Ultrasonography in trauma: a nation-wide cross-sectional investigation

Publikation: Forskning - peer reviewTidsskriftartikel

DOI

  • Jesper Weile
  • Klaus Nielsen
  • Stine C Primdahl
    Stine C PrimdahlAarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.Danmark
  • Christian A Frederiksen
  • Christian B Laursen
    Christian B LaursenResearch Unit, Department of Respiratory Medicine, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark; Institute of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. Electronic address: christian.b.laursen@rsyd.dk.
  • Erik Sloth
    Erik Sloth
  • Hans Kirkegaard

BACKGROUND: The Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST) protocol is considered beneficial in emergent evaluation of trauma patients with blunt or penetrating injury and has become integrated into the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) protocol. No guidelines exist as to the use of ultrasonography in trauma in Denmark. We aimed to determine the current use of ultrasonography for assessing trauma patients in Denmark.

METHODS: We conducted a nation-wide cross-sectional investigation of ultrasonography usage in trauma care. The first phase consisted of an Internet-based investigation of existing guidelines, and the second phase was a series of structured interviews of orthopedic surgeons, anesthesiologists, and radiologists on call in all hospitals receiving traumatized patients in Denmark.

RESULTS: Guidelines were obtained from all 22 hospitals receiving traumatized patients in Denmark. Twenty-one (95.5%) of the guidelines included and recommended FAST as part of trauma assessment. The recommended person to perform the examination was the radiologist in n = 11 (50.0%), the surgeon in n = 6 (27.3%), the anesthesiologist in n = 1 (4.5%), and unspecified in n = 3 (13.6%) facilities. FAST indications varied between circulatory instability n = 8 (36.4%), team leader's discretion n = 6 (27.3%), abdominal trauma n = 3 (13.6%), and not specified n = 6 (27.3%). Telephone interviews revealed that exams were always n = 8 (36.4%) or often n = 4 (18.2%) registered in the patients' charts. The remaining n = 10 (45.5%) facilities either never registered n = 2 (9.1%), it was not possible to register n = 1 (4.5%), or unknown by the trauma leaders n = 7 (31.8%). Images were often stored in n = 1 (4.5%), never stored in n = 10 (45.5%), not possible to store in n = 2 (9.1%), and unknown in n = 9 (40.9%) facilities.

CONCLUSION: Ultrasonography was used in a non-uniform fashion by multiple specialties in Danish trauma facilities. Very few images from FAST examinations were stored and documentation was scanty. National guidelines on application and documentation of ultrasonography in trauma are called for.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftCritical ultrasound journal
Vol/bind9
Tidsskriftsnummer1
Sider (fra-til)16
ISSN2036-3176
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 20 jun. 2017

Se relationer på Aarhus Universitet Citationsformater

ID: 114486149