Use of Enteric Contrast Material for Abdominopelvic CT in Penetrating Traumatic Injury in Adults: Comparison of Diagnostic Accuracy Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Scarce evidence exists on the diagnostic benefit of enteric contrast administration for abdominopelvic CT performed in the setting of penetrating trauma. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of CT using enteric contrast material with that of CT not using enteric contrast material in penetrating traumatic abdominopelvic injury in adults. A protocol was registered a priori (PROSPERO CRD42019139613). MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched until June 25, 2019. Studies were included that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of abdominopelvic CT either with or without enteric (oral and/or rectal) contrast material in patients presenting with penetrating traumatic injury. Relevant study data metrics and risk of bias were assessed. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression modeling were performed to assess and compare diagnostic accuracies. From an initial sample of 829 studies, 12 studies were included that reported on 1287 patients with penetrating injury (389 with confirmed bowel, mesenteric, or other abdominopelvic organ injury). The enteric contrast material group (seven studies; 506 patients; 124 patients with confirmed penetrating injury) showed a sensitivity of 83.8% (95% CI, 73.7-90.5%) and specificity of 93.8% (95% CI, 83.6-97.8%). The group without enteric contrast administration (six studies; 781 patients; 265 patients with confirmed penetrating injury) showed a sensitivity of 93.0% (95% CI, 86.8-96.4%) and a specificity of 90.3% (95% CI, 81.4-95.2%). No statistically significant difference was identified for sensitivity ( = .07) or specificity ( = .37) between the groups with and without enteric contrast material according to meta-regression. Nine of 12 studies showed risk of bias in at least one QUADAS-2 domain (most frequently limited reporting of blinding of radiologists or lack of blinding of radiologists, insufficient clinical follow-up for the reference standard, and limited reporting of sampling methods). The use of enteric contrast material for CT does not provide a significant diagnostic benefit for penetrating traumatic injury. Eliminating enteric contrast administration for CT in penetrating traumatic injury can prevent delays in imaging and surgery and reduce cost.