|
Comparison of Ultrasound,
DPL and CT
| Category |
US |
CT |
DPL |
| Rapid |
++ |
|
+ |
| Portable |
++ |
|
+ |
| Non-invasive |
++ |
++ |
|
| Ease
of integration in resuscitation |
++ |
|
+ |
| Sensitivity |
|
|
+ |
| Specificity |
+ |
++ |
|
| Quantitative |
+ |
++ |
|
| Injury
localisation |
+ |
++ |
|
| Evaluation
of retroperitoneum |
|
++ |
|
| Evaluation
of pericardium |
++ |
+ |
|
| Ease
of interpretation |
+ |
|
++ |
| Ease
of repetition |
++ |
+ |
|
| Radiation
exposure |
++ |
|
++ |
| Patient
acceptance |
++ |
+ |
|
| Cost |
++ |
|
+ |
| |
|
|
|
++: Significant advantage
+ : Some advantage |
|
|
|
How good is the FAST
examination?
As a decision making tool for identifying
the need for laparotomy in hypotensive patients (Systolic
BP < 90), FAST has a sensitivity of 100%, specificity
of 96% and negative predictive value of 100% (NPV).
This is based on only 133 patients taken from 3 separate
studies.
| Study |
n
|
sensitivity(%)
|
specificity(%)
|
npv(%)
|
| Wherret LJ, Boulanger BR, McLellan
BA et al. |
69
|
100
|
96
|
100
|
| Rozycki GS, Ballard RB, Feliciano
DV et al. |
30
|
100
|
100
|
100
|
| McKenny MG, Martin L, Lentz
K et al. |
|
|
|
|
| Total |
133
|
100
|
96
|
100
|
These trials compare
ultrasonography with a reference standard such as
DPL, CT scan, observation or laparotomy.
| Study |
n
|
sensitivity(%)
|
specificity(%)
|
npv(%)
|
| Ballard et al, 1999 |
102
|
28
|
99
|
85
|
| Boulanger et al, 1996 |
400
|
81
|
97
|
96
|
| Chiu et al, 1997 |
772
|
71
|
100
|
98
|
| Coley et al, 2000 |
107
|
38
|
97
|
78
|
|
Hoffmann et al, 1992
|
291
|
89
|
97
|
93
|
| Ingeman et al, 1996 |
97
|
75
|
96
|
92
|
| Kern et al, 1997 |
518
|
73
|
98
|
98
|
| Liu et al, 1993 |
55
|
92
|
95
|
84
|
| McElveen et al, 1997 |
82
|
88
|
98
|
96
|
| McKenney et al, 1996 |
996
|
88
|
99
|
98
|
| Rozycki et al, 1993 |
470
|
79
|
96
|
95
|
| Rozycki et al, 1995 |
365
|
90
|
100
|
98
|
| Rozycki et al, 1998 |
1227
|
78
|
100
|
99
|
| Shackford et al, 1999 |
234
|
69
|
98
|
92
|
| Thomas et al, 1997 |
300
|
81
|
99
|
98
|
| Tso et al, 1992 |
163
|
69
|
99
|
96
|
| Wherret et al, 1996 |
69
|
85
|
90
|
93
|
| Yeo et al, 1999 |
38
|
67
|
97
|
93
|
| Total |
6324
|
75
|
98
|
94
|
Ultrasound is less good at detecting
solid organ injury with sensitivities ranging from
44 to 91% and negative predictive value of 0.72 to
0.99.
Who should perform
trauma ultrasonography?
As ultrasound becomes more widespread,
conflicts have developed over who should be performing
the ultrasonography. Radiologists, surgeons, and emergency
physicians all want to be credentialled in emergency
ultrasound. The primary requisites of the sonographer
are that they are competent, present during the acute
phase of trauma resuscitation, and are able to repeat
the FAST scan as required.
Competency in sonography requires a
tutored credentialling process. The learning curve
for FAST examination is fairly steep, and most are
satisfactorily competent after 25 scans (20 negative,
5 positive). Some verification programmes require
many more scans than this howvever, and upwards of
300 is necessary in some countries. Credentialling
should include formal instruction on the principles
and physics of ultrasound, skills stations, practice
examinations for both negative and positive FASTs
(peritoneal dialysis, ascites), and proctored instruction
on the use of ultrasound in actual trauma resuscitations.
Alex
Ng, trauma.org 6:12, December 2001
|