Tag Archives: blunt trauma

AAST 2019 #2: Predicting Abdominal Operation After Blunt Trauma – The RAPTOR Score

Patients with blunt abdominal injury, particularly those with seat belt signs, can be diagnostically very challenging. If the patient is stable and does not have peritonitis, CT scan is typically the first stop after the trauma resuscitation room. As many trauma professionals know, the radiographic findings can be subtle and/or not very convincing.

The trauma group at the University of Tennessee in Memphis sought to identify specific findings that might help us better identify patients that will need laparotomy. They retrospectively identified all their mesenteric injuries over a five-year period. A single blinded radiologist (is this an oxymoron or not?) reviewed all 151 patient images who underwent laparotomy, looking for predictors of bowel or mesenteric injury.  All of the predictors were then converted into a scoring system called RAPTOR (radiographic predictors of therapeutic operative intervention; kind of a stretch?). These predictors were then subjected to multivariate regression analyses to try to tease out if there were any independent predictors of injury.

Here are the factoids:

  • A total of 151 patients were identified over the 5 year period; 114 underwent laparotomy
  • Of the 114 operated patients, two thirds underwent a therapeutic laparotomy and the other third were nontherapeutic
  • There no missed injuries in the non-operated patients
  • The components of the RAPTOR score were culled from all the potential findings, and were determined to be
    • Multifocal hematoma
    • Acute arterial extravasation
    • Bowel wall hematoma
    • Bowel devascularization
    • Fecalization (of what??)
    • Free air
    • Fat pad injury (??)
  • Linear regression then showed that only three of these, extravasation, bowel devascularization, and fat pad injury to be independent predictors of injury
  • If three or more RAPTOR variables were present, then the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values for injury were 67%, 85%, and 86%, and an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.91

The authors concluded that the RAPTOR score provided a simplified approach to detect patients who might benefit from early laparotomy and not serial abdominal exams. They go further and say it could potentially be an invaluable tool when patients don’t have clear indications for operation.

It looks like there are two things going on here at the same time. First, a new potential scoring system is being piloted. And second, a regression analysis is being used to examine the data as well. 

But first, let’s back up to the beginning. This is a retrospective study, with a relatively small size. This makes it far harder to ensure that the results will be significant, or at least meaningful. Use of a single radiologist can also be problematic, especially since many of the CT findings with this mechanism of injury are subtle. 

The reported performance of the RAPTOR score is a bit weak. The listed statistics show that it accurately identified only two thirds of those who needed an operation and 85% of those who didn’t. The AUROC for the regression is very good, though. Could a good old-fashioned serial exam scenario be better?

Bottom line: It will be interesting to hear the background on RAPTOR vs regression, and find our how the authors will use or are using these tools.

Here are my questions for the presenter and authors:

  • Why did you decide to create a scoring system that uses a set of variables that may be dependent on each other? Isn’t the regression equation better?
  • Has this information changed your practice? It seems that the two of the three regression variables are fairly obvious reasons to operate (active extravasation and devascularization). Do you really need the rest?
  • Has this study helped you decrease the non-therapeutic laparotomy rate for blunt abdominal injury?
  • And please define fecalization and fat pad injury!

I’m looking forward to hearing this presentation!

Reference: RADIOGRAPHIC PREDICTORS OF THERAPEUTIC OPERATIVE INTERVENTION AFTER BLUNT ABDOMINAL TRAUMA: THE RAPTOR SCORE. AAST 2019 Oral Paper 6.

 

Practical Tip: Evaluation of Hematuria in Blunt Trauma

Bloody urine is a relatively uncommon finding in blunt trauma patients. Hematuria ranges from microscopic to gross. Microscopic means blood that can only be seen with a microscope, and gross means visible to the naked eye. In trauma, we only care about gross hematuria, which ranges from the faintest of pink to the deepest red.

In the picture above gross hematuria is present in all tubes but the far right one. Those four will need further evaluation.

In trauma, gross hematuria is a result of an injury to kidney, ureter or bladder. Blunt injury to the ureter is so rare it’s reportable, so you can pretty much forget that one unless the mechanism is extreme. So you really just need to focus on kidney and bladder.

Any victim of blunt trauma that presents with visible hematuria needs to be evaluated by CT of the abdomen and pelvis with an added CT cystogram. Standard CT technique is done without a urinary catheter, or with the catheter clamped. This is not acceptable for hematuria evaluation, as only 50% of bladder injuries show up with this technique.

CT cystogram is an add-on to the standard CT, and consists of the administration of contrast into the bladder which is then kept under pressure while the scan is performed. Delayed slices through the pelvis after the bladder is depressurized and emptied is routine. Nearly 100% of bladder injuries are detected using this technique.

If the CT shows a renal laceration or hematoma, the patient should be admitted and managed according to your solid organ injury protocol. Kidney injuries fare better that livers and spleens, and only rarely require surgery. If no kidney or bladder injury is seen, the default diagnosis of a renal contusion is the culprit. No treatment is needed, and the patient can be discharged if no other injuries are present. The blood will clear over a few days, but may disappear and reappear a few times in the process. Be sure to warn the patient that this may occur, or you may receive some surprise phone calls. The patient can followup with their primary care physician in a week or two.

The majority of these injuries do not require urologic consultation. Complex injuries with extravasation of urine out of the kidney, or injuries to the collecting system should be referred to a urologist, however.

EAST Guidelines: Blunt Traumatic Aortic Injury

The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) has been helping trauma professionals through the publication of practice guidelines for more than 15 years. Members of EAST donate their time to review reams of literature, good and bad, to try to determine the answers to common or puzzling clinical questions.

Why follow a practice guideline? Quite simply, if properly developed, a guideline represents our best understanding of the “correct” answer to the question posed. And as many of you who follow this blog already know, things that “seem to make sense” frequently are totally wrong. Your own experience is poignant, but the pooled experience of the many others who contributed to research on the topic in question is much more significant.

So on the the practice guideline for blunt traumatic aortic injury (BTAI). This one answers three questions. I will list each, followed by the conclusions reached through the literature review.

1. In patients with suspected BTAI, which diagnostic modality should be chosen: CT angiography of the chest, or conventional catheter angiography?

  – Catheter angiography was the standard for decades. When the first EAST guideline on this topic was released 15 years ago, CT angiography was only a level III recommendation because experience with it was lacking. CT technology has advanced rapidly, with multiple detectors, helical scanning, and incredible computing power. Although the quality of the evidence is somewhat low, the panel strongly recommends the use of CT angiography due to its ready availability, speed, low invasiveness, and ability to detect and define other injuries.

2. Should endovascular or open repair be selected in order to minimize stroke, renal failure, paraplegia, and death?

  – Once again, the quality of available data is so so. However, it was possible to detect differences in outcome in comparative studies. The panel strongly recommends the use of endovascular repair in patients who do not have contraindications due to its lower blood loss, mortality, and paraplegia, and equivalent risk of stroke. Furthermore, it is performed more frequently now than open repair, and experience is thus greater at many institutions, further reducing complications.

3. Should the repair be performed immediately or delayed in order to minimize stroke, renal failure, paraplegia, and death?

  – Literature review revealed that the incidence of renal failure and paraplegia were lower with delayed repair, while renal failure was the same in patients with significant associated injuries. There was benefit to delaying repair until resuscitation was achieved and any other life threatening injuries were addressed. The panel recommends that delayed repair be carried out once these other conditions have been corrected. The procedure should not be delayed until the next morning for the convenience of the surgeons.

Related posts:

Reference: Evaluation and management of blunt traumatic aortic injury: a practice guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. 78(1):136-146, 2015.

Blunt Traumatic Arrest In Kids: Are They Little Adults?

Over and over, we hear that children are not just little adults. They are a different size, a different shape. Their “normal” vital signs are weird. Drug doses are different; some drugs don’t work, some work all too well. 

But in many ways, they recover more quickly and more completely after injury. What about after what is probably the biggest insult of all, cardiac arrest after blunt trauma? The NAEMSP and the ACS Committee on Trauma recently released a statement regarding blunt traumatic arrest (BTA):

 “Resuscitation efforts may be withheld in any blunt trauma patient who, based on out-of-hospital personnel’s thorough primary patient assessment, is found apneic, pulseless, and without organized ECG activity upon arrival of EMS at the scene.“

The groups specifically point out that the guidelines do not apply to the pediatric population due to the scarcity of data for this age group.

The Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles and USC conducted a study of the National Trauma Data Bank, trying to see if children had a better outcome after this catastrophic event. Patients were considered as children if they were up to and including age 18.

Here are the factoids: 

  • Of 116,000 pediatric patients with blunt trauma, 7,766 had no signs of life (SOL) in the field (0.25%)
  • The typical male:female distribution for trauma was found (70:30)
  • 75% of those without SOL in the field never regained them. Only 1.5% of these survived to discharge from the hospital.
  • 25% regained SOL with resuscitation, and 14% of them were discharged alive.
  • 499 patients underwent ED thoracotomy, and only 1% survived to discharge. There was no correlation of thoracotomy with survival.
  • It appeared that there was a tendency toward survival for the very young (age 0-4) without SOL, but statistical analysis did not bear this out

Bottom line: Children are just like little adults when it comes to blunt cardiac arrest after trauma. Although it is a retrospective, registry-based study, this is about as big as we are likely to see. And don’t get suckered into saying "but 1.5% with no vital signs ever were discharged!” This study was not able to look at the quality of life of survivors, but there is usually significant and severe disability present in the few adult survivors after this event.

Feel free to try to re-establish signs of life in kids with BTA. This usually means lots of fluid and/or blood. If they don’t respond, then it’s game over. And, like adults, don’t even think about an emergency thoracotomy; it’s dangerous to you and doesn’t work!

Related posts:

Reference: Survival of pediatric blunt trauma patients presenting with no signs of life in the field. J Trauma 77(3):422-426, 2014.

Evaluation of Hematuria in Blunt Trauma

Hematuria ranges from microscopic to gross. Microscopic means blood that can only be seen with a microscope, and gross means visible to the naked eye. In trauma, we only care about gross hematuria, which ranges from the faintest of pink to the deepest red.

In trauma, gross hematuria is a result of an injury to kidney, ureter or bladder. Blunt injury to the ureter is so rare it’s reportable, so you can pretty much forget that one unless the mechanism is extreme. So you really just need to focus on kidney and bladder.

Any victim of blunt trauma that presents with visible hematuria needs to be evaluated by CT of the abdomen and pelvis with an added CT cystogram. Standard CT technique is done without a urinary catheter, or with the catheter clamped. Only 50% of bladder injuries show up with this technique.

CT cystogram is an add-on to the standard CT, and consists of the administration of contrast into the bladder which is then kept under pressure while the scan is done. Delayed slices through the pelvis after the bladder is depressurized and emptied is routine. Nearly 100% of bladder injuries are detected using this technique.

If the CT shows a renal laceration or hematoma, the patient should be admitted and managed according to your solid organ injury protocol. Kidney injuries fare better that livers and spleens, and only rarely require surgery. If no kidney or bladder injury is seen, the default diagnosis of a renal contusion is the culprit. No treatment is needed, and the patient can be discharged if no other injuries are present. The blood will clear over a few days, but may disappear and reappear a few times in the process. The patient can followup with their primary care physician in a week or two.