Search

Background: The utility of urinalysis (UA) to diagnose intra-abdominal (IA) or genitourinary (GU) injury after blunt trauma remains controversial. The purpose of this study was to determine the significance of UA in the blunt trauma patient., Methods: A retrospective review of patients admitted for blunt abdominal trauma from 2011 to 2013., Results: A total of 1,795 patients sustained blunt abdominal trauma: mean age of 44 ± 21 years; mean Injury Severity Score of 13 ± 10. Overall 810 patients had a negative UA (45%). Two patients (2/810 and .2%) had a GU injury and neither required intervention. Thirty-two patients (32/810 and 4.0%) had an IA injury, and 2 (2/810 and .02%) required intervention. The sensitivity for predicting GU injury requiring intervention was 1, and IA injury requiring intervention was .96. Negative predictive values were 1 and .99., Conclusions: A negative UA correlates with a low risk for GU and IA injury after blunt abdominal trauma. A negative UA should be evaluated prospectively as part of a clinical prediction score to rule out injury and avoid unnecessary radiation exposure from computed tomography imaging., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The liberal use of computed tomographic (CT) scanning during the evaluation of injured children has increased their exposure to the risks of ionizing radiation. We hypothesized that CT imaging performed for mechanism of injury alone is unnecessary and that serious or life-threatening injury is rarely identified., Methods: All pediatric blunt trauma team evaluations (age < 15 years) at a pediatric Level 2 trauma center over 72 months were reviewed. CT findings in patients with normal Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score, vital signs (VS), and physical examination (PE) (Group I) were compared with Group II (GCS score < 15), Group III (abnormal VS/PE), and Group IV (abnormal GCS score, VS/PE). Variables associated with any positive finding were entered into a multiple logistic regression model to assess for independent contributions. Each patient's total effective radiation dose from CT scans in millisieverts was calculated using an age-adjusted scale., Results: A total 174 children met trauma team activation criteria (mean [SD] age, 7 [5] years; 63% male; mean [SD] Injury Severity Score [ISS], 10 [10]). A total of 153 (88%) were imaged by CT (I, 54 of 66; II, 25 of 25; III, 49 of 57; IV, 25 of 26). No patient in Group I had a serious finding on CT compared with Group II (17 of 77), III (25 of 111), and IV (18 of 72). Mortality was 4%. Radiation dose (mSv) from CT was not different among the groups (I, 17 [14]; II, 29 [13]; III, 21 [16]; IV, 27 [17]). By univariate analysis, GCS score of less than 15 (p < 0.01) and respiratory rate of greater than 30 (p = 0.09) were associated with a positive CT finding. By logistic regression analysis, GCS score of less than 15 remained the only variable associated significantly with a positive finding (odds ratio, 6.7; 95% confidence interval, 3-14; p < 0.01)., Conclusion: In children imaged based only on mechanism, no patient had a serious positive finding but was subjected to radiation doses associated with an increased risk of future malignancy. The use of CT imaging in injured children in the absence of a physiologic or anatomic abnormality does not seem to be justified., Level of Evidence: Care management study, level IV.

Introduction: A child's risk of developing cancer from radiation exposure associated with computed tomography (CT) imaging is estimated to be as high as 1/500. Chest CT (CCT), often as part of a "pan-scan," is increasingly performed after blunt trauma in children. We hypothesized that routine CCT for the initial evaluation of blunt injured children does not add clinically useful information beyond chest radiograph (CXR) and rarely changes management., Methods: Pediatric (<15 y) trauma team evaluations over 6 y at an academic Level I trauma center were reviewed. Demographic data, injuries, imaging, and management were identified for all patients undergoing CT. Effective radiation dose in milliSieverts (mSv) was calculated using age-adjusted scales., Results: Fifty-seven of 174 children (33%) undergoing CT imaging had a CCT; 55 (97%) of these had a CXR. Pathology was identified in significantly fewer CXRs compared with CCTs (51% versus 83%, P < 0.001). All 7/57 (12%) emergent or urgent chest interventions were based on information from CXR. In 53 children (93%), the CCT was ordered as part of a pan-scan, resulting in a radiation dose of 37.69 ± 7.80 mSv from initial CT scans. Radiation dose was significantly greater from CCT than from CXR (8.7 ± 1.1 mSv versus 0.017 ± 0.002 mSv, P < 0.001)., Conclusions: Clinically useful information found on CCT had good correlation to information obtained from CXR and did not change patient management, however, did add significantly to the radiation exposure of initial imaging. We recommend selective use of CCT, particularly in the presence of an abnormal mediastinal silhouette on CXR after a significant deceleration injury., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)