Staub Leonardo Jönck, Biscaro Roberta Rodolfo Mazzali, Kaszubowski Erikson, Maurici Rosemeri
Emergency Department, University Hospital, Federal University of Santa Catarina, 88036-800, Rua Professora Maria Flora Pausewang, Bairro Trindade, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil; Intensive Care Unit, Nereu Ramos Hospital, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil.
Injury. 2018 Mar;49(3):457-466. doi: 10.1016/j.injury.2018.01.033. Epub 2018 Feb 8.
To assess the accuracy of the chest ultrasonography for the emergency diagnosis of traumatic pneumothorax and haemothorax in adults.
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and LILACS (up to 2016) were systematically searched for prospective studies on the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasonography for pneumothorax and haemothorax in adult trauma patients. The references of other systematic reviews and the included studies were checked for further articles. The characteristics and results of the studies were extracted using a standardised form, and their methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). Primary analysis was performed considering each hemithorax as an independent unit, while secondary analysis considered each patient. The global diagnostic accuracy of the chest ultrasonography was estimated using the Rutter-Gatsonis hierarchical summary ROC method. Moreover, Reitsma's bivariate model was used to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR + ) and negative likelihood ratio (LR-) of each sonographic sign. This review was previously registered (PROSPERO CRD42016048085).
Nineteen studies were included in the review, 17 assessing pneumothorax and 5 assessing haemothorax. The reference standard was always chest tomography, alone or in parallel with chest radiography and observation of the chest tube. The overall methodological quality of the studies was low. The diagnostic accuracy of chest ultrasonography had an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.979 for pneumothorax (Fig). The absence of lung sliding and comet-tail artefacts was the most reported sonographic sign of pneumothorax, with a sensitivity of 0.81 (95% confidence interval [95%CI], 0.71-0.88), specificity of 0.98 (95%CI, 0.97-0.99), LR+ of 67.9 (95%CI, 26.3-148) and LR- of 0.18 (95%CI, 0.11-0.29). An echo-poor or anechoic area in the pleural space was the only sonographic sign for haemothorax, with a sensitivity of 0.60 (95%CI, 0.31-0.86), specificity of 0.98 (95%CI, 0.94-0.99), LR+ of 37.5 (95%CI, 5.26-207.5), LR- of 0.40 (95%CI, 0.17-0.72) and AUC of 0.953.
Notwithstanding the limitations of the included studies, this systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that chest ultrasonography is an accurate tool for the diagnostic assessment of traumatic pneumothorax and haemothorax in adults.
评估胸部超声对成人创伤性气胸和血胸的急诊诊断准确性。
系统评价和荟萃分析。
系统检索PubMed、EMBASE、Scopus、Web of Science和LILACS(截至2016年),查找关于超声对成人创伤患者气胸和血胸诊断准确性的前瞻性研究。检查其他系统评价的参考文献以及纳入研究以获取更多文章。使用标准化表格提取研究的特征和结果,并使用诊断准确性研究质量评估(QUADAS-2)对其方法学质量进行评估。主要分析将每个半侧胸腔视为一个独立单元,而次要分析则考虑每个患者。采用Rutter-Gatsonis分层汇总ROC方法估计胸部超声的总体诊断准确性。此外,使用Reitsma双变量模型估计每个超声征象的敏感性、特异性、阳性似然比(LR+)和阴性似然比(LR-)。本评价先前已注册(PROSPERO CRD42016048085)。
本评价纳入19项研究,其中17项评估气胸,5项评估血胸。参考标准始终为胸部断层扫描,单独或与胸部X线摄影及胸腔引流管观察并行。研究的总体方法学质量较低。胸部超声对气胸的诊断准确性曲线下面积(AUC)为0.979(图)。肺滑动和彗尾征缺失是最常报道的气胸超声征象,敏感性为0.81(95%置信区间[95%CI],0.71 - 0.88),特异性为0.98(95%CI,0.97 - 0.99),LR+为67.9(95%CI,26.3 - 148),LR-为0.18(95%CI,0.11 - 0.29)。胸腔内低回声或无回声区是血胸的唯一超声征象,敏感性为0.60(95%CI,0.31 - 0.86),特异性为0.98(95%CI,0.94 - 0.99),LR+为37.5(95%CI,5.26 - 207.5),LR-为0.40(95%CI,0.17 - 0.72),AUC为0.953。
尽管纳入研究存在局限性,但本系统评价和荟萃分析表明,胸部超声是诊断评估成人创伤性气胸和血胸的准确工具。