Diagnosis of Rib Fracture and Related Complications in Patients with Blunt Chest Wall Trauma Using Point-of-Care Ultrasound vs. Computed Tomography Scan

Q3 Medicine
Najeh Zarei Jelyani, Razieh Sadat Mousavi-Roknabadi, Roshanak Mohammadi, Seyed Rouhollah Hosseini-Marvast, Fazel Goudarzi, Afsane Dehbozorgi
{"title":"Diagnosis of Rib Fracture and Related Complications in Patients with Blunt Chest Wall Trauma Using Point-of-Care Ultrasound vs. Computed Tomography Scan","authors":"Najeh Zarei Jelyani, Razieh Sadat Mousavi-Roknabadi, Roshanak Mohammadi, Seyed Rouhollah Hosseini-Marvast, Fazel Goudarzi, Afsane Dehbozorgi","doi":"10.5812/semj-138379","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: One of the most common reasons for the referrals of patients to the trauma center is blunt chest injury. Objectives: To determine and compare the diagnostic value of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) and computed tomography (CT) scans in detecting rib fractures and their complications in patients with blunt chest wall trauma. Methods: The current cross-sectional study (October 2017-March 2018) was conducted in Shahid Rajaei Hospital, Shiraz, southern Iran. Convenient non-random sampling was employed. Patients with stable vital signs underwent ultra-sonography and later were evaluated by computed tomography (CT) scan for fractures and related complications. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPP), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and accuracy were calculated and compared between the two procedures. Results: A total of 113 patients with a mean ± SD age of 44.07 ± 20.07 years were enrolled, of whom 75 (66.3%) and 62 (54.9%) patients had at least one broken rib based on CT scan and sonography, respectively. The frequency of double fractures was higher than other conditions in both CT scans and ultrasound (35.53% and 37.10%). The overall sensitivity of ultrasound was calculated to be 81.58%, and with an increasing number of broken ribs, the sensitivity of ultrasound also increased (73.08% for identifying patients with one damaged rib versus 100% for detecting patients with five or more broken ribs). None of the 13 definite cases of pneumothorax were detected on ultrasound, while the sensitivity of ultrasound was appropriate for hemothorax and subperiosteal hematoma (85.71% and 80.23%, respectively). Conclusions: Ultrasound offers high sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic power in diagnosing fractures and their complications, but considering the setting of our study, care should be taken when generalizing the findings of this study.","PeriodicalId":39157,"journal":{"name":"Shiraz E Medical Journal","volume":" 5","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Shiraz E Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5812/semj-138379","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: One of the most common reasons for the referrals of patients to the trauma center is blunt chest injury. Objectives: To determine and compare the diagnostic value of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) and computed tomography (CT) scans in detecting rib fractures and their complications in patients with blunt chest wall trauma. Methods: The current cross-sectional study (October 2017-March 2018) was conducted in Shahid Rajaei Hospital, Shiraz, southern Iran. Convenient non-random sampling was employed. Patients with stable vital signs underwent ultra-sonography and later were evaluated by computed tomography (CT) scan for fractures and related complications. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPP), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and accuracy were calculated and compared between the two procedures. Results: A total of 113 patients with a mean ± SD age of 44.07 ± 20.07 years were enrolled, of whom 75 (66.3%) and 62 (54.9%) patients had at least one broken rib based on CT scan and sonography, respectively. The frequency of double fractures was higher than other conditions in both CT scans and ultrasound (35.53% and 37.10%). The overall sensitivity of ultrasound was calculated to be 81.58%, and with an increasing number of broken ribs, the sensitivity of ultrasound also increased (73.08% for identifying patients with one damaged rib versus 100% for detecting patients with five or more broken ribs). None of the 13 definite cases of pneumothorax were detected on ultrasound, while the sensitivity of ultrasound was appropriate for hemothorax and subperiosteal hematoma (85.71% and 80.23%, respectively). Conclusions: Ultrasound offers high sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic power in diagnosing fractures and their complications, but considering the setting of our study, care should be taken when generalizing the findings of this study.
使用即时超声与计算机断层扫描诊断钝性胸壁创伤患者肋骨骨折及相关并发症
背景:钝性胸部损伤是患者转介到创伤中心的最常见原因之一。目的:确定并比较即时超声(POCUS)和计算机断层扫描(CT)对钝性胸壁创伤患者肋骨骨折及其并发症的诊断价值。方法:目前的横断面研究(2017年10月至2018年3月)在伊朗南部设拉子的Shahid Rajaei医院进行。采用方便的非随机抽样。生命体征稳定的患者接受超音波检查,随后通过计算机断层扫描(CT)评估骨折和相关并发症。计算并比较两种方法的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值(NPP)、阳性似然比(PLR)、阴性似然比(NLR)和准确性。结果:共纳入113例患者,平均±SD年龄44.07±20.07岁,其中CT和超声检查显示至少有一根肋骨骨折的患者分别为75例(66.3%)和62例(54.9%)。CT和超声显示双骨折发生率均高于其他情况,分别为35.53%和37.10%。计算出超声的总体灵敏度为81.58%,随着肋骨断裂数量的增加,超声的灵敏度也随之提高(发现一根肋骨受损的患者为73.08%,而发现五根及以上肋骨受损的患者为100%)。13例确诊气胸超声均未检出,但对血胸和骨膜下血肿的敏感性较好(分别为85.71%和80.23%)。结论:超声在诊断骨折及其并发症方面具有较高的敏感性、特异性和诊断能力,但考虑到本研究的背景,在推广本研究结果时应谨慎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Shiraz E Medical Journal
Shiraz E Medical Journal Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
63
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信