PURPOSE: To evaluate penetrating neck trauma for (a) sensitivity of the clinical examination as an indicator of clinically significant vascular injury, and (b) cost-effectiveness of performing screening diagnostic angiography. METHODS: The medical records of all patients with penetrating neck trauma presenting at our institution over 4 years were retrospectively reviewed. Injuries were classified into one of three anatomic zones and classified into four mutually exclusive groups based on the extent of vascular injury; (a) no vascular injury; (b) minor vascular abnormality; (c) major vascular abnormality without a change in clinical management; or (d) any injury requiring a change in clinical management. Cost data were also obtained for each patient's hospitalization. RESULTS: There were 111 patients with penetrating neck trauma. No statistically significant difference between the sensitivities of the clinical examination or angiography for the detection of vascular injury were detected. Of the 48 patients who had vascular injuries, 45 had an abnormal clinical findings (93.7% sensitivity). None of the remaining 3 patients with vascular injury and normal clinical findings would have had their treatment altered by the results of angiography. The calculated cost of using angiography as a screening tool for vascular injury in patients with normal clinical findings was approximately $3.08 million per central nervous system event prevented. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that in patients with zone II penetrating neck injuries the clinical examination is sufficient to detect significant vascular lesions and that screening angiography may not be indicated. Because our sample size was relatively small and the mean follow-up only 13.3 days, further investigation is needed to demonstrate definitively the lack of usefulness of screening angiography.
PURPOSE: To evaluate penetrating neck trauma for (a) sensitivity of the clinical examination as an indicator of clinically significant vascular injury, and (b) cost-effectiveness of performing screening diagnostic angiography. METHODS: The medical records of all patients with penetrating neck trauma presenting at our institution over 4 years were retrospectively reviewed. Injuries were classified into one of three anatomic zones and classified into four mutually exclusive groups based on the extent of vascular injury; (a) no vascular injury; (b) minor vascular abnormality; (c) major vascular abnormality without a change in clinical management; or (d) any injury requiring a change in clinical management. Cost data were also obtained for each patient's hospitalization. RESULTS: There were 111 patients with penetrating neck trauma. No statistically significant difference between the sensitivities of the clinical examination or angiography for the detection of vascular injury were detected. Of the 48 patients who had vascular injuries, 45 had an abnormal clinical findings (93.7% sensitivity). None of the remaining 3 patients with vascular injury and normal clinical findings would have had their treatment altered by the results of angiography. The calculated cost of using angiography as a screening tool for vascular injury in patients with normal clinical findings was approximately $3.08 million per central nervous system event prevented. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that in patients with zone II penetrating neck injuries the clinical examination is sufficient to detect significant vascular lesions and that screening angiography may not be indicated. Because our sample size was relatively small and the mean follow-up only 13.3 days, further investigation is needed to demonstrate definitively the lack of usefulness of screening angiography.
Authors: Richard T K Siau; Andrew Moore; Timothy Ahmed; Michael S W Lee; Philippa Tostevin Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2012-12-23 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Mariusz Łochowski; Jacek Kaczmarski; Daniel Brzeziński; Bartosz Cieślik-Wolski; Józef Kozak Journal: Kardiochir Torakochirurgia Pol Date: 2014-03-27