Hemoperitoneum

Abstract: OBJECTIVE: To determine the accuracy of the Focused Assessment for the Sonographic examination of the Trauma patient (FAST) when performed by trauma team members during a 3-year period, and to determine the clinical conditions in which the FAST is most accurate in the assessment of injured patients. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The FAST is a rapid test that sequentially surveys the pericardial region for hemopericardium and then the right and left upper quadrants and pelvis for hemoperitoneum in patients with potential truncal injuries. The clinical conditions in which the FAST is most accurate in the assessment of injured patients have yet to be determined. METHODS: FAST examinations were performed on patients with precordial or transthoracic wounds or blunt abdominal trauma. Patients with a positive ultrasound (US) examination for hemopericardium underwent immediate surgery, whereas those with a positive US for hemoperitoneum underwent a computed tomography scan (if they were hemodynamically stable) or immediate celiotomy (if they were hemodynamically unstable- blood pressure < or = 90 mmHg). RESULTS: FAST examinations were performed in 1540 patients (1227 with blunt injuries, 313 with penetrating injuries). There were 1440 true-negative results, 80 true-positive results, 16 false-negative results, and 4 false-positive results; the sensitivity was 83.3%, the specificity 99.7%. US was most sensitive and specific for the evaluation of patients with precordial or transthoracic wounds (sensitivity 100%, specificity 99.3%) and hypotensive patients with blunt abdominal trauma (sensitivity 100%, specificity 100%). CONCLUSIONS: US should be the initial diagnostic modality for the evaluation of patients with precordial wounds and blunt truncal injuries because it is rapid and accurate. Because of the high sensitivity and specificity of US in the evaluation of patients with precordial wounds and hypotensive patients with blunt torso trauma, immediate surgical intervention is justified when those patients have a positive US examination.

Abstract: Background: Pelvic fractures may be associated with significant hemorrhage. Although this hemorrhage may emanate from the pelvic vasculature, it may also be secondary to abdominal visceral injury. The purpose of this study was to determine factors associated with pelvic and/or abdominal visceral bleeding in hypotensive patients with pelvic fractures to guide the appropriate therapeutic intervention sequence for these difficult-to-manage patients. Methods: Medical records of all hypotensive (systolic blood pressure ≤ 90 mm Hg) patients with pelvic fractures seen at a Level I trauma center from January 1995 to December 1999 were evaluated. Records were abstracted for age, base deficit, 24-hour blood requirement, hemoperitoneum (positive ultrasound, diagnostic peritoneal lavage, or computed tomographic scan), abdominal hemorrhage discovered at celiotomy, pelvic hemorrhage discovered at angiography, emergency department disposition, Injury Severity Score, and mortality. Pelvic fracture categories were derived by adapting the Young-Burgess pelvic fracture classification scheme. Lateral compression (LC) I and anteroposterior compression (APC) I fractures were characterized as stable fracture patterns (SFPs), and APC II, APC III, LC II, LC III, and vertical shear were characterized as unstable fracture patterns (UFPs). Results: Of 231 hypotensive patients, 38 patients died in the emergency department, leaving 193 surviving initial resuscitation. One hundred seven patients stabilized (group I) and were transferred to the intensive care unit. Eighty-six patients (group II) required ongoing resuscitation and underwent celiotomy and/or angiography in an attempt to manage their hemorrhage. Within group II, in the SFP population, abdominal hemorrhage was responsible for hypotension in 34 of 40 (85%), and 10 patients died (25%). In patients with UFP injury, hemorrhage was predominantly from a pelvic source, as shown by 27 positive angiograms in the 46 patients (59%). Twenty-four of 46 (52%) UFP patients died. In patients with a UFP, 14 had both angiography and celiotomy. Four patients underwent angiography before celiotomy and one of four (mortality, 25%) died. In contrast, 10 patients underwent celiotomy before angiography and 6 of 10 died (mortality, 60%). Conclusion: Patients with signs of ongoing shock with SFP pelvic injury and hemoperitoneum require celiotomy as the initial intervention, as the hemorrhagic focus is predominantly intraperitoneal. In patients with UFP, even in the presence of hemoperitoneum, consideration should be given to angiography before celiotomy.