OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of computed tomography (CT) without oral contrast for diaphragm injuries (DIs) in blunt abdominal trauma. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 500 consecutive "trauma-one" patients who received CT imaging and interpretation (CT-Read1) of the abdomen within 45 minutes of their arrival from July 2000 to December 2001. All patients were imaged without oral contrast but with intravenous contrast. Computed tomographic images were reviewed within 24 hours of admission by research radiologists (CT-Read2) blinded to CT-Read1. True DIs were determined hierarchically by either laparotomy or autopsy. RESULTS: There were 9 patients with laparotomy or autopsy-proven blunt DIs; 8 of these injuries involved the left hemidiaphragm. The CT-Read1 correctly detected only 6 of 9 blunt DIs, thus missing 3 DIs. One of these involved the right hemidiaphragm, whereas the other 2 were left sided. There were no false-positive findings with CT-Read1 for blunt DI. The sensitivity and specificity of CT imaging with respect to DI were 66.7% (95% CI, 29.9%-92.5%) and 100% (95% CI, 99.2%-100%), respectively. The PPV for the test was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.65-1.00). CONCLUSION: Although the low number of blunt DIs in this study limits its general applicability, CT imaging of the diaphragm without oral contrast appears to perform within the range of reported imaging techniques using oral contrast. Still, CT scanning appears to have an unsatisfactorily low sensitivity to be reliably used in eliminating the diagnosis of blunt DI.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of computed tomography (CT) without oral contrast for diaphragm injuries (DIs) in blunt abdominal trauma. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 500 consecutive "trauma-one" patients who received CT imaging and interpretation (CT-Read1) of the abdomen within 45 minutes of their arrival from July 2000 to December 2001. All patients were imaged without oral contrast but with intravenous contrast. Computed tomographic images were reviewed within 24 hours of admission by research radiologists (CT-Read2) blinded to CT-Read1. True DIs were determined hierarchically by either laparotomy or autopsy. RESULTS: There were 9 patients with laparotomy or autopsy-proven blunt DIs; 8 of these injuries involved the left hemidiaphragm. The CT-Read1 correctly detected only 6 of 9 blunt DIs, thus missing 3 DIs. One of these involved the right hemidiaphragm, whereas the other 2 were left sided. There were no false-positive findings with CT-Read1 for blunt DI. The sensitivity and specificity of CT imaging with respect to DI were 66.7% (95% CI, 29.9%-92.5%) and 100% (95% CI, 99.2%-100%), respectively. The PPV for the test was 1.00 (95% CI, 0.65-1.00). CONCLUSION: Although the low number of blunt DIs in this study limits its general applicability, CT imaging of the diaphragm without oral contrast appears to perform within the range of reported imaging techniques using oral contrast. Still, CT scanning appears to have an unsatisfactorily low sensitivity to be reliably used in eliminating the diagnosis of blunt DI.
Authors: Beng Leong Lim; Li Tserng Teo; Ming Terk Chiu; Marxengel L Asinas-Tan; Eillyne Seow Journal: Singapore Med J Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 1.858