Demetriades D, Theodorou D, Cornwell E, Berne T V, Asensio J, Belzberg H, Velmahos G, Weaver F, Yellin A
Division of Trauma and Critical Care, School of Medicine, University of Southern California, 1510 San Pablo Street, Los Angeles, California 90033, USA.
World J Surg. 1997 Jan;21(1):41-7; discussion 47-8. doi: 10.1007/s002689900191.
The objective of this study was to assess the role of clinical examination, angiography, color flow Doppler imaging, and other diagnostic tests in identifying injuries to the vascular or aerodigestive structures in patients with penetrating injuries to the neck. A prospective study was made of patients with penetrating neck injuries. All patients had a careful physical examination according to a written protocol. Stable patients underwent routine four-vessel angiography and color flow Doppler imaging. Esophagography and endoscopy were performed for proximity injuries. The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of physical examination, color flow Doppler studies, and other diagnostic tests were assessed during the evaluation of vascular and aerodigestive tract structures in the neck. Altogether 223 patients were entered in the study. After physical examination 176 patients underwent angiography and 99 of them underwent color flow Doppler imaging. Angiographic abnormalities were seen in 34 patients for an incidence of 19.3%, but only 14 (8.0%) required treatment. Color flow Doppler imaging was performed on 99 patients with a sensitivity of 91.7%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value (PPV) 100%, and negative predictive value (NPV) 99%. These values were all 100% when only injuries requiring treatment were considered. None of the 160 patients without clinical signs of vascular injury had serious vascular trauma requiring treatment (NPV 100%), although angiography in 127 showed 11 vascular lesions not requiring treatment. "Hard" signs on clinical examination (large expanding hematomas, severe active bleeding, shock not responding to fluids, diminished radial pulse, bruit) reliably predicted major vascular trauma requiring treatment. Among 34 of the 223 total patients (15.2%) admitted with "soft" signs, 8 had angiographically detected injuries, but only one required treatment. An esophagogram was performed on 98 patients because of proximity injuries (49 patients) or suspicious clinical signs (49 patients), and two of them showed esophageal perforations. None of the 167 patients without clinical signs of esophageal trauma had an esophageal injury requiring treatment. It was concluded that physical examination is reliable for identifying those patients with penetrating injuries of the neck who require vascular or esophageal diagnostic studies. Color flow Doppler imaging is a dependable alternative to angiography. An algorithm for the initial assessment of neck injuries is suggested.
本研究的目的是评估临床检查、血管造影、彩色多普勒血流成像及其他诊断检查在识别颈部穿透伤患者血管或气消化道结构损伤中的作用。对颈部穿透伤患者进行了一项前瞻性研究。所有患者均按照书面方案进行了仔细的体格检查。病情稳定的患者接受了常规四血管造影和彩色多普勒血流成像检查。对有毗邻损伤的患者进行了食管造影和内镜检查。在评估颈部血管和气消化道结构时,对体格检查、彩色多普勒血流检查及其他诊断检查的敏感性、特异性和预测价值进行了评估。共有223例患者纳入本研究。体格检查后,176例患者接受了血管造影,其中99例接受了彩色多普勒血流成像检查。34例患者血管造影显示异常,发生率为19.3%,但仅14例(8.0%)需要治疗。对99例患者进行了彩色多普勒血流成像检查,其敏感性为91.7%,特异性为100%,阳性预测值(PPV)为100%,阴性预测值(NPV)为99%。仅考虑需要治疗的损伤时,这些值均为100%。160例无血管损伤临床体征的患者中,无一例有需要治疗的严重血管创伤(NPV为100%),尽管127例患者的血管造影显示有11处血管病变无需治疗。临床检查中的“硬”体征(大的扩展性血肿、严重的活动性出血、对液体无反应的休克、桡动脉搏动减弱、杂音)可可靠地预测需要治疗的主要血管创伤。在223例因“软”体征入院的患者中,有34例(15.2%),其中8例血管造影检测到损伤,但仅1例需要治疗。98例患者因毗邻损伤(49例)或可疑临床体征(49例)进行了食管造影,其中2例显示食管穿孔。167例无食管创伤临床体征的患者中,无一例有需要治疗的食管损伤。得出的结论是,体格检查对于识别那些需要进行血管或食管诊断性检查的颈部穿透伤患者是可靠的。彩色多普勒血流成像检查是血管造影的可靠替代方法。提出了一种颈部损伤初始评估的算法。