We have located links that may give you full text access.
The validity of abdominal examination in blunt trauma patients with distracting injuries.
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 2015 June
BACKGROUND: Many trauma care providers often disregard the abdominal clinical examination in the presence of extra-abdominal distracting injuries and mandate abdominal computed tomographic scan in these patients. Ignoring the clinical examination may incur undue expense and radiation exposure. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of abdominal clinical examination in patients with distracting injuries.
METHODS: During a 1-year period, all awake and alert blunt trauma patients with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 14 or 15 were entered into a prospective study. Abdominal clinical examination was performed and documented prospectively on all patients. Abdominal clinical examination included four-quadrant anterior abdominal palpation, flank palpation, lower thoracic palpation, pelvis examination, and palpation of the thoracolumbar spine. Following examination documentation, all patients underwent computed tomographic scan of the abdomen and pelvis with intravenous contrast.
RESULTS: A total of 803 patients were enrolled: 451 patients had distracting injuries, and 352 patients did not. Of the 352 patients without distracting injuries, 19 (5.4%) had intra-abdominal injuries, of whom 2 (10.5%) had negative clinical examination result. Of the 451 patients with distracting injuries, 48 (10.6%) were diagnosed with intra-abdominal injury, of whom 5 (10.4%) had negative clinical examination result. All five missed injuries in patients with distracting injuries were solid organ injuries, none of which required surgical intervention or blood transfusion. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of abdominal examination for patients with distracting injuries were 90.0% and 97.0%, respectively. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of abdominal examination for surgically significant and transfusion-requiring injuries were both 100%.
CONCLUSION: Distracting injuries do not seem to diminish the efficacy of clinical abdominal examination for the diagnosis of clinically significant abdominal injury. These data suggest that clinical examination of the abdomen is valid in awake and alert blunt trauma patients, regardless of the presence of other injuries.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic study, level III.
METHODS: During a 1-year period, all awake and alert blunt trauma patients with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 14 or 15 were entered into a prospective study. Abdominal clinical examination was performed and documented prospectively on all patients. Abdominal clinical examination included four-quadrant anterior abdominal palpation, flank palpation, lower thoracic palpation, pelvis examination, and palpation of the thoracolumbar spine. Following examination documentation, all patients underwent computed tomographic scan of the abdomen and pelvis with intravenous contrast.
RESULTS: A total of 803 patients were enrolled: 451 patients had distracting injuries, and 352 patients did not. Of the 352 patients without distracting injuries, 19 (5.4%) had intra-abdominal injuries, of whom 2 (10.5%) had negative clinical examination result. Of the 451 patients with distracting injuries, 48 (10.6%) were diagnosed with intra-abdominal injury, of whom 5 (10.4%) had negative clinical examination result. All five missed injuries in patients with distracting injuries were solid organ injuries, none of which required surgical intervention or blood transfusion. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of abdominal examination for patients with distracting injuries were 90.0% and 97.0%, respectively. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of abdominal examination for surgically significant and transfusion-requiring injuries were both 100%.
CONCLUSION: Distracting injuries do not seem to diminish the efficacy of clinical abdominal examination for the diagnosis of clinically significant abdominal injury. These data suggest that clinical examination of the abdomen is valid in awake and alert blunt trauma patients, regardless of the presence of other injuries.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic study, level III.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Diagnosis and Management of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Circulation 2024 April 19
Essential thrombocythaemia: A contemporary approach with new drugs on the horizon.British Journal of Haematology 2024 April 9
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app