G Noyan Dirlik, Osman Civan, Emel Durmaz, T Kürşat Dabak, Erkan Göksu, Haluk Özcanlı

The value of doppler ultrasound in predicting arterial injuries of the penetrating forearm trauma

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic value of Doppler ultrasound (DU) in predicting arterial injuries following the penetrating trauma of the forearm, by comparing preoperative diagnosis made by DU and that made by physical examination (PE) with the intraoperative diagnosis. Methods: In this retrospective study, 48 patients (44 men, 3 women; mean age = 30 ± 12.5 years) who underwent surgical treatment due to a suspected arterial injury following a penetrating trauma in the forearm from 2016 to 2018 were included. The DU examination was frequently done before an orthopedic examination. In the orthopedic PE, the knowledge as to whether an arterial injury occurred or (if present) which artery was injured was noted. Preoperative diagnoses by PE and DU were first compared with each other, and then with the intraoperative diagnoses. The specificity, sensitivity, negative and positive predictive values were calculated. Results: While the DU findings from 24 patients (50%) matched their intraoperative results, the result from the remaining 24 patients (50%) did not. Nine (18.75%) were considered false-positive and 15 (31.25%) were false-negative. Whereas the PE findings from 30 patients (62.5%) matched their intraoperative results, the remaining 18 patients (37.5%) did not. Six (12.5%) were considered false-positive and 12 (25%) were false- negative. No significant difference was found between the diagnoses of DU and PE, and there was good agreement between the DU and PE findings (P = 0,065, κ = 0,504). While the DU findings were significantly different from the intraoperative findings (P = 0.004), the PE findings were not significantly different from the intraoperative findings (P = 0.302). Sensitivities of DU and PE were both 75% for the diagnosis of radial artery injury as well as 63.3% and 70% for the ulnar artery injury, respectively. Specificities of DU and PE were 83.3% and 91.66% for the diagnosis of radial artery injury as well as 77.77% and 72.22% for the ulnar artery injury, respectively.

PDF

___

1. Reid JD, Weigelt JA, Thai ER, Francis H. Assessment of proximity of a wound to major vascular structures as an indication for arteriography. Arch Surg. 1988;123:942-946. 10.1001/archsurg.1988.01400320028004
2. Ierardi AM, Pesapane F, Lucchina N, et al. Injuries of the limbs in polytrauma: upper and lower limbs. In: Miele V, Trinci M , editors. Diagnostic Imaging in Polytrauma Patients. Springer: Cham; 2018;533-543. 10.1007/978- 3-319-62054-1_25
3. Miller-Thomas MM, West OC, Cohen AM. Diagnosing traumatic arterial injury in the extremities with CT angiography: pearls and pitfalls. Radiographics. 2005;25(suppl_1):133-142. 10.1148/rg.25si055511
4. Feliciano DV, Moore FA, Moore EE, et al. Evaluation and management of peripheral vascular injury. Part 1. Western Trauma Association/critical decisions in trauma. J Trauma 2011;70:1551-1556. 10.1097/TA.0b013e31821b5bdd
5. Montorfano MA, Pla F, Vera L, Cardillo O, Nigra SG, Montorfano LM. Point-ofcare ultrasound and Doppler ultrasound evaluation of vascular injuries in penetrating and blunt trauma. Crit Ultrasound J. 2017;9:5. 10.1186/s13089- 017-0060-5
6. Evans C, Chaplin T, Zelt D. Management of major vascular injuries: neck, extremities, and other things that bleed. Emerg Med Clin N Am. 2018;36:181- 202. 10.1016/j.emc.2017.08.013
7. Patterson BO, Holt PJ, Cleanthis M, et al. Imaging vascular trauma. Br J Surg. 2012;99:494-505. 10.1002/bjs.7763
8. Bynoe RP, Miles WS, Bell RM, et al. Noninvasive diagnosis of vascular trauma by duplex ultrasonography. J Vasc Surg. 1991;14:346-352 .10.1016/0741-5214 (91)90087-B
9. Fry WR, Smith RS, Sayers DV, et al. The success of duplex ultrasonographic scanning in diagnosis of extremity vascular proximity trauma. Arch Surg. 1993;128:1368-1372. 10.1016/0741-5214(91)90087-B
10. Cheung ME, Firstenberg MS. Duplex Ultrasound. In: StatPearls [Internet]. 2019, StatPearls Publishing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459266/. Acce ssed February 16, 2020.
11. Ordog GJ, Balasubramanium S, Wasserberger J, Kram H, Bishop M, Shoemaker W. Extremity gunshot wounds: Part I—identification and treatment of patients at high risk of vascular injury. J Trauma. 1994;36:358-368. 10.1097/00005373- 199403000-00014
12. Seamon MJ, Smoger D, Torres DM, et al. A prospective validation of a current practice: The detection of extremity vascular injury with CT angiography. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2009;67:238-244. 10.1097/TA. 0b013e3181a51bf9
13. van Waes O, Navsaria PH, Verschuren RC, et al. Management of penetrating injuries of the upper extremities. Ulus Travma Acil Cerr. 2013;19:405-410. 10. 5505/tjtes.2013.08684