wing, Paul A. Kearney, William Pevec and S. Srisussadapom. (8,12,13,14,15,16) In this study USG showed sensitivity of 68.8%, specificity of 80% and overall diagnostic accuracy of 70% as compared to CT which showed 97.7% sensitivity, 100% specificity and overall diagnostic accuracy of 98% for detection of abdominal organ injuries, which were very well comparable with other studies by Paolo Lucciarini, Schmuel Katz, Sattam S. Lingawi, Vivian W. Wing, Paul A. Kearney, William Pevec and S. Srisussadapom. (8,12,13,14,15,16) …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Comparative Study of Multidetector Computed Tomography and Ultrasonography Findings in Blunt Abdominal Trauma

Devi¹,

Singh²,

Singh³

2016

jemds

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUNDBlunt abdominal trauma usually has low sensitivity on physical examination and also subtle clinical manifestations. Improved resolution of the ultrasound machines and availability of multiple frequency probes has improved the specificity of ultrasound evaluation in blunt abdominal trauma. Despite this about 50% of the solid organ injuries are missed. Computed tomography has been used with better specificity to evaluate patients with blunt abdominal trauma who are FAST (Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma) positive as well as indeterminate and clinically suspicious cases of solid organ, hollow viscera, spine and pelvic injury.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Comparative Study of Multidetector Computed Tomography and Ultrasonography Findings in Blunt Abdominal Trauma

Devi¹,

Singh²,

Singh³

2016

jemds

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A good practice is to re-operate on a "more stable" patient rather than an unstable patient. Radiologic imaging investigations, with the exception of a bedside portable ultrasonography to evaluate free intra abdominal fluid [22], have a limited role to play in the approach to management of early haemorrhage after PD. An endoscopy, to visualize the stomach & assess the afferent and efferent limbs of the digestive anastomosis, can be diagnostic and therapeutic for intraluminal-only PPH with the cause being the stomach lining.…”

Section: Diagnosis Of Pphmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pancreatoduodenectomy - Preventing Complications

Penumadu

Barreto

Goel

et al. 2014

Indian J Surg Oncol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Increased awareness of periampullary & pancreatic head cancers, and the accompanying improved outcomes following pancreatoduodenectomy (PD), has possibly led to an increase in patients seeking treatment for the same. While there has definitely been a reduction in morbidity rates following PD in the last few decades, this decline has not mirrored the drastic fall in mortality. Amongst the foremost in the factors responsible for this reduction in mortality is the standardization of surgical technique and development of dedicated teams to manage all aspects of this demanding procedure. This review intends to provide the reader with an overview of major complications following this major surgery and measures to prevent them based on the authors' experience.

show abstract

“…Most advocates of FAST evaluation of pediatric trauma patients still recommend abdominal CT scans in hemodynamically stable children with positive ultrasound examinations [22,51,54]. As with adults, a CT scan is thought to be necessary to obtain detailed information regarding specific organ injuries that FAST examinations do not reliably provide.…”

Section: The Pediatric Trauma Patientmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ultrasound in abdominal trauma

Rose

2004

Emergency Medicine Clinics of North America

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ultrasound in the evaluation of abdominal trauma has evolved over the past 30 years. The use of ultrasound for abdominal trauma was described initially by Kristensen and colleagues [1] in 1971. In 1976, Ascher and colleagues [2] first reported the accuracy of ultrasound in Radiology, with 80% sensitivity for the detection of splenic injury. In a study of 808 patients, Tiling and colleagues [3] in 1990 reported a sensitivity of 89%, a specificity of 100%, and an accuracy of 98%. This same group also was first to comment on the effect of training and experience and reported that surgeons with extensive ultrasound experience could diagnose intra-abdominal fluid with a sensitivity of 96% and an accuracy of 99%. Interest and experience with ultrasound for trauma grew steadily around the world among surgeons and emergency physicians during the early 1990s [4][5][6][7]. During this period, ultrasound technology was improving with regard to price, portability, and resolution, allowing its use during resuscitation. At the same time, in the United States, there was continuing reliance on diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) and CT and much less interest in sonography for abdominal trauma. This all changed when emergency physicians and surgeons in the United States began to publish their experience with ultrasound [4,8,9]. The term Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) was coined by Rozycki et al [10] in 1996 and has persisted as the accepted acronym for the trauma ultrasound evaluation. The basic four-view examination (perihepatic, perisplenic, pelvic, and pericardial views) has become the foundation of the FAST examination. The rapid, noninvasive, and practical nature of ultrasound for bedside evaluation of critically injured patients has changed the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma.

show abstract

Can ultrasonography replace computed tomography in the initial assessment of children with blunt abdominal trauma?

Cited by 66 publications

References 10 publications

Comparative Study of Multidetector Computed Tomography and Ultrasonography Findings in Blunt Abdominal Trauma

Comparative Study of Multidetector Computed Tomography and Ultrasonography Findings in Blunt Abdominal Trauma

Pancreatoduodenectomy - Preventing Complications

Ultrasound in abdominal trauma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About