information repository image repository discussion group interactive trauma professional resources about trauma.org search trauma.org directory related sites new content

TRAUMA RADIOLOGY
ABDOMINAL TRAUMA
TRAUMA RESUSCITATION

 

 

The FAST examination
How good is FAST?

 

As a rapid, non-invasive, bedside test, ultrasound has singificant advantages over Diagnostic Peritoneal Lavage (DPL) and CT scanning for the evaluation of free intra-peritoneal fluid. The average time to perform a FAST in the hands of an experienced operator is 2-3 minutes.

Nevertheless there are signficant limitations to trauma ultrasonography which much be appreciated for ultrasound to be utilised correctly in the evaluation of these patients.

Trauma Ultrasonography

Introduction
FAST
Perihepatic
-  Perisplenic
-  Pelvis
-  Pericardium
Indications
How good is FAST?
Thoracic Ultrasound
References
 

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.

Thoracic Ultrasound
Alex Ng, trauma.org 6:12, December 2001