Journal Article

Accuracy of single-pass whole-body computed tomography for detection of injuries in patients with major blunt trauma

Matthes, Gerrit, Grundei, Simon, Frank, Matthias, Tittel, Anja, Seifert, Julia, Rademacher, Grit, Mutze, Sven, Schmucker, Uli, Stengel, Dirk, Ekkernkamp, Axel, Ottersbach, Caspar, Weigeldt, Moritz

2012

Overview

Contrast-enhanced whole-body computed tomography (also called “pan-scanning”) is considered to be a conclusive diagnostic tool for major trauma. We sought to determine the accuracy of this method, focusing on the reliability of negative results. Between July 2006 and December 2008, a total of 982 patients with suspected severe injuries underwent single-pass pan-scanning at a metropolitan trauma centre. The findings of the scan were independently evaluated by two reviewers who analyzed the injuries to five body regions and compared the results to a synopsis of hospital charts, subsequent imaging and interventional procedures. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of the pan-scan for each body region, and we assessed the residual risk of missed injuries that required surgery or critical care. A total of 1756 injuries were detected in the 982 patients scanned. Of these, 360 patients had an Injury Severity Score greater than 15. The median length of follow-up was 39 (interquartile range 7–490) days, and 474 patients underwent a definitive reference test. The sensitivity of the initial pan-scan was 84.6% for head and neck injuries, 79.6% for facial injuries, 86.7% for thoracic injuries, 85.7% for abdominal injuries and 86.2% for pelvic injuries. Specificity was 98.9% for head and neck injuries, 99.1% for facial injuries, 98.9% for thoracic injuries, 97.5% for abdominal injuries and 99.8% for pelvic injuries. In total, 62 patients had 70 missed injuries, indicating a residual risk of 6.3% (95% confidence interval 4.9%–8.0%). We found that the positive results of trauma pan-scans are conclusive but negative results require subsequent confirmation. The pan-scan algorithms reduce, but do not eliminate, the risk of missed injuries, and they should not replace close monitoring and clinical follow-up of patients with major trauma.

• Publisher: Elsevier Inc,Joule Inc,CMA Impact, Inc,Canadian Medical Association
• Subject: Adult / Blunt trauma / Bodily injury / Care and treatment / computed tomography / CT imaging / Diagnosis / Female / Hospitals / Humans / Injuries / Internal Medicine / Male / neck injuries / Patient outcomes / Patients / Sensitivity / Sensitivity and Specificity / Surgery / Tomography / Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods / Trauma / Trauma Centers / Whole Body Imaging - methods / Wounds, Nonpenetrating - diagnostic imaging