Corrado Tagliati1, Giulio Argalia2, Gian Marco Giuseppetti3. 1. Postgraduate School in Diagnostic Radiology, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy. corrado.tagliati@gmail.com. 2. Department of Radiologic Sciences, SOD Clinica di Radiologia, d'Urgenza e dell'Area Oncologica, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti, Ancona, Italy. giulio.argalia@gmail.com. 3. Department of Radiologic Sciences, SOD Clinica di Radiologia, d'Urgenza e dell'Area Oncologica, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Ospedali Riuniti, Ancona, Italy. g.m.giuseppetti@staff.univpm.it.
Abstract
AIMS: To assess contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) performance in the prediction of non-operatively managed blunt spleen injuries requiring only observation and monitoring during follow-up and to evaluate if CEUS accuracy was higher than conventional ultrasound (US) in this field. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 112 hemodynamic stable blunt spleen trauma patients, CEUS was performed for follow-up after computed tomography evaluation in the emergency department. CEUS and US performance were assessed considering as true negative cases patients that had not underwent interventional or surgical treatment during follow-up and were assessed as negative for splenic complications respectively by CEUS or US examinations. RESULTS: CEUS showed sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 96.1%, positive predictive value of 69.2%, negative predictive value of 100.0% and accuracy of 96.4%. CEUS showed a significantly higher accuracy than conventional US (p=0.013). CONCLUSIONS: CEUS is a very useful imaging modality during follow-up of blunt splenic trauma non-operatively managed, allowing an efficientprediction of splenic injuries requiring only observation and monitoring during follow-up.
AIMS: To assess contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) performance in the prediction of non-operatively managed blunt spleen injuries requiring only observation and monitoring during follow-up and to evaluate if CEUS accuracy was higher than conventional ultrasound (US) in this field. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 112 hemodynamic stable blunt spleen traumapatients, CEUS was performed for follow-up after computed tomography evaluation in the emergency department. CEUS and US performance were assessed considering as true negative cases patients that had not underwent interventional or surgical treatment during follow-up and were assessed as negative for splenic complications respectively by CEUS or US examinations. RESULTS: CEUS showed sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 96.1%, positive predictive value of 69.2%, negative predictive value of 100.0% and accuracy of 96.4%. CEUS showed a significantly higher accuracy than conventional US (p=0.013). CONCLUSIONS: CEUS is a very useful imaging modality during follow-up of blunt splenic trauma non-operatively managed, allowing an efficientprediction of splenic injuries requiring only observation and monitoring during follow-up.