PubMed · 5440708
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
S L Weissman, O Khermosh. 1970. Orthopedic aspects in multiple injuries.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5440708/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
BACKGROUND: The diagnostic workup in stable patients with penetrating thoracoabdominal injuries can be extremely difficult. Conventional diagnostic tests such as plain chest radiography, computed tomography scan, digital exploration, and diagnostic peritoneal lavage can be misleading. Classically, most of these patients have undergone exploratory laparotomy to determine whether there is a diaphragmatic injury. METHODS: In this study, 52 patients with penetrating thoracoabdominal trauma, and without any indication for immediate surgery, underwent video-assisted thoracoscopy to determine the presence of diaphragmatic injuries. RESULTS: Of the 52 patients, 48 were men. The left hemithorax was involved in 38 patients (73%). Chest x-ray was normal in 40 patients (77%) who were clinically asymptomatic. Stab wounds were responsible for 80% of the injuries. At the time of the thoracoscopy, 35 patients (67%) were found to have a diaphragmatic injury. All 35 diaphragmatic injuries were successfully repaired thoracoscopically. The procedure was completed in 50 patients (96%). There were no deaths or complications. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of diaphragmatic injuries is higher than anticipated in asymptomatic patients with penetrating thoracoabdominal wounds. Video thoracoscopy can be used as a safe, expeditious, minimally invasive, and extremely useful technique to facilitate the diagnosis of these injuries in asymptomatic patients. Furthermore, diaphragmatic injuries can be repaired easily through a thoracoscopic approach with no complications.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and profitability of a radiology department providing a six-point trauma ultrasound (US) examination for abdominal or pelvic free fluid as part of a trauma alert team. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included 191 trauma alerts, which generated 156 US examinations. A radiologist and a departmental technologist carried beepers and responded to level I and II traumas. A departmental secretary or technologist recorded when the responding technologist exited and re-entered the department and if US was performed. If performed, the US examination evaluated the four abdominal and pelvic quadrants and the suprapubic and subxiphoid regions. For 64 patients, the responding technologist recorded the times of the trauma alert, emergency room arrival, US start and finish, and return to the radiology department. RESULTS: Median response, wait, scan duration, and return times were 2, 8, 5, and 7 minutes, respectively. Median costs for the technician, physician, archiving, transcription, and equipment were $8.17, $30.85, $0.97, $4.80, and $41.22, respectively. Reimbursement per examination averaged $110.60. Sensitivity analyses that varied the time spent (median vs mean), US non-use rate (10%-18%), and years of depreciation (5-7 years) yielded net results ranging from a $36.60 profit to a $6.12 loss per examination. CONCLUSION: A radiology department can profitably respond to trauma alerts and provide a six-point trauma US examination for free fluid.
BACKGROUND: Injuries to the pancreas from blunt abdominal trauma in children are rare. Most are minor and are best treated conservatively. The mainstay for treatment of major ductal injuries has been prompt surgical resection. Diagnostic imaging modalities are the key to the accurate classification of these injuries and planning appropriate treatment. Computed tomography (CT) scan has been the major imaging modality in blunt abdominal trauma for children, but has shortcomings in the diagnosis of pancreatic ductal injury. Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) has been shown recently to be superior in diagnostic accuracy. The therapeutic placement of stents in the trauma setting has not been described in children. METHODS: Two children sustained major ductal injuries from blunt abdominal trauma that were suspected, but not conclusively noted, on initial CT scan. Both underwent ERCP within hours of injury. In case 1, a stent was threaded through the disruption into the distal duct. In case 2, a similar injury, the stent could only be placed through the ampulla, thereby reducing ductal pressure. In both cases, clinical improvement was rapid with complete resolution of clinical and chemical pancreatitis, resumption of a normal diet, and discharge from the hospital. The stents were removed at 10 and 12 days postinjury, and both children have remained well. Follow-up ERCP and CT scans show complete healing of the ducts and no evidence of pseudocyst formation 1 year post injury. CONCLUSIONS: Acute ERCP should be the imaging modality of choice in suspected major pancreatic ductal injury. Successful treatment by placement of an intrapancreatic ductal stent may be possible at the same time. Surgical resection or reconstruction can then be reserved for cases in which stenting is impossible or fails.