This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sato, M. Articles by Yoshii, H. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sato, M. Articles by Yoshii, H.

Reevaluation of Ultrasonography for Solid-Organ Injury in Blunt Abdominal Trauma

Departments of Radiology (M.S.) and Surgery (H.Y.), Saiseikai Kanagawaken Hospital and Kanagawaken Traffic Trauma Center, Yokohama, Japan.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Michihiro Sato, MD, 6-6 Tomiya-cho, Kanagawa-ku, Yokohama 221-8601, Japan. E-mail: michi-s{at}mub.biglobe.ne.jp.

Objective. To reevaluate the usefulness of ultrasonography for detecting and classifying solid-organ injuries from blunt abdominal trauma by comparing ultrasonography with computed tomography (CT) and laparotomy. Methods. Six hundred four patients with blunt abdominal trauma were examined by both B-mode ultrasonography and CT for a study period of 14 years. The ultrasonographic examiners were divided into 2 groups depending on their experience with ultrasonography. The ultrasonographic results were then compared with CT and surgical findings. This was a retrospective study. Results. In 198 patients, solid-organ injuries were identified on CT, laparotomy, or both. Sensitivity values in group A (experts) were 87.5% for hepatic injuries, 85.4% for splenic injuries, 77.6% for renal injuries, and 44.4% for pancreatic injuries. Sensitivity values in group B were 46.2% for hepatic injuries, 50.0% for splenic injuries, and 44.1% for renal injuries. The detection rates in group A were 80% to 100% for different types of hepatic injuries except superficial injuries (20%) and 70% to 100% for different types of splenic injuries. The detection rates for renal parenchymal and pancreatic duct injuries were 53.3% and 80%, respectively. The detection rates for injuries requiring intervention were 86.1% in group A and 66.7% in group B. Conclusions. The sensitivity of ultrasonography with the use of CT and surgical findings as reference standards decreased compared with our prior study. However, ultrasonography was found to enable experienced examiners to detect and classify parenchymal injuries efficiently, despite disadvantages in detecting superficial and vascular injuries. Ultrasonography should be used to explore not only free fluid but also solid-organ injuries.

Key Words: blunt abdominal trauma • computed tomography • solid-organ injury • ultrasonography

Abbreviations: BAT, blunt abdominal trauma • CT, computed tomography • DPL, diagnostic peritoneal lavage • FAST, focused assessment with sonography for trauma • FN, false-negative • FP, false-positive • TAE, transarterial embolization • TN, true-negative • TP, true-positive

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Korner, M. M. Krotz, C. Degenhart, K.-J. Pfeifer, M. F. Reiser, and U. Linsenmaier Current Role of Emergency US in Patients with Major Trauma RadioGraphics, January 1, 2008; 28(1): 225 - 242. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]