3.8 Article

An international survey to assess use of oral and rectal contrast in CT protocols for penetrating torso trauma

期刊

EMERGENCY RADIOLOGY
卷 26, 期 2, 页码 117-121

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s10140-018-1650-7

关键词

Oral contrast; Rectal contrast; Penetrating trauma; Trajectography; Bowel injury

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeThere is controversy regarding the administration of oral and rectal contrast for CT performed to detect bowel injury in the context of penetrating torso trauma. Given the lack of published societal guidelines, our goal was to survey radiologists from the American Society of Emergency Radiology membership database to determine consensus on CT protocols for penetrating trauma.MethodsWith ethics board approval, an anonymous ten-question online survey was distributed via email to 589 radiologists in the American Society of Emergency Radiology (ASER) member database. The survey was open for a 4-week period in February 2018. A commercially available website that allows subscribers to create and analyze survey results was used for analysis.ResultsWe received 124 responses (21% response rate) with a majority from U.S. institutions (82%). Seventy-four percent of respondents indicated they do not routinely administer oral contrast in penetrating trauma, 68% do not administer rectal contrast, and 90% do not use commercially available software to assess penetrating injury trajectory. Results from U.S. and non-U.S. practices were comparable. The decision to administer intraluminal contrast is made by the referring physician at 52% of institutions. There is in-house attending level radiology coverage at 54% of institutions and when asked if trauma scans are reviewed before removing the patient from the table, 41% of respondents answered No.ConclusionEnteric contrast is used in a minority of respondents' centers for penetrating trauma cases, which is likely driven by a perceived lack of added benefit and delays in patient care.

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

3.8
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