• T C Fabian, E C Mangiante, T J White, C R Patterson, S Boldreghini, and L G Britt.
• J Trauma. 1986 Jul 1;26(7):602-8.

AbstractRecent reports comparing computed tomography of the abdomen (CTA) and diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) following trauma have been contradictory. A 10-month prospective study was conducted at our trauma center comparing both methods. Criteria for entry into the study included suspected blunt abdominal trauma without indication for immediate laparotomy, with either equivocal abdominal examination, diminished sensorium, or neurologic deficit. Ninety-one patients meeting these criteria underwent CTA followed by DPL. CTA was performed using both oral and intravenous contrast; DPL was performed by the open technique with RBC greater than 100,000 mm3 or WBC greater than 500 mm3 as criteria for a positive examination. CTA was interpreted initially by available radiology staff and residents and retrospectively reviewed by an experienced tomographer blind to DPL and surgical results. Twenty patients in whom either test was positive underwent laparotomy; all others were admitted for observation and/or extra-abdominal surgery. Laparotomy revealed 26 organs injured in the 20 patients explored at admission; none of the observed patients required delayed laparotomy. The results of CTA and DPL were compared to the findings at laparotomy or the clinical course of those not explored. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for initial CTA were 60%, 100%, and 91%; for review CTA 85%, 100%, and 97%; for DPL 90%, 100%, and 98%. We conclude that: even with experienced examiners, CTA offers no diagnostic advantage over DPL in blunt trauma; because of relative costs, we do not recommend the routine application of CTA; CTA is a reliable alternative when circumstances prevent the performance of DPL.

18 keywords...

hide…