Category Archives: Imaging

EAST 2017 #2: CT Scan After Recent Operative Exploration for Penetrating Trauma

December 29, 2016 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

The general rule for penetrating trauma, especially gunshots to the abdomen, is that you don’t need to obtain a CT scan to help you decide to go to the OR. (Of course, there are a few exceptions.) And the corollary has always been that you don’t need to get a CT scan after you operate for penetrating trauma.

But the group at UCSF is questioning this. They retrospectively looked at 5 years of data on patients who underwent trauma laparotomy without preoperative imaging. They focused on new findings on CT that were not reported during the initial operation.

Here are the factoids:

230 of 328 patients undergoing a trauma lap did not have preop imaging
85 of the 230 patients (37%) underwent immediate postop CT scan. These patients tended to have a gunshot mechanism and higher injury severity score.
Unreported injuries were found in 45% (!) and tended to be GU and orthopedic in nature
47% of those with unreported injuries found required some sort of intervention

Bottom line: This is a very interesting and potentially practice changing study. However, there is some opportunity for bias since only select patients underwent postop scanning. Nevertheless, one in five patients who did get a postop scan had an injury that required some sort of intervention. This study begs to be reworked to further support it, and to develop specific criteria for postop scanning.

Questions/comments for the authors/presenters:

Be sure to break down your results by gunshot vs stab. This will help formulate those criteria I mentioned above.
Specifically list the occult injuries and interventions required. In some studies, those “required interventions” are pretty weak (urology consult vs an actual procedure).
How exactly did the operating surgeons determine who to send to CT? Was it surgeon-specific (i.e. one surgeon always did, another never did)? Was it due to operative findings (hole near the kidney)? This is also needed when developing specific criteria for postop imaging.
Nice poster!

Click here to go the the EAST 2017 page to see comments on other abstracts.

Related posts:

Reference: Routine tomography after recent operative exploration for penetrating trauma: what injuries do we miss? Poster #14, EAST 2017.

Imaging

EAST 2017 #1: Accuracy of CT Scans Done Outside The Trauma Center

December 28, 2016 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

Imaging prior to transfer to a trauma center has been the subject of debate for years. The focus has primarily been on the necessity of these scans, and the sheer numbers that are done. For the most part, the discussion has been driven by the potential for radiation exposure.

This paper, from the University of Oklahoma, takes a different approach. The authors looked at the accuracy and adequacy of imaging performed prior to transfer to their Level I trauma center.

Patients were enrolled prospectively over an 8 month period in 2012. Outside images were interpreted by a single radiologist who was blinded to the outside interpretation. If images were repeated, they were compared to the first scan, and the reason for the redo was noted.

Here are the factoids:

235 consecutive transfer patients were enrolled, and 203 who had at least one CT scan were included in the final dataset
76% of these patients had additional imaging performed once they arrived at the trauma center
Reasons for additional images were insufficient workup (76%) and technical inadequacy (31%)
Missed injuries were detected on outside CT scans 49% of the time, and the majority of them (90%) were deemed clinically significant
Missed injuries on a repeated scan were present in 54% of patients, and 76% were clinically significant
Overall, 73% of images (either outside or repeat) contained additional injuries

Bottom line: This is a new approach to assessing the value of outside imaging prior to transfer to a trauma center. I have always recommended that trauma centers work with their referral partners to assure them we don’t need them to do the workup for us. I encourage them to obtain only what they need to decide if they can keep the patient. But once they find anything that they cannot treat, stop all workup and prepare to transfer.

Questions/comments for the authors/presenters:

Why did you use such an old dataset?
Is this a prospective enrollment/retrospective analysis study designed to use an existing, old dataset?
How did you decide that outside imaging represented an inadequate workup? Do you have a diagnostic imaging guideline that you follow?
What are the credentials for your trauma radiologist?
How did you determine that a missed injury was clinically significant? Be sure to provide a list and explanation during your presentation.
Be sure to separate out missed injuries seen on the original CT from new missed injuries seen on the repeat scan.
Congratulations on looking at an old problem in a new way!

Click here to go the the EAST 2017 page to see comments on other abstracts.

Related posts:

Reference: Adequacy and accuracy of non-tertiary trauma center computed tomography: what are we missing? Paper #7, EAST 2017.

Imaging

Pan Scanning for Elderly Falls?

October 21, 2016 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

The last abstract for the Clinical Congress of the American College of Surgeons that I will review deals with doing a so-called “pan-scan” for ground level falls. Apparently, patients at this center have been pan-scanned for years, and they wanted to determine if it was appropriate.

This was a retrospective trauma registry review of 9 years worth of ground level falls. Patients were divided into young (18-54 years) and old (55+ years) groups. They were included in the study if they received a pan-scan.

Here are the factoids:

Hospital admission rates (95%) and ICU admission rates (48%) were the same for young and old
ISS was a little higher in the older group (9 vs 12)
Here are the incidence and type of injuries detected:

	Young (n=328)	Old (n=257)
TBI	35%	40%
C-spine	2%	2%
Blunt Cereb-vasc inj *	20%	31%
Pneumothorax	14%	15%
Abdominal injury	4%	2%
Mortality *	3%	11%

* = statistically significant

Bottom line: There is an ongoing argument, still, regarding pan-scan vs selective scanning. The pan-scanners argue that the increased risk (much of which is delayed or intangible) is worth the extra information. This study shows that the authors did not find much difference in injury diagnosis in young vs elderly patients, with the exception of blunt cerebrovascular injury.

Most elderly patients who fall sustain injuries to the head, spine (all of it), extremities and hips. The torso is largely spared, with the exception of ribs. In my opinion, chest CT is only for identification of aortic injury, which just can’t happen from falling over. Or even down stairs. And solid organ injury is also rare in this group.

Although the future risk from radiation in an elderly patient is probably low, the risk from the IV contrast needed to see the aorta or solid organs is significant in this group. And keep in mind the dangers of screening for a low probability diagnosis. You may find something that prompts invasive and potentially more dangerous investigations of something that may never have caused a problem!

I recommend selective scanning of the head and cervical spine (if not clinically clearable), and selective conventional imaging of any other suspicious areas. If additional detail of the thoracic and/or lumbar spine are needed, specific spine CT imaging should be used without contrast.

Related posts:

Reference: Pan-scanning for ground level falls in the elderly: really? ACS Surgical Forum, trauma abstracts, 2016.

Imaging

CT Crystal Ball – Part 3

October 19, 2016 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

And yet another one of these crystal ball abstracts, all presented at the same meeting of the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress!

This one postulates that more injuries seen on CT scan might predict mortality in “older” trauma patients. Hmmm. The authors pulled info on head CT findings, GCS, AIS Head, lengths of stay, death, functional scores, and discharge disposition. And the age had to be >45 years. Older? Hmmm.

A scoring tool was designed that gave 1 point each for subdural, epidural, subarachnoid, or intraparenchymal blood, cerebral contusion, skull fracture, brain edema/herniation, midline shift, and external trauma to the head/face. The score range was 0-8, even though there were 10 factors.

Lets look at the factoids:

Nearly 10 years of data were analyzed
620 patients meeting criteria were identified
The scoring system positively correlated with all of the outcome measures
Independent predictors of mortality included GCS, AIS Head, and the CT score (odds ratio 1.3)
The CT test also “predicted” (author’s word) neursurgical intervention (odds ratio 1.2)

Bottom line: Oh boy, here we go again. Another correlation study, and a weak one at that. So if someone told you that an “older” patient (beginning after age 45) would do worse clinically the more injuries were seen in and around their head, what would you say? And why did it take 10 years of data to accumulate data on 620 patients in this age range (62 per year)? And why not test your scoring system prospectively? And run some really good statistics on the new data? Sadly, I feel this is another run to submit an abstract and present at a meeting. But thankfully, I don’t think it will ever see the light of print.

Related posts:

Reference: Prognostication of traumatic brain injury outcomes in older trauma patients: a novel risk assessment tool based on initial cranial CT findings. ACS Scientific Forum, trauma abstracts, 2016.

captain-obvious1

Imaging

The CT Crystal Ball – Part 2

October 18, 2016 The Trauma Pro Leave a comment

Yesterday, I wrote about a study that looked at a CT scan-derived index that promised to predict complications and mortality based on the waist-hip ratio. It was actually a very good one. But there is another abstract being presented at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress this week that promises miracles from the CT scanner as well.

This next abstract looks at muscle mass in trauma patients, as measured by CT scan. Specifically, the authors measured the density of the psoas muscle by determining its cross-sectional area and its density in Hounsfeld units. They then looked at the relationship between this and 90 day mortality, complications, and disposition location.

Really? Well, here are the factoids:

The study involved only 152 patients age 45+ from the year 2008
Median ISS was only 9
Patients with the lowest psoas cross-sectional area had an associated significantly higher death rate
Those with lowest psoas density had an associated increase in complications, dependency on discharge, and mortality
The authors suggest that these measurements could aid in patients who would benefit from aggressive nutritional support and physical therapy, and could aid in discharge planning

Bottom line: Very different from yesterday’s abstract. This one has no grounding in prior research. It appears to be one that was just dreamed up from nowhere. And it is truly an association study. No causality can or should be inferred.

There were only 152 patients studied. From 2008. Why? Why didn’t the authors use a more contemporary dataset? There is something weird going on behind the scenes. Is this an old study that was forgotten, and is just now being conveniently dusted off for analysis and submission? A power analysis to find out how many patients should be reviewed is not possible, so it is important to err on the high side. Not just 152 patients.

If you were to just read the abstract and especially the conclusions, you really might get the wrong idea. This is a study that will not see it’s day in any journal. Read and learn from it. But don’t duplicate it!

Related post:

Reference: Computed tomography-measured psoas density predicts complications, discharge location, and mortality in trauma patients. ACS Scientific Forum, trauma abstracts, 2016.

Home of the Trauma Professional's Blog