No Evidence Supporting the Routine Use of Digital Rectal Examinations in Trauma Patients.

Abstract

Digital rectal exams (DRE) are routinely used on trauma patients during the secondary survey as recommended by current Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) protocols. However, recent literature has called the blanket use of the DRE on each trauma patient into question. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the DRE as a diagnostic tool in the setting of urethral, spinal cord, small bowel, colon, and rectal injuries and determine if it can be eliminated from routine use in the trauma setting. Trauma patients with small bowel, colon, rectal, urethral, and spinal cord injuries, age of 18years or older, and a noted DRE were included. Exclusion criteria included an age less than 18, patients who received paralytics, a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 3, and a history of paraplegia or quadriplegia. One-hundred eleven patient records were retrospectively reviewed. Ninety-two male (82.9%) and 19 (17.1%) females with a GCS of 13.7 were evaluated. Sixty-two (55.9%) injuries were penetrating with 49 (44.1) being blunt. The DRE missed 100% of urethral, 91.7% of spinal cord, 93.1% of small bowel, 100% of colon, and 66.7% of rectal injuries. For injuries confirmed with radiologic modalities, the DRE missed 93.3%. For injuries confirmed on exploratory laparotomy, the DRE missed 94.9%. The DRE has poor sensitivity for the diagnosis of urethral, spinal cord, small bowel, and large bowel injury. The DRE was found to be themost sensitive in the setting of rectal injuries. The DRE offers no benefit or predictive value when compared to other imaging modalities.