Surgeons’ Experience in Reviewing Computer Tomography Influence the Diagnosis Accuracy of Blunt Abdominal Trauma

  • Sun Libo
  • Xu Meng
  • Chen Lin
  • Su Yanzhuo
  • Li Chang
  • Shu Zhenbo
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering book series (LNEE, volume 269)

Abstract

Computer Tomography (CT) plays an important role in the diagnosis and treatment strategy in blunt abdominal trauma (BAT). The aim of this study was to evaluate the surgeons experience in CT reviewing in the diagnosis accuracy in the early stage of BAT. Altogether 82 patients with BAT were retrospectively reviewed, and the final diagnosis was confirmed according to intra-operative exploration and post-operative pathological examination. Surgeons were classified into senior and junior groups. Double blind method was used to evaluate the accuracy of injury judgement from CT scan. Totally the accuracy in the senior group was significantly higher than the junior group (73.9 vs. 34.1 %, P < 0.05). Compared with junior group, senior group showed significant higher diagnosis accuracy both in the hollow and solid organ injuries (90.1 vs. 78.9 %; 88.4 vs. 58.3 %, respectively, P <0.05). It is concluded that surgeon’s experience in the reviewing of CT scan significantly influence the diagnosis accuracy of viscera injury in BAT. Senior surgeon’s attendance can help the diagnosis of viscera injury in the early stage of BAT.

Keywords

Computer tomography Blunt abdominal trauma Diagnosis 

References

  1. 1.
    Raza M, Abbas Y, Devi V, et al (2013). Non operative management of abdominal trauma–a 10 years review. World J Emerg Surg 8:14 [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Soto JA, Anderson SW (2012) Multidetector CT of blunt abdominal trauma. Radiol 265:678–93Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Holmes JF, McGahan JP, Wisner DH (2012). Rate of intra-abdominal injury after a normal abdominal computed tomographic scan in adults with blunt trauma. Am J Emerg Med 30:574–579Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang YC, Hsieh CH, Fu CY et al (2012) Hollow organ perforation in blunt abdominal trauma: the role of diagnostic peritoneal lavage. Am J Emerg Med 30:570–573CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mihalik JE, Smith RS, Toevs CC et al (2012) The use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the evaluation of solid abdominal organ injury in patients with blunt abdominal trauma. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 73:1100–1105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chichom Mefire A, Weledji PE, Verla VS, et al (2013) Diagnostic and therapeutic challenges of isolated small bowel perforations after blunt abdominal injury in low income settings: analysis of twenty three new cases Injury. 2 pii: S0020–1383 (13):00116–2 [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Walker ML, Akpele I, Spence SD et al (2012) The role of repeat computed tomography scan in the evaluation of blunt bowel injury. Am Surg 78:979–985Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Petrosoniak A, Engels PT, Hamilton P et al (2013) Detection of significant bowel and mesenteric injuries in blunt abdominal trauma with 64-slice computed tomography. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 74:1081–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Joseph DK, Kunac A, Kinler RL et al (2013) Diagnosing blunt hollow viscus injury: is computed tomography the answer? Am J Surg 205:414–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bhagvan S, Turai M, Holden A et al (2013) Predicting hollow viscus injury in blunt abdominal trauma with computed tomography. World J Surg 37:123–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Uzkeser M, Sahin H, Ozogul B et al (2013) Defining the percentage of intra-abdominal hemorrhage in abdominal computerized tomography using stereology in patients with blunt liver injury and determining its relationship with outcomes. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 74:224–229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jin W, Deng L, Lv H, Zhang Q et al (2013) Mechanisms of blunt liver trauma patterns: An analysis of 53 cases. Exp Ther Med 5:395–398Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Boscak A, Shanmuganathan K (2012). Splenic trauma: what is new?. Radiol Clin North Am 50:105–122Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boscak AR, Shanmuganathan K, Mirvis SE, et al (2013) Optimizing Trauma Multidetector CT Protocol for Blunt Splenic Injury: Need for Arterial and Portal Venous Phase Scans. Radiol 28 [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Radhiana H, Azian AA, Razali MR et al (2010) Computed tomography (CT) in blunt liver injury: a pictorial essay. Med J Malaysia 65:319–325Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Huang YC, Wu SC, Fu CY, Chen YF et al (2012) Tomographic findings are not always predictive of failed nonoperative management in blunt hepatic injury. Am J Surg 203:448–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hassan R, Abd Aziz A, Md Ralib AR et al (2011) Computed tomography of blunt spleen injury: a pictorial review. Malays J Med Sci 18:60–67Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sokolove PE, Kuppermann N, Vance CW et al (2013) Variation in specialists reported hospitalization practices of children sustaining blunt abdominal trauma. West J Emerg Med F 14:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lee PH, Lee SK, Kim GU et al (2012) Outcomes of hemodynamically stable patients with pancreatic injury after blunt abdominal trauma. Pancreatol 12:487–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cigdem MK, Senturk S, Onen A et al (2011) Nonoperative management of pancreatic injuries in pediatric patients. Surg Today 41:655–659CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sun Libo
    • 1
  • Xu Meng
    • 1
  • Chen Lin
    • 1
  • Su Yanzhuo
    • 1
  • Li Chang
    • 1
  • Shu Zhenbo
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Gastrointestinal SurgeryChina-Japan Union HospitalChangchunChina

Personalised recommendations