S Wotherspoon1, K Chu, A F Brown. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Royal Brisbane Hospital, Herston, Australia. demsec@health.qld.gov.au
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To report on: 1. Prevalence of seat-belt sign in motor vehicle accident victims with abdominal injuries; 2. Prevalence of intestinal injuries in patients with seat-belt sign; and 3. Spectrum of abdominal injuries in a population with high usage of three-point restraints. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted in an adult tertiary-referral hospital from January 1992 to August 1998. Patients were identified from International Classification of Disease-9 codes for abdominal wall and intra-abdominal injuries. RESULTS: The seat-belt sign was present in 60/99. The proportion of intestinal injuries in patients with and without seat-belt sign were 9/60 and 0/39, respectively (P = 0.01). In the 25 patients with intra-abdominal injuries, there were 10 hepatic, 8 splenic, 9 intestinal and 4 retroperitoneal injuries. CONCLUSION: The seat-belt sign is indicative of an increased risk of intestinal injury, which is difficult to detect with no single test providing reliable diagnosis. Other intra-abdominal and retroperitoneal injuries may also occur, which are more readily diagnosed on computed tomography scan or focused abdominal utlrasound when available, but are no more frequent in patients with the seat-belt sign than those without.
OBJECTIVE: To report on: 1. Prevalence of seat-belt sign in motor vehicle accident victims with abdominal injuries; 2. Prevalence of intestinal injuries in patients with seat-belt sign; and 3. Spectrum of abdominal injuries in a population with high usage of three-point restraints. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted in an adult tertiary-referral hospital from January 1992 to August 1998. Patients were identified from International Classification of Disease-9 codes for abdominal wall and intra-abdominal injuries. RESULTS: The seat-belt sign was present in 60/99. The proportion of intestinal injuries in patients with and without seat-belt sign were 9/60 and 0/39, respectively (P = 0.01). In the 25 patients with intra-abdominal injuries, there were 10 hepatic, 8 splenic, 9 intestinal and 4 retroperitoneal injuries. CONCLUSION: The seat-belt sign is indicative of an increased risk of intestinal injury, which is difficult to detect with no single test providing reliable diagnosis. Other intra-abdominal and retroperitoneal injuries may also occur, which are more readily diagnosed on computed tomography scan or focused abdominal utlrasound when available, but are no more frequent in patients with the seat-belt sign than those without.
Authors: Maarten Philip Cornelissen; Jesse van Buijtenen; Baukje van den Heuvel; Frank Bloemers; Leo Geeraedts Journal: Bull Emerg Trauma Date: 2016-04