Evaluating blunt abdominal trauma with sonography: a cost analysis.

Ultrasonography (US) is becoming increasingly utilized in the United States for the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma (BAT). The objective of this study was to assess the cost impact of utilizing US in the evaluation of patients with BAT in a major trauma center. All patients sustaining BAT during a 6-month period before US was used at our institution (Jan-Jun 1993) were compared to BAT patients from a recent period in which US has been utilized (Jan-Jun 1995). The numbers of US, computed tomography (CT), and diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) were tabulated for each group. Financial cost for each of these procedures as determined by our finance department were as follows: US $96, CT $494, DPL $137. These numbers are representative of actual hospital expenditures exclusive of physician fees as calculated in 1994 U.S. dollars. Cost analysis was performed with t test and chi squared test, and significance was defined as P < 0.05. There were 890 BAT admissions in the 1993 study period and 1033 admissions in the 1995 study period. During the 1993 period, 642 procedures were performed on the 890 patients to evaluate the abdomen: 0 US, 466 CT, and 176 DPL (see table) [table: see text]. This compares to 801 procedures on the 1,033 patients in 1995: 552 US, 228 CT, and 21 DPL. Total cost was $254,316 for the 1993 group and $168,501 for the 1995 group. Extrapolated to a 1-year period, a significant (P < 0.05) cost savings of $171,630 would be realized. Cost per patient evaluated was significantly reduced from $285.75 in 1993 to $163.12 in 1995 (P < 0.05). This represents a 43 per cent reduction in per patient expenditure for evaluating the abdomen. By effectively utilizing ultrasonography in the evaluation of patients with blunt abdominal trauma, a significant cost savings can be realized. This effect results chiefly from an eight-fold reduction in the use of DPL, and a two-fold reduction in the use of CT.

Hemoperitoneum score helps determine need for therapeutic laparotomy.

PURPOSE: Sonography provides a fast, portable, and noninvasive method for patient assessment. However, the benefit of providing real-time ultrasound (US) imaging and fluid quantification shortly after patient arrival has not been explored. The objective of this study was to prospectively validate a US hemoperitoneum scoring system developed at our institution and determine whether sonography can predict a therapeutic operation. METHODS: For 12 months, prospective data on all patients undergoing a trauma sonogram were recorded. All sonograms positive for free fluid were given a hemoperitoneum score. The US score was compared with initial systolic blood pressure and base deficit to assess the ability of sonography to predict a therapeutic laparotomy. RESULTS: Forty of 46 patients (87%) with a US score > or = 3 required a therapeutic laparotomy. Forty-six of 54 patients with a US score < 3 (85%) did not need operative intervention. The sensitivity of sonography was 83% compared with 28% and 49% for systolic blood pressure and base deficit, respectively, in determining the need for therapeutic operation. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the majority of patients with a score > or = 3 will need surgery. The US hemoperitoneum scoring system was a better predictor of a therapeutic laparotomy than initial blood pressure and/or base deficit.

2,576 ultrasounds for blunt abdominal trauma.

BACKGROUND: Determination of intra-abdominal injury following blunt abdominal trauma (BAT) continues to be a diagnostic challenge. Ultrasound (US) has been described as a potentially useful diagnostic tool in this setting and is being used with increasing frequency in trauma centers. We determined the diagnostic capability of US in the evaluation of BAT. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of our trauma US database was performed over a 30-month period. Computed tomographic scan, diagnostic peritoneal lavage, or exploratory laparotomy confirmed the presence of intra-abdominal injury. RESULTS: During the study period, 8,197 patients were evaluated at the Ryder Trauma Center. Of this group, 2,576 (31%) had US in the evaluation of BAT. Three hundred eleven (12%) US exams were considered positive. Forty-three patients (1.7%) had a false-negative US; of this group, 10 (33%) required exploratory laparotomy. US had a sensitivity of 86%, a specificity of 98%, and an accuracy of 97% for detection of intra-abdominal injuries. Positive predictive value was 87% and negative predictive value was 98%. CONCLUSION: Emergency US is highly reliable and may replace computed tomographic scan and diagnostic peritoneal lavage as the initial diagnostic modality in the evaluation of most patients with BAT.

Ultrasound of blunt abdominal trauma.

Widely accepted in Europe and Asia as a screening tool for blunt abdominal trauma, sonography is gradually gaining popularity among trauma and emergency physicians in the United States. Sonography has been shown to be comparable with DPL and CT for the detection of hemoperitoneum and superior to both modalities because of its rapidity, noninvasiveness, portability, and low cost. With its ability to demonstrate the amount of intraperitoneal hemorrhage within minutes of a patient's arrival, sonography may be considered the screening modality of choice for blunt abdominal trauma.

Sonography as the primary screening technique for blunt abdominal trauma: experience with 899 patients.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of sonography when used routinely as the primary screening technique for blunt abdominal trauma. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: From December 1994 through December 1995, we used sonography as the primary screening technique for the initial assessment of blunt abdominal trauma. Sonography was performed by dedicated technologists and overseen and interpreted by radiology residents or attending physicians. A positive study was defined as evidence of free fluid or parenchymal injury. Sonographic findings were correlated with CT, surgery, or clinical follow-up. RESULTS: Of the 899 sonograms obtained for blunt abdominal trauma, the findings of 783 were negative, 101 were positive, and 15 were indeterminate. Of the 783 sonograms with negative findings, 768 (98%) were confirmed by CT, surgery, or clinical follow-up. Similarly, of the 101 sonograms with positive findings, 95 (94%) were confirmed. Interpretations resulted in 15 false-negative and five false-positive examinations. For all sonograms, we calculated a sensitivity of 86%, a specificity of 99%, and an accuracy of 98%. CONCLUSION: Sonography can be used effectively as the primary screening technique for blunt abdominal trauma.

Can surgeons evaluate emergency ultrasound scans for blunt abdominal trauma?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether surgeons and residents with minimal training can evaluate accurately emergency ultrasound (US) examinations compared with radiologists for blunt abdominal trauma. METHODS: Over 7 months, we conducted a prospective study comparing the evaluation of emergency US for blunt abdominal trauma by surgeons and attending radiologists. US readings from the surgical team and the radiologists were correlated with outcome. RESULTS: One hundred-twelve patients were included in the study. Ninety-two patients had an US read as negative by the surgical and radiology services with no subsequent injuries identified. Eighteen patients had an US deemed positive by the surgical service and radiologists. Injuries were confirmed in this group by operation or computed tomography. One patient had an US deemed positive by the surgical team and subsequently negative by the radiologist. A diagnostic peritoneal lavage was performed which was negative. Another patient had an US interpreted as negative by the surgical evaluator and positive by the radiologist. Exploratory laparotomy was negative for intraabdominal hemorrhage or organ injury. Overall results reveal an accuracy on US reading of 99% for the surgical team and 99% for the attending radiologists. CONCLUSION: Surgeons and surgical residents at different levels of training can accurately interpret emergency ultrasound examinations for blunt trauma from the real-time images, at a level comparable to attending radiologists.