4.5 Article

Penetrating neck trauma: radiological predictors of vascular injury

期刊

EUROPEAN ARCHIVES OF OTO-RHINO-LARYNGOLOGY
卷 276, 期 9, 页码 2541-2547

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00405-019-05517-2

关键词

Trauma; Computed tomography (CT); Penetrating wound; Neck surgery; Vascular injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose Vascular injury in penetrating neck trauma predicts a poorer outcome and usually requires surgical neck exploration. Multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) angiography is a readily available non-invasive diagnostic tool that can identify direct and indirect signs of vascular injury in stable patients. This study aims to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of radiological signs of vascular injury on MDCT, and their implications on patient management in the setting of penetrating neck trauma. Methods A retrospective cohort study of penetrating neck injuries (PNI) between 2012 and 2018 in a UK major trauma centre was performed. Clinical data and operative findings were compared with radiological findings on MDCT performed at the time of admission. Results 157 patients were identified with PNI in the study period, with 67 meeting inclusion criteria. The predictive value of indirect radiological signs of vascular injury alone was low, with only 12.1% of these patients having significant vascular injury found at neck exploration. However, the combined use of direct radiological signs with clinical signs resulted in a specificity of 97.7% for vascular injury. Conclusions The use of direct and indirect radiological signs of vascular injury can increase the accuracy of diagnosis when used in conjunction with clinical signs. Combining clinical assessment and radiological investigation, specifically contrast-enhanced MDCT, improves the specificity in pre-operative assessment of potential vascular injury in PNI. MDCT is recommended in stable patients with clinical signs of vascular injury to reduce the rate of negative neck exploration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据