Literature DB >> 19535063

Traumatic urethral injuries: does the digital rectal examination really help us?

Chad G Ball1, S Mohammed Jafri, Andrew W Kirkpatrick, Ravi R Rajani, Grace S Rozycki, David V Feliciano, Amy D Wyrzykowski.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The digital rectal examination (DRE) has been commonly employed as a trauma screening tool since the inception of the ATLS program. Because of weak evidence, its utility as a screening test has recently been questioned. The primary goal of this study was to identify the sensitivity of the DRE for detecting blunt urethral injuries in a level 1 trauma center. The secondary goal was to evaluate the interaction of DRE with additional clinical indices of urethral trauma.
METHODS: A retrospective review of all blunt injured patients diagnosed with a urethral disruption at an urban level 1 trauma center from 1995 to 2008 was performed. Urethral injuries were diagnosed by retrograde urethrogram, urethroscopy and operative exploration. Demographics and injury data were collected. The value of the DRE in diagnosing urethral trauma was assessed (p=0.05).
RESULTS: Urethral injuries were diagnosed in 41 male patients (mean age=39 years), 34 (83%) of whom were injured via a motor vehicle (median ISS=21). Associated injuries were present in 40 (95%) patients, including 39 (95%) pelvic fractures. No clinical signs of urethral injury were evident on initial examination in 25 (61%) patients. All patients had hematuria after catheter insertion. An abnormal prostate on DRE, blood at the urethral meatus, and hematuria prior to catheter insertion was present in 1 (2%), 8 (20%) and 7 (17%) patients, respectively. Both meatal blood and hematuria were better screening tests than the DRE (p<0.05). DISCUSSION: The sensitivity of the DRE for identifying urethral disruption is 2%. The majority of patients with urethral trauma undergo urinary catheterization prior to diagnosis of the injury. Additional signs of disruption including meatal blood and hematuria detected prior to catheter insertion are also infrequent. While the DRE remains clinically indicated in patients with penetrating trauma in the vicinity of the rectum, pelvic fractures, and spinal cord injuries, it appears to be insensitive for detecting blunt urethral injuries.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19535063     DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2009.03.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Injury        ISSN: 0020-1383            Impact factor:   2.586


  6 in total

1. 

Authors:  Elliot Lass; Lucshman Raveendran
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 3.275

2.  Educational implications of changing the guidelines for the digital rectal examination.

Authors:  Elliot Lass; Lucshman Raveendran
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 3.275

3.  No Evidence Supporting the Routine Use of Digital Rectal Examinations in Trauma Patients.

Authors:  Salvatore Docimo; Laurence Diggs; Laura Crankshaw; Young Lee; Fausto Vinces
Journal:  Indian J Surg       Date:  2015-05-19       Impact factor: 0.656

Review 4.  The incidence, causes, mechanism, risk factors, classification, and diagnosis of pelvic fracture urethral injury.

Authors:  Amjad Alwaal; Uwais B Zaid; Sarah D Blaschko; Catherine R Harris; Thomas W Gaither; Jack W McAninch; Benjamin N Breyer
Journal:  Arab J Urol       Date:  2014-09-16

5.  Digital rectal examination for initial assessment of the multi-injured patient: Can we depend on it?

Authors:  Rebecka Ahl; Louis Riddez; Shahin Mohseni
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2016-07-15

6.  History and significance of the trauma resuscitation flow sheet.

Authors:  Julie A Dunn; Thomas J Schroeppel; Michael Metzler; Chris Cribari; Katherine Corey; David R Boyd
Journal:  Trauma Surg Acute Care Open       Date:  2018-10-09
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.