Focused Abdominal Sonography For Trauma Research Articles

Blunt abdominal trauma: initial resuscitation followed by clinical and focused abdominal sonography assessment important diagnostic tools of organ injury due to restricted use of CT-scan in a tertiary care in India

Background: Blunt abdominal trauma (BAT) is one of the common causes of admission in surgical ward in any hospital. It requires high level of suspicion, urgent evaluation and timely management to decrease morbidity and mortality. Objective was to evaluate the role of clinical and ultrasound assessment in early diagnosis of intra-abdominal injury following blunt abdominal trauma and follow up in patients with intraabdominal injury for detecting complications.Methods: 130 patients who presented to the emergency room were evaluated by clinical and focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) and follow-up sonography was done after 6-12 hours upto 72 hours.Results: In our study, road traffic accidents (RTA) were the most common cause of blunt abdominal trauma (70.76%) with 75% patients being were males. X-ray erect abdomen and ultrasound of the abdomen were the most sensitive investigation for hollow viscous injury and solid organ injuries, respectively, with bowel (38.33%) and liver injury (26.67%) being the most common organ involved in this study. This study found sensitivity (93.7%) and specificity (98.5%) of focused abdominal ultrasonography (FAST).Conclusions: Initial resuscitation followed by clinical and ultrasonography assessment is considered the best modality in initial evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma patients as it is noninvasive, readily available, and requires minimal preparation time and also due to restricted use of modern amenities such as CT-scan in tertiary care in India.

Endovascular stent-graft repair of transected left subclavian artery

A 33-year-old female presented to the trauma center with multiple gunshot wounds to her left posterior axilla, right of midline in the upper back, and left lateral thigh. She complained...

Trauma in pregnant women: an experience from a level 1 trauma center

Objective: Trauma is the significant non-obstetrical cause of maternal mortality in women aged 35 years or younger. It is expected to complicate around 1 in 12 pregnancies and accounts for 46% of such deaths. In this study, we present our experience of trauma during pregnancy at a tertiary care hospital in Karachi. Methods: A standardized form was used to extract data from online records for all pregnant women who presented with traumatic injuries to the Aga Khan University Hospital from 2014 to 2019. Analysis was performed using SPSS v. 21. Chi-squared tests were performed for comparison of categorical data. Results: A total of 48 pregnant females with a mean age of 28.80 ± 6.50 years were included in this study. Road traffic accidents (RTA) accounted for the commonest cause of injury in the first (66.7%) and second (65%) trimesters. However, fall (45.5%) followed by RTA (27.3%) was the most frequent mechanism of injury during the third trimester. Gunshot injuries were seen in 4 patients only. Overall, fetal ultrasound was the most commonly performed imaging (87.5%) followed by limb X-ray and focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) ultrasound. Out of total, 52.1% of the patients were surgically managed. Fetal demise in utero and spontaneous abortion was reported in 2 patients only. Conclusion: Road traffic accidents and falls comprise a significant burden of maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. In terms of prevention, several policies and interventions at the government level need to be introduced in order to reduce the incidence of traumatic events.

Negative Focused Abdominal Sonography for Trauma examination predicts successful nonoperative management in pediatric solid organ injury: A prospective Arizona-Texas-Oklahoma-Memphis-Arkansas + Consortium study.

Focused Abdominal Sonography for Trauma (FAST) examination has long been proven useful in the management of adult trauma patients, however, its utility in pediatric trauma patients is not as proven. Our goal was to evaluate the utility of a FAST examination in predicting the success or failure of nonoperative management (NOM) of blunt liver and/or spleen (BLSI) in the pediatric trauma population. A retrospective analysis of a prospective observational study of patients younger than 18 years presenting with BLSI to one of ten Level I pediatric trauma centers between April 2013 and January 2016. 1,008 patients were enrolled and 292 had a FAST examination recorded. We analyzed failure of NOM of BLSI in the pediatric trauma population. We then compared FAST examination alone or in combination with the pediatric age adjusted shock index (SIPA) as it relates to success of NOM of BLSI. Focused Abdominal Sonography for Trauma examination had a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97% and positive predictive value (PPV) of 13%. The odds ratio of failing with a positive FAST examination was 4.9 and with a negative FAST was 0.20. When combined with SIPA, a positive FAST examination and SIPA had a PPV of 17%, and an odds ratio for failure of 4.9. The combination of negative FAST and SIPA had an NPV of 96%, and the odds ratio for failure was 0.20. Negative FAST is predictive of successful NOM of BLSI. The addition of a positive or negative SIPA score did not affect the PPV or NPV significantly. Focused Abdominal Sonography for Trauma examination may be useful clinically in determining which patients are not at risk for failure of NOM of BLSI and do not require monitoring in an intensive care setting. Prognostic study, level IV; therapeutic/care management, level IV.

Point-of-care ultrasonography for diagnosing thoracoabdominal injuries in patients with blunt trauma.

Point-of-care sonography (POCS) has emerged as the screening modality of choice for suspected body trauma in many emergency departments worldwide. Its best known application is FAST (focused abdominal sonography for trauma). The technology is almost ubiquitously available, can be performed during resuscitation, and does not expose patients or staff to radiation. While many authors have stressed the high specificity of POCS, its sensitivity varied markedly across studies. This review aimed to compile the current best evidence about the diagnostic accuracy of POCS imaging protocols in the setting of blunt thoracoabdominal trauma. To determine the diagnostic accuracy of POCS for detecting and excluding free fluid, organ injuries, vascular lesions, and other injuries (e.g. pneumothorax) compared to a diagnostic reference standard (i.e. computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), thoracoscopy or thoracotomy, laparoscopy or laparotomy, autopsy, or any combination of these) in patients with blunt trauma. We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 2017) and Ovid Embase (1974 to July 2017), as well as PubMed (1947 to July 2017), employing a prospectively defined literature and data retrieval strategy. We also screened the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and BIOSIS for potentially relevant citations, and scanned the reference lists of full-text papers for articles missed by the electronic search. We performed a top-up search on 6 December 2018, and identified eight new studies which may be incorporated into the first update of this review. We assessed studies for eligibility using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We included either prospective or retrospective diagnostic cohort studies that enrolled patients of any age and gender who sustained any type of blunt injury in a civilian scenario. Eligible studies had to provide sufficient information to construct a 2 x 2 table of diagnostic accuracy to allow for calculating sensitivity, specificity, and other indices of diagnostic test accuracy. Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts of reports using a prespecified data extraction form. Methodological quality of individual studies was rated by the QUADAS-2 instrument (the revised and updated version of the original Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies list of items). We calculated sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI), tabulated the pairs of sensitivity and specificity with CI, and depicted these estimates by coupled forest plots using Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). For pooling summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity, and investigating heterogeneity across studies, we fitted a bivariate model using Stata 14.0. We included 34 studies with 8635 participants in this review. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were 0.74 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.81) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.98). Pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios were estimated at 18.5 (95% CI 10.8 to 40.5) and 0.27 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.37), respectively. There was substantial heterogeneity across studies, and the reported accuracy of POCS strongly depended on the population and affected body area. In children, pooled sensitivity of POCS was 0.63 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.77), as compared to 0.78 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.84) in an adult or mixed population. Associated specificity in children was 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.96) and in an adult or mixed population 0.97 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.99). For abdominal trauma, POCS had a sensitivity of 0.68 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.75) and a specificity of 0.95 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.97). For chest injuries, sensitivity and specificity were calculated at 0.96 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00). If we consider the results of all 34 included studies in a virtual population of 1000 patients, based on the observed median prevalence (pretest probability) of thoracoabdominal trauma of 28%, POCS would miss 73 patients with injuries and falsely suggest the presence of injuries in another 29 patients. Furthermore, in a virtual population of 1000 children, based on the observed median prevalence (pretest probability) of thoracoabdominal trauma of 31%, POCS would miss 118 children with injuries and falsely suggest the presence of injuries in another 62 children. In patients with suspected blunt thoracoabdominal trauma, positive POCS findings are helpful for guiding treatment decisions. However, with regard to abdominal trauma, a negative POCS exam does not rule out injuries and must be verified by a reference test such as CT. This is of particular importance in paediatric trauma, where the sensitivity of POCS is poor. Based on a small number of studies in a mixed population, POCS may have a higher sensitivity in chest injuries. This warrants larger, confirmatory trials to affirm the accuracy of POCS for diagnosing thoracic trauma.

The focused abdominal sonography for trauma examination can reliably identify patients with significant intra-abdominal hemorrhage in life-threatening pelvic fractures.

The focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) examination has been reported to be unreliable in pelvic fracture patients. Additionally, given the advent of new therapeutic interventions, such as resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA), rapid identification of intra-abdominal hemorrhage compared with Zone III hemorrhage may guide different therapeutic strategies. We hypothesized that FAST is reliable for detecting clinically significant intra-abdominal hemorrhage in the face of complex pelvic fractures. Our pelvic fracture database of all hemodynamically unstable patients requiring intervention from January 1, 2005, to July 1, 2015, was reviewed. The FAST examination was compared with operative and computed tomography (CT) scan findings. Confirmatory evaluation for FAST(-) patients was considered positive if therapeutic intervention was required. During the study period, 81 patients in refractory shock with FAST imaging in our emergency department (ED) underwent pelvic packing. Mean age was 45 ± 2 years and Injury Severity Score was 50 ± 1.5. The FAST examination was negative in 53 patients; 52 patients did not require operative intervention for abdominal bleeding while one patient required splenectomy. The FAST examination was positive in 28 patients; 26 had findings confirmed by CT or laparotomy while two patients did not have intra-abdominal hemorrhage on further evaluation. The sensitivity and specificity for FAST in this population was 96% and 96%, respectively, positive predictive value was 93%, and negative predictive value was 98%. The false-negative and -positive rates for FAST were 2% and 7%. Focused abdominal sonography for trauma examination reliably identifies clinically significant hemoperitoneum in life-threatening, pelvic fracture related hemorrhage. The incidence of a false-negative FAST in this unstable pelvic fracture population was 2%. FAST results may be used when determining the role of REBOA in these multisystem trauma patients and requires further study. REBOA placement should be considered in hemodynamically unstable pelvic fracture patients who are FAST(-), while laparotomy should be used in FAST(+) patients. Therapeutic, level IV.

The Dangers of Equivocal FAST in Trauma Resuscitation

Equivocal focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) examinations confound decision-making for trauma surgeons. We sought to determine whether the equivocal FAST (defined as any nonconcordant result) has a deleterious effect on trauma outcomes. A 2-year review (2014-2015) of all trauma activations at our Level I trauma center was performed. Patients were matched at baseline and FAST results were compared. Outcomes included resuscitation time (h), ventilation days (d), hospital length of stay (HLOS-d), ICU length-of-stay, and survival (%). In addition, skill level of the sonographer was stratified by novice (postgraduate year (PGY) years 1-3) or expert skill levels (PGY-4/fellow or attending). A total of 1,027 patients were included. Compared with concordant FAST examinations, equivocal FASTs were associated with increased HLOS (14.1 vs 10.6, P = 0.05), higher mortality (9.8 vs 3.7%, P = 0.02), decreased positive predictive value in the right upper quadrant (RUQ) (55 vs 79%, P = 0.02) and left upper quadrant (LUQ) (50 vs 83%, P < 0.01) and significantly decreased specificity in the thoracic (83 vs 98%), RUQ (80 vs 98%), LUQ (86 vs 99%), and pelvic (88 vs 98%) windows (P < 0.01 for all). A trend of greater positive predictive value in the thoracic window (100 vs 81%, P = 0.09) among PGY-4/fellow and attending providers compared with PGY levels 1-3 was observed. Equivocal FASTs portend worse outcomes than concordant FASTs because of high false-negative rates, specifically in the thoracic region and the upper quadrants. Lower thresholds for intervention are recommended.

Point-of-care ultrasonography for diagnosing thoracoabdominal injuries in patients with blunt trauma

Background Point-of-care sonography (POCS) has emerged as the screening modality of choice for suspected body trauma in many emergency departments worldwide. Its best known application is FAST (focused abdominal sonography for trauma). The technology is almost ubiquitously available, can be performed during resuscitation, and does not expose patients or staff to radiation. While many authors have stressed the high specificity of POCS, its sensitivity varied markedly across studies. This review aimed to compile the current best evidence about the diagnostic accuracy of POCS imaging protocols in the setting of blunt thoracoabdominal trauma. Objectives To determine the diagnostic accuracy of POCS for detecting and excluding free fluid, organ injuries, vascular lesions, and other injuries (e.g. pneumothorax) compared to a diagnostic reference standard (i.e. computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), thoracoscopy or thoracotomy, laparoscopy or laparotomy, autopsy, or any combination of these) in patients with blunt trauma. Search methods We searched Ovid MEDLINE (1946 to July 2017) and Ovid Embase (1974 to July 2017), as well as PubMed (1947 to July 2017), employing a prospectively defined literature and data retrieval strategy. We also screened the Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and BIOSIS for potentially relevant citations, and scanned the reference lists of full-text papers for articles missed by the electronic search. We performed a top-up search on 6 December 2018, and identified eight new studies which may be incorporated into the first update of this review. Selection criteria We assessed studies for eligibility using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We included either prospective or retrospective diagnostic cohort studies that enrolled patients of any age and gender who sustained any type of blunt injury in a civilian scenario. Eligible studies had to provide sufficient information to construct a 2 x 2 table of diagnostic accuracy to allow for calculating sensitivity, specificity, and other indices of diagnostic test accuracy. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts of reports using a prespecified data extraction form. Methodological quality of individual studies was rated by the QUADAS-2 instrument (the revised and updated version of the original Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies list of items). We calculated sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CI), tabulated the pairs of sensitivity and specificity with CI, and depicted these estimates by coupled forest plots using Review Manager 5 (RevMan 5). For pooling summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity, and investigating heterogeneity across studies, we fitted a bivariate model using Stata 14.0. Main results We included 34 studies with 8635 participants in this review. Summary estimates of sensitivity and specificity were 0.74 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.81) and 0.96 (95% CI 0.94 to 0.98). Pooled positive and negative likelihood ratios were estimated at 18.5 (95% CI 10.8 to 40.5) and 0.27 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.37), respectively. There was substantial heterogeneity across studies, and the reported accuracy of POCS strongly depended on the population and affected body area. In children, pooled sensitivity of POCS was 0.63 (95% CI 0.46 to 0.77), as compared to 0.78 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.84) in an adult or mixed population. Associated specificity in children was 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.96) and in an adult or mixed population 0.97 (95% CI 0.96 to 0.99). For abdominal trauma, POCS had a sensitivity of 0.68 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.75) and a specificity of 0.95 (95% CI 0.92 to 0.97). For chest injuries, sensitivity and specificity were calculated at 0.96 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00). If we consider the results of all 34 included studies in a virtual population of 1000 patients, based on the observed median prevalence (pretest probability) of thoracoabdominal trauma of 28%, POCS would miss 73 patients with injuries and falsely suggest the presence of injuries in another 29 patients. Furthermore, in a virtual population of 1000 children, based on the observed median prevalence (pretest probability) of thoracoabdominal trauma of 31%, POCS would miss 118 children with injuries and falsely suggest the presence of injuries in another 62 children. Authors' conclusions In patients with suspected blunt thoracoabdominal trauma, positive POCS findings are helpful for guiding treatment decisions. However, with regard to abdominal trauma, a negative POCS exam does not rule out injuries and must be verified by a reference test such as CT. This is of particular importance in paediatric trauma, where the sensitivity of POCS is poor. Based on a small number of studies in a mixed population, POCS may have a higher sensitivity in chest injuries. This warrants larger, confirmatory trials to affirm the accuracy of POCS for diagnosing thoracic trauma.

Intra-abdominal insufflation as a diagnostic modality for penetrating anterior abdominal wall trauma in a busy urban center: a retrospective case-series

Background: The optimal algorithm for evaluating patients with anterior abdominal stab wounds (AASW) is not clear and has been a long standing controversy. Currently, the workup and management of penetrating anterior abdominal wall trauma may involve the decision to proceed immediately to surgery based on the presentation of the patient, or the work up may involve local wound exploration (LWE), focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) exam, CT scan, or serial abdominal exams. Here we discuss an observational sign utilizing the Veress needle intra-abdominal insufflation test that can be used in conjunction with the current AASW algorithm, to rule in peritoneal violation. Methods: Eight patients admitted to our level 1 trauma center with penetrating AASW were evaluated using LWE, FAST, or CT scan followed by Veress needle insufflation and DL for suspected intra-abdominal injuries. These cases were retrospectively evaluated for the efficacy of Veress needle insufflation as an observational test for peritoneal violation. Results: Eight hemodynamically stable patients from December 2013 to June 2014 presented to our level one trauma center after sustaining penetrating AASW. All eight patients went to the operating room for Veress needle insufflation and DL. Upon intra-abdominal insufflation using a Veress needle to a target pressure of 15 mmHg, all patients with peritoneal violations [5] were found to have CO2 escape from their wounds. The remaining three patients with no violation to the peritoneum did not have any appreciable CO 2 escape. Conclusions: Utilizing our technique of intra-abdominal insufflation combined with monitoring for CO 2 escape, we were able to successfully identify all patients with peritoneal violation and rule out violation in those without peritoneal injuries. With further research, our technique can be used to safely, accurately and in a timely manner stratify patients for the need of further diagnostic and interventional procedures.

Central aortic wire confirmation for emergent endovascular procedures: As fast as surgeon-performed ultrasound.

Uncontrolled hemorrhage is the leading cause of preventable death after trauma. Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is an evolving technique for controlling noncompressible torso hemorrhage. A challenge limiting REBOA use is the dependence on fluoroscopy for confirmation of intra-aortic positioning of a guide wire, a necessary component for safe and accurate balloon deployment. The current study evaluates using surgeon-performed sonography alone, without fluoroscopy, in identifying the aorta and the presence of an intra-aortic guide wire. We postulate that with the use of the subxiphoid Focused Abdominal Sonography for Trauma (FAST) view, both the aorta and an intra-aortic guide wire can be reliably identified. One hundred angiography patients underwent femoral arterial cannulation and guide wire advancement to the supraceliac aorta. From the subxiphoid FAST view, the aorta was identified in both sagittal and transverse planes. Intra-aortic wire identification was subsequently recorded. The rate of preferential central aortic wire positioning from unaided guide wire advancement was also observed. The mean patient age and body mass index were 61.8 years and 27.0 kg/m, respectively. Eighty-eight percent of the studies were performed using portable point-of-care ultrasound machines. Identification of the aorta via the subxiphoid FAST was successful in 97 (97%) of 100 patients in the sagittal and 98 (98%) of 100 patients in the transverse orientation. Among visualized aortas, an intra-aortic wire was identifiable in 94 (97%) of 97 patients in the sagittal and 91 (93%) of 98 patients in the transverse orientation. Unaided wire advancement achieved preferential central aortic positioning in 97 (97%) of 100 patients. Fluoroscopy-free ultrasound identification of an advancing intra-aortic guide wire was successful in 56 (98%) of 57 patients. The subxiphoid FAST view can reliably identify a central aortic guide wire in both transverse and sagittal orientations. Unaided guide wire advancement has a high likelihood of both preferential central aortic positioning and subsequent ultrasound identification. These findings eliminate the need for routine fluoroscopy for this important initial maneuver during emergency endovascular procedures. Diagnostic study, level V.

Blunt abdominal trauma: The role of focused abdominal sonography in assessment of organ injury and reducing the need for CT

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the role of ultrasound in early diagnosis of intra-abdominal injury following blunt abdominal trauma and follow up in patients with intra-abdominal injury for detecting late complications. Materials and methods120 patients who presented to the emergency room were evaluated by Focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) and follow-up sonography was done after 12–24h. ResultsThis study found FAST to be 93% sensitive and 99% specific. ConclusionUltrasonography is considered the best modality in initial evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma patients as it is noninvasive, readily available, and requires minimal preparation time. Ultrasonography is very useful in follow up of patients with intra-abdominal injury and decreases use of CT which has the disadvantages of being expensive, high dose radiation.

Diagnostic accuracy of secondary ultrasound exam in blunt abdominal trauma.

Background:In stable patients with blunt abdominal trauma, accurate diagnosis of visceral injuries is crucial.Objectives:To determine whether repeating ultrasound exam will increase the sensitivity of focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) through revealing additional free intraperitoneal fluid in patients with blunt abdominal trauma.Patients and Methods:We performed a prospective observational study by performing primary and secondary ultrasound exams in blunt abdominal trauma patients. All ultrasound exams were performed by four radiology residents who had the experience of more than 400 FAST exams. Five routine intraperitoneal spaces as well as the interloop space were examined by ultrasound in order to find free fluid. All patients who expired or were transferred to the operating room before the second exam were excluded from the study. All positive ultrasound results were compared with intra-operative and computed tomography (CT) findings and/or the clinical status of the patients.Results:Primary ultrasound was performed in 372 patients; 61 of them did not undergo secondary ultrasound exam; thus, were excluded from the study.Three hundred eleven patients underwent both primary and secondary ultrasound exams. One hundred and two of all patients were evaluated by contrast enhanced CT scan and 31 underwent laparotomy. The sensitivity of ultrasound exam in detecting intraperitoneal fluid significantly increased from 70.7% for the primary exam to 92.7% for the secondary exam. Examining the interloop space significantly improved the sensitivity of ultrasonography in both primary (from 36.6% to 70.7%) and secondary (from 65.9% to 92.7%) exams.Conclusions:Performing a secondary ultrasound exam in stable blunt abdominal trauma patients and adding interloop space scan to the routine FAST exam significantly increases the sensitivity of ultrasound in detecting intraperitoneal free fluid.

Comparison of the Accuracy and Reproducibility of Focused Abdominal Sonography for Trauma Performed by Emergency Medicine and Radiology Residents

We compared the diagnostic accuracy of emergency medicine residents (EMRs) and radiology residents (RRs) in performing focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST). The cohort in this prospective study comprised 200 unstable patients (163 males and 37 females; mean ± standard deviation of age, 34.3 ± 16.4 y) who presented with trauma. These patients were evaluated using FAST, first by EMRs and subsequently by RRs. Patients with positive FAST results underwent further diagnostic procedures such as computed tomography, diagnostic peritoneal lavage and laparotomy. Those with negative FAST results underwent clinical follow-up for 72 h until their condition deteriorated or they were discharged. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and accuracy in evaluating free intraperitoneal fluid were 80%, 95%, 57%, 98% and 94% when FAST was performed by EMRs and 86%, 95%, 59%, 98% and 94% when FAST was performed by RRs. The level of agreement between EMRs and RRs was moderate (κ = 0.525). FAST is a useful screening tool for initial assessment of free abdominal fluid in patients with trauma. Our results indicate that EMRs can perform sonography on trauma patients as successfully as RRs.

Use of prehospital ultrasound in North America: a survey of emergency medical services medical directors

BackgroundAdvances in ultrasound imaging technology have made it more accessible to prehospital providers. Little is known about how ultrasound is being used in the prehospital environment and we suspect that it is not widely used in North America at this time. We believe that EMS system characteristics such as provider training, system size, population served, and type of transport will be associated with use or non-use of ultrasound. Our study objective was to describe the current use of prehospital ultrasound in North America.MethodsThis study was a cross-sectional survey distributed to EMS directors on the National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP) mailing list. Respondents had the option to complete a paper or electronic survey.ResultsOf the 755 deliverable surveys we received 255 responses from across Canada and the United states for an overall response rate of 30%. Of respondents, 4.1% of EMS systems (95% CI 1.9, 6.3) reported currently using ultrasound and an additional 21.7% (95% CI 17, 26.4) are considering implementing ultrasound. EMS services using ultrasound have a higher proportion of physicians (p < 0.001) as their highest trained prehospital providers when compared to the survey group as a whole. The most commonly cited current and projected applications are Focused Abdominal Sonography for Trauma (FAST) and assessment of pulseless electrical activity (PEA) arrest. The cost of equipment and training are the most significant barriers to implementation of ultrasound. Most medical directors want evidence that prehospital ultrasound improves patient outcomes prior to implementation.ConclusionsPrehospital ultrasound is infrequently used in North America and there are a number of barriers to its implementation, including costs of equipment and training and limited evidence demonstrating improved outcomes. A research agenda for prehospital ultrasound should focus on patient-important outcomes such as morbidity and mortality. Two commonly used indications that could be a focus of standardized training programs are the FAST exam, and assessment of PEA arrest.

The role of focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) in pediatric trauma evaluation

PurposeWith increasing concerns about radiation exposure, we questioned whether a structured program of FAST might decrease CT use. MethodsAll pediatric trauma surgeons in our level 1 pediatric trauma center underwent formal FAST training. Children with potential abdominal trauma and no prior imaging were prospectively evaluated from 10/2/09 to 7/31/11. After physical exam and FAST, the surgeon declared whether the CT could be eliminated. ResultsOf 536 children who arrived without imaging, 183 had potential abdominal trauma. FAST was performed in 128 cases and recorded completely in 88. In 48% (42/88) the surgeon would have elected to cancel the CT based on the FAST and physical exam. One of the 42 cases had a positive FAST and required emergent laparotomy; the others were negative. The sensitivity of FAST for injuries requiring operation or blood transfusion was 87.5%. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV in detecting pathologic free fluid were 50%, 85%, 53.8%, and 87.9%. ConclusionsTrue positive FAST exams are uncommon and would rarely direct management. While the negative FAST would have potentially reduced CT use due to practitioner reassurance, this reassurance may be unwarranted given the test's sensitivity.

Single jejunal blowout perforation following blunt abdominal trauma: Diagnostic dilemma

Single isolated jejunal perforation (IJP) due to blunt abdominal trauma is uncommon and most often occurs with road traffic accidents. The diagnosis of traumatic single IJP is challenging as there are minimal clinical features initially. For most favorable results, strict monitoring, a high index of clinical suspicion, and the help of available appropriate diagnostic tools like diagnostic peritoneal lav age (DPL)/focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) are preferable. Here we report a case of IJP following blunt trauma abdomen.

Angioembolization and laparotomy for patients with concomitant pelvic arterial hemorrhage and blunt abdominal trauma

Treatment of patients with concomitant pelvic arterial hemorrhage and blunt abdominal trauma (BAT) is challenging. Controversies remain over the diagnostic approach and the priority of available treatment resources. Between 1999 and 2008, 545 patients were admitted due to concomitant BAT and pelvic fracture. Seventy-six patients receiving both angiography and laparotomy were studied. Focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) was used as the primary triage tool in the early 5 years and multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) in the later 5 years. The clinical courses and results were retrospectively analyzed to determine if the evolution of the clinical pathways for managing these patients resulted in improved outcomes. Performing laparotomy solely based on FAST during the early 5 years resulted in a high nontherapeutic laparotomy rate (36%). Contrast enhanced MDCT, as the primary triage tool, accurately disclosed active intra-abdominal and pelvic injuries and was helpful in promptly tailoring the subsequent treatment. Additional surgical trauma was avoided in some patients and nontherapeutic laparotomy rate decreased to 16%. Multiple bleeders were found in 70% of positive angiograms; bilateral internal iliac artery embolization for the purpose of damage control showed a lower repeat angioembolization rate for these severely injured patients. The revised clinical algorithm served well for guiding the treatment pathway. Priority of laparotomy or angiography should be individualized and customized according to the clinical evaluation and CT findings. Angiography can be both diagnostic and therapeutic and simultaneously treat multiple bleeders; thus, it has a higher priority than laparotomy. The primary benefits of our later clinical pathway were in reducing nontherapeutic laparotomy and repeat angioembolization rates.

Study on the value of focused abdominal sonography for trauma used by emergency doctor in emergency department

Objective To study the value of focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) used by emergency doctor in emergency department. Method It's a prospective,double-blinded and controlled study from June 2008 to October 2009. A total of 97 casualties with severe multiple trauma, 72 male and 25 female aged from 14 to 88 years old with average age of (41 ± 16) ,admitted to emergency department were enrolled, and the bedside focused abdominal sonography for trauma was performed by emergency doctor. It was diagnosed as positive if free fluid was detected in abdomen or pericardium. The severe injury scores (ISS) were from 14 to 38 with average score of (23.2±9.3). The criteria of inclusion were age over 14 years old, injury happened within 12 hours and casualties admitted directly into emergency room. The criteria of exclusion were death of patients within 2 days without CT scanning of abdomen and exploration of abdomen with laporotomy, and operations directly determined by using FAST without conventinal sonographic examination. The FAST was compared with CT and conventional sonography judged by the findings observed during operation. Results The examination with FAST was completed in (3.18±0.79) min, whereas that with conventional sonography was (16.63t4.62) min(t = 28.61,P ＜0.001). The FAST was positive in 11 cases and negative in 86 cases, whereas the conventional sonography was positive in 13 cases and negative in 84 cases ( P = 0.5). There were 4 false negative findings in FAST resulting in 73% sensitivity, 100% specificity, 95.3% negative predictive value, 4.6% false negative rate, 100% positive predictive value, 0% false positive rate and 95.9% accuracy. Conclusions The emergency doctors are able to operate the FAST well for casualties with multiple trauma in emergency department after proper training. Key words: Multiple trauma;  Abdominal trauma;  Focused abdominal sonography;  Emergency;  Hydropericardium;  Seroperitoneum;  Trauma assessment

Evaluating emergency ultrasound training in India

Background:In countries with fully developed emergency medicine systems, emergency ultrasound (EUS) plays an important role in the assessment and treatment of critically ill patients.Methods:The authors sought to introduce EUS to a group of doctors working in the emergency departments (EDs) in India through an intensive 4-day adult and pediatric ultrasound course held at the Apex Trauma Center and EM division of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences in New Delhi. The workshop was evaluated with a survey questionnaire and a hands-on practical test. The questionnaire was designed to assess the current state of EUS in India's EDs, and to identify potential barriers to the incorporation of EUS into current EM practice. The EUS course consisted of a general introductory didactic session followed by pediatric, abdominal and trauma, cardiothoracic, obstetrical and gynecologic, and vascular modules. Each module had a didactic session followed by handson applications with live models and/or simulators. A post-course survey questionnaire was given to the participants, and there was a practical test on the final day of the course. The ultrasound images taken by the participants were digitally recorded, and were subsequently graded for their accuracy by independent observers, residency, and/or fellowship trained in EUS.Results:There were a total of 42 participants who completed the workshop and took the practical examination; 32 participants filled in the course evaluation survey. Twenty-four (75%) participants had no prior experience with EUS, 5 (16%) had some experience, and 3 (9%) had significant experience. During the practical examination, 38 of 42 participants (90%) were able to identify Morison's pouch on the focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) examination, and 32 (76%) were able to obtain a parasternal long axis cardiac view and identify the left ventricle. The inferior vena cava was identified as it crosses the diaphragm into the right atrium by 20 (48%) participants. All participants felt they would be able to incorporate what they had learned into their practice, and indicated that they were advocates for further training of non-radiologist clinicians in the use of ED ultrasound.Conclusion:After this introductory workshop in EUS, the participants were comfortable in their ability to use the ultrasound machine. Participants deemed it particularly useful for certain ED applications, particularly the FAST examination, the lung examination, and vascular access.

Use of focused abdominal sonography for trauma at pediatric and adult trauma centers: a survey

Purpose Focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) has been popularized for the initial evaluation of trauma patients. We sought to understand the scope of practice on a national level with specific attention to its use in the pediatric age group. Methods An electronic survey was sent to all American College of Surgeons level I trauma centers and the National Association of Children's Hospitals and Related Institutions that were freestanding children's hospitals. Results The survey was emailed to 124 centers, and 98 (79%) completed the survey. Of the surveyed centers, 23% cared for adults only, 28% were freestanding children's hospitals, and 49% managed both. At adults-only institutions, 96% use FAST and at children's hospitals, only 15%; it is used at 85% of centers that care for both. For the centers that use FAST on children, 88% have no age limit. Of all the institutions that typically use FAST, the individual performing the examination could be a surgeon (73%), an emergency department doctor (48%), or a radiologist (3%). Of the centers that perform FAST, 51% bill for the FAST examination. Conclusions Adult hospitals are much more likely to perform FAST examinations in the trauma patient, and many adult centers routinely use FAST to examine pediatric patients.