Avoiding delayed diagnosis of significant blunt bowel and mesenteric injuries: Can a scoring tool make the difference? A 7-year retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION

Significant blunt bowel and mesenteric injuries (sBBMI) are frequently missed despite the widespread use of computed tomography (CT). Early treatment improves the outcome related to these injuries. The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of sBBMI, the incidence of delayed diagnosis and to test the performance of the Bowel Injury Prediction Score (BIPS), determined by the white blood cell (WBC) count, presence or absence of abdominal tenderness and CT grade of mesenteric injury.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Single-centre, registry-based retrospective cohort study, screening all consecutive trauma patients admitted to Lausanne University Hospital Trauma Centre from 2008 to 2015 after a road traffic accident. All patients with reliable information about the presence or absence of sBBMI who underwent abdominal CT and for whom calculation of the BIPS was possible were included for analysis. The incidence of delayed (>24h after admission) diagnosis in the patient group with sBBMI was determined and the diagnostic performance of the BIPS for sBBMI was assessed.

RESULTS

For analysis, 766 patients with reliable information about the presence or absence of sBBMI were included. The prevalence of sBBMI was 3.1% (24/766). In 24% (5/21) of stable trauma patients undergoing CT, a diagnostic delay of more than 24h occurred. Abdominal tenderness (p<0.0001) and CT grade ≥4 (p<0.0001) were associated with sBBMI, whereas CT grade 4 alone (p=0.93) and WBC count ≥17G/l (p=0.30) were not. A BIPS ≥2 had a sensitivity of 89% (95% CI, 67-99), specificity of 89% (95% CI, 86-91), positive likelihood ratio of 8 (95% CI, 6.1-10), negative likelihood ratio of 0.12 (95% CI, 0.03-0.44), positive predictive value (PPV) of 19% (95% CI, 15-24) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 99.7% (95% CI, 98.7-99.9). CT alone identified 79% (15/19) and the BIPS 89% (17/19) of patients with sBBMI (p=0.66).

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic delays in patients with sBBMI are common (24%), despite the routine use of abdominal CT. Application of the BIPS on the present cohort would have led to a high number of non-therapeutic abdominal explorations without identifying significantly more sBBMI early than CT alone.