Department of Emergency Medicine, SUNY-Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY 11203, United States.
Injury. 2011 May;42(5):482-7. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2010.07.249.
A recent Cochrane Review has demonstrated that emergency ultrasonography decreases the amount of computerised tomographic scans in blunt abdominal trauma.13 However, there is no systematic review that has evaluated the utility of the Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma(FAST) exam in penetrating torso trauma. We systematically reviewed the medical literature for the utility of the FAST exam to detect free intraperitoneal blood after penetrating torso trauma.
We searched PUBMED and EMBASE databases for randomised controlled trials from 1965 through December 2009 using a search strategy derived from the following PICO formulation of our clinical question:
patients (12+ years) sustaining penetrating trauma to the torso.
FAST exam during their initial trauma workup. Comparator: either local wound exploration (LWE),computerised tomography (CT), diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL), or laparotomy.
intraperitoneal and pericardial free fluid. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed.Qualitative methods were used to summarise the study results.
Sensitivities and specificities were compared using a Forest Plot (95% CI) calculated by Revman 5 (Review Manager Version 5.0. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration,2008) between the FAST exam and definitive diagnostic modalities such as LWE, CT, DPL, or laporotomy.
We identified eight observational studies (n=565 patients) that met our selection criteria. The prevalence of a positive FAST exam after penetrating trauma was fairly low ranging from 24.2% to 56.3%.The FAST exam for penetrating trauma is a highly specific (94.1–100.0%), but not very sensitive (28.1–100%) diagnostic modality.
From the review of the literature, a positive FAST exam has a high incidence of intraabdominal injury and should prompt an exploratory laparotomy. However, a negative initial FAST exam after penetrating trauma should prompt further diagnostic studies such as LWE, CT, DPL, or laparotomy.
最近的 Cochrane 综述表明,在钝性腹部创伤中,急诊超声检查可减少计算机断层扫描的数量。13 但是,尚无系统评价评估穿透性躯干创伤中 Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma(FAST)检查的效用。我们系统地检索了医学文献,以评估 FAST 检查在穿透性躯干创伤后检测腹腔游离血的效用。
我们使用源自临床问题以下 PICO 表述的搜索策略,在 1965 年至 2009 年 12 月期间在 PUBMED 和 EMBASE 数据库中搜索随机对照试验。
年龄在 12 岁以上的穿透性躯干创伤患者。
在初始创伤评估期间进行 FAST 检查。对照:局部伤口探查(LWE)、计算机断层扫描(CT)、诊断性腹腔灌洗(DPL)或剖腹术。
腹腔和心包内游离液。评估研究的方法学质量。使用定性方法总结研究结果。
使用 Revman 5(Review Manager Version 5.0. Copenhagen:The Nordic Cochrane Centre,The Cochrane Collaboration,2008)计算 Forest Plot(95%CI)比较 FAST 检查与 LWE、CT、DPL 或剖腹术等明确诊断方法之间的灵敏度和特异性。
我们确定了符合我们选择标准的八项观察性研究(n=565 例患者)。穿透性创伤后 FAST 检查阳性的发生率相当低,范围为 24.2%至 56.3%。穿透性创伤的 FAST 检查是一种高度特异(94.1-100.0%)但不敏感(28.1-100%)的诊断方法。
根据文献综述,阳性 FAST 检查结果表明腹部损伤发生率高,应促使进行剖腹探查术。然而,穿透性创伤后首次 FAST 检查阴性应促使进行进一步的诊断研究,如 LWE、CT、DPL 或剖腹术。