Gonzalez R P, Falimirski M E
University of South Alabama Medical Center, Mobile 36617-2293, USA.
Am Surg. 1999 Aug;65(8):784-9.
This study assessed the efficacy of physical examination as a screening modality for the diagnosis of surgically significant arterial injury in proximity penetrating extremity trauma (PPET). All cases of PPET were assessed and admitted per established protocol over a 30-month period from January 1, 1993, to June 30, 1995. No patients were excluded if other body regions were also injured. Landmarks defining upper extremity injuries were the deltopectoral groove to the wrist and for lower extremities from the inguinal ligament to the ankle. Patients admitted with PPET fell into one of three categories: 1) no hard signs of vascular injury present-admitted for 24-hour observation; 2) presence of at least one hard sign of vascular injury-taken immediately to the operating room; 3) positive sign of arterial injury that requires angiography (i.e., diminished but appreciable pulse by physical examination or doppler, large nonexpanding hematoma, bilateral pulse deficit, no appreciable pulse with unreconstructable trajectory). Four hundred six patients with 489 injured extremities secondary to PPET were admitted over a 30-month period. Sixty-two extremities suffered multiple injuries. Of the extremities injured, 83 per cent were secondary to gunshot wounds, 12 per cent were attributed to stabs/lacerations, and 5 per cent were due to shotgun injuries. Four hundred twenty-one extremities with PPET fell into Group 1. There were four missed injuries (specificity, 99%) in this group (one ulnar artery, one radial artery, one posterior tibial artery, and one anterior tibial artery). Two of these injuries were considered surgically significant. None of the patients suffered limb or functional loss as a consequence of their missed arterial injury. Thirty-nine extremities were entered into Group 2, with two patients found to have no arterial injury. Twenty-nine extremities were placed into Group 3 with 10 (35%) found to have surgically significant injury on angiogram. The overall sensitivity and specificity for physical examination was 92 per cent and 95 per cent, respectively, for surgically significant injury. Physical examination is a highly sensitive and specific screening modality for the identification of surgically significant arterial injury in PPET. Patients who present with diminished, but appreciable, pulses by physical examination or doppler, large nonexpanding hematomas as the only sign, bilateral pulse deficits and nonappreciable pulses with unreconstructable trajectory benefit from further investigation with angiography.
本研究评估了体格检查作为一种筛查方式,用于诊断四肢近端穿透性创伤(PPET)中具有手术意义的动脉损伤的有效性。在1993年1月1日至1995年6月30日的30个月期间,所有PPET病例均按照既定方案进行评估和收治。如果其他身体部位也受伤,不排除任何患者。定义上肢损伤的标志是从三角胸沟到手腕,下肢是从腹股沟韧带到脚踝。因PPET入院的患者分为三类:1)无血管损伤的硬性体征——入院进行24小时观察;2)存在至少一项血管损伤的硬性体征——立即送往手术室;3)动脉损伤阳性体征,需要进行血管造影(即体格检查或多普勒检查发现脉搏减弱但仍可触及、巨大的非扩展性血肿、双侧脉搏缺失、不可重建轨迹且无明显脉搏)。在30个月期间,收治了406例因PPET导致489条肢体受伤的患者。62条肢体遭受多处损伤。在受伤的肢体中,83%继发于枪伤,12%归因于刺伤/撕裂伤,5%由于霰弹枪伤。421条PPET肢体归入第1组。该组有4处漏诊损伤(特异性为99%)(1条尺动脉、1条桡动脉、1条胫后动脉和1条胫前动脉)。其中2处损伤被认为具有手术意义。没有患者因漏诊的动脉损伤而出现肢体或功能丧失。39条肢体归入第2组,发现2例患者无动脉损伤。29条肢体归入第3组,血管造影显示10条(35%)存在具有手术意义的损伤。对于具有手术意义的损伤,体格检查的总体敏感性和特异性分别为92%和95%。体格检查是一种高度敏感和特异的筛查方式,用于识别PPET中具有手术意义的动脉损伤。对于体格检查或多普勒检查发现脉搏减弱但仍可触及、仅以巨大的非扩展性血肿为唯一体征、双侧脉搏缺失以及不可重建轨迹且无明显脉搏的患者,血管造影进一步检查会使其受益。