Suppr超能文献

诊断性腹腔灌洗与超声重点评估在创伤中作为躯干创伤初次评估辅助手段的比较:一项前瞻性随机临床试验。

Comparison of diagnostic peritoneal lavage and focused assessment by sonography in trauma as an adjunct to primary survey in torso trauma: a prospective randomized clinical trial.

作者信息

Kumar Sunil, Kumar Abhay, Joshi Mohit Kumar, Rathi Vinita

机构信息

Department of Surgery, University College of Medical Sciences, Delhi, India.

出版信息

Ulus Travma Acil Cerrahi Derg. 2014 Mar;20(2):101-6. doi: 10.5505/tjtes.2014.37336.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Lately, Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST) is preferred over diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) as adjunct to primary survey. However, this is not evidence-based as there has been no randomized trial.

METHODS

In this study, 200 consecutive torso trauma patients meeting inclusion criteria were randomized to undergo either DPL or FAST. The results were then compared with either contrast enhanced computerized tomography (CECT) (in patients managed non-operatively) or laparotomy findings (in patients undergoing operative treatment). Outcome parameters were: result of the test, therapeutic usefulness, role in diagnosing bowel injury and time taken to perform the procedure.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients with a mean age of 28.3 years were studied, 98 in FAST and 102 in DPL group. 104 sustained blunt trauma and 76 sustained penetrating trauma due to stabbing. In addition, 38 (38.7%) were FAST positive and 48 (47%) were DPL positive (p=0.237, not significant). As a guide to therapeutically beneficial laparotomy, negative DPL was better than negative FAST. For non-operative decisions, positive FAST was significantly better than positive DPL. DPL was significantly better than FAST in detecting as well as not missing the bowel injuries. DPL took significantly more time than FAST to perform.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that DPL is better than FAST.

摘要

背景

最近,创伤超声重点评估(FAST)作为初级评估的辅助手段,比诊断性腹腔灌洗(DPL)更受青睐。然而,这并非基于证据,因为尚无随机试验。

方法

在本研究中,200例符合纳入标准的连续躯干创伤患者被随机分为接受DPL或FAST检查。然后将结果与对比增强计算机断层扫描(CECT)(非手术治疗患者)或剖腹手术结果(接受手术治疗患者)进行比较。结果参数包括:检查结果、治疗效用、在诊断肠损伤中的作用以及进行该操作所需的时间。

结果

研究了200例平均年龄为28.3岁的患者,FAST组98例,DPL组102例。104例为钝性创伤,76例因刺伤导致穿透性创伤。此外,38例(38.7%)FAST检查呈阳性,48例(47%)DPL检查呈阳性(p = 0.237,无统计学意义)。作为治疗性剖腹手术的指导,DPL检查阴性优于FAST检查阴性。对于非手术决策,FAST检查阳性明显优于DPL检查阳性。在检测和不遗漏肠损伤方面,DPL明显优于FAST。DPL操作所需时间明显比FAST长。

结论

本研究表明DPL优于FAST。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验