SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Eurasian Journal of Emergency Medicine / 2014 / Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 3

Investigation of Accuracy of FAST Findings of Multitrauma Patients in Comparison with Abdominal CT Results

İsmet PARLAK
Serhat AKAY
Sadiye YOLCU
Tuğba Çiçek DURAK
Ali Savaş MİRAN
Yasin DEMİR
Pages
104–107
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Multiple trauma patients with positive USG findings according to their hemodynamic situations and multitrauma patients with suspicious USG findings should undergo abdominal CT scan in the emergency service

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: In our study, we aimed to investigate the accuracy of Focused Assessment Sonography for Trauma (FAST) findings of multitrauma patients in comparison with abdominal CT results.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Results: One hundred eighty (79.6%) males and 46 (20.4%) females (total 226 patients) were included to our study.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Multiple trauma patients with positive USG findings according to their hemodynamic situations and multitrauma patients with suspicious USG findings should undergo abdominal CT scan in the emergency service
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: In our study, we aimed to investigate the accuracy of Focused Assessment Sonography for Trauma (FAST) findings of multitrauma patients in comparison with abdominal CT results. Material and Methods: Age, gender, demographic properties, trauma type, arrival method to the emergency service, abdominal USG results, abdominal CT results, results of other CT scans, hospitalization data, and hemoglobin (Hb) and white blood cell count (WBC) values of the patients were recorded. Results: One hundred eighty (79.6%) males and 46 (20.4%) females (total 226 patients) were included to our study. Mean age was 38.74±17.18; 203 (89.8%) patients were traffic accidents, and 23 (10.2%) patients were falls from heights. The sensitivity of FAST was 50% and specificity was 93.7%. The positive predictive value (PPV) was 60 and negative predictive value was 90.8%. Conclusion: Multiple trauma patients with positive USG findings according to their hemodynamic situations and multitrauma patients with suspicious USG findings should undergo abdominal CT scan in the emergency service

🔖

Cite This Article

PARLAK, İ., AKAY, S., YOLCU, S., DURAK, T. Ç., MİRAN, A. S., DEMİR, Y. (2022). Investigation of Accuracy of FAST Findings of Multitrauma Patients in Comparison with Abdominal CT Results. Eurasian Journal of Emergency Medicine, Cilt: 13 - Sayı: 3, 104–107. https://ajindex.com/articles/508222

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (4)

  1. Davis JH,Pruitt JH, Pruitt BA Jr. History In: Mattox KL, Feliciano DV, Moore EE. Trauma, 4th ed, McGraw Hill, New York, S 3.19, 2000
  2. FAST Consensus Conference Committee. Focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST): results from an international consensus conference. J Trauma 1999; 46: 466-72. [CrossRef] 3. Nagy KK, Roberts RR, Joseph KT, Smith RF, An GC, Bokhari F, et al. Experience with over 2500 diagnostic peritoneal lavages. Injury 2000; 31: 479- 82. [CrossRef] 4. Farahmand N, Sirlin CB, Brown MA, Shragg GP, Fortlage D, et al. Hypotensive Patients with Blunt Abdominal Trauma: Performance of Screening US. Radiology 2005; 235: 436-43. [CrossRef] 5. Miller MT, Pasquale MD, Bromberg WJ, Wasser TE, Cox J. Not so FAST. J Trauma 2003; 54: 52-9; 59-60
  3. FAST Consensus Conference Committee. Focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST): results from an international consensus conference. J Trauma 1999; 46: 466-72. [CrossRef] 7. Nagy KK, Roberts RR, Joseph KT, Smith RF, An GC, Bokhari F, et al. Experience with over 2500 diagnostic peritoneal lavages. Injury 2000; 31: 479- 82. [CrossRef] 8. Ma OJ, Mateer JR, Ogata M, Kefer MP, Wittmann D, Aprahamian C. Prospective analysis of a rapid trauma ultrasound examination performed by emergency physicians. J Trauma 1995; 38: 879-85. [CrossRef] 9. Lingawi SS, Buckley AR. Focused abdominal US in patients with trauma. Radiolog 2000; 217: 426-29
  4. Liu M, Lee CH, P’eng FK. Prospective comparison of diagnostic peritoneal lavage, computed tomographic scanning, and ultrasonography for the diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma. J Trauma 1993; 35: 267-70. [CrossRef] 11. Shanmuganathan K, Mirvis SE, Sherbourne CD, Chiu WC, Rodriguez A. Hemoperitoneum as the sole indicator of abdominal visceral injuries: a potential limitation of screening abdominal US for trauma. Radiology 1999; 212: 423-30. [CrossRef] 12. Rozycki GS, Ballard RB, Felliciano DV, Schmidt JA, Pennington SD. Surgeon-performed ultrasound for the assessment of truncal injuries. Ann Surg 1998; 228: 557-67. [CrossRef] 13. Chiu WC, Cushing BM, Rodriguez A, Ho SM, Mirvis SE, Shanmuganathan K, et al. Abdominal injuries without hemoperitoneum: a potential limitation of focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST). J Trauma 1997; 42: 617-23. [CrossRef] 14. Brown MA, Casola G, Sirlin CB, Budorick N, Patel N, Hoyt DB. Blunt abdominal trauma: screening US in 2693 patients. Radiology 2001; 218: 352-8. [CrossRef] 15. Kuncir EJ, Velmahos GC. Diagnostic per