| 摘要: |
|
| 关键词: 钝性腹部创伤 CEUS CECT 诊断价值 |
| DOI： |
| 投稿时间：2023-05-25修订日期：2023-12-14 |
| 基金项目:重庆市科卫联合医学科研项目,面上项目2021MSXM162,“急诊床旁超声造影在腹部实质脏器损伤分层救治中的研究” |
|
| The value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of patients with blunt abdominal traumaXu Shan1, Yang Yang2, Liu Feng1, Qin Kaixiu1 |
| Xu Shan,Liu Feng,Yang Yang,Qin KaiXiu |
| () |
| Abstract: |
| Purpose: Trauma is the main leading cause of disability and death in young adult population, of which blunt abdominal trauma is one of the most common types of injury, rapid identification of organ injury in blunt abdominal trauma patients is crucial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic ability of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in adults with blunt abdominal trauma. Methods: Patients with blunt abdominal trauma attending the emergency department of the Second Hospital of Chongqing Medical University from 2020.10 to 2023.2 were included in this study, general demographic and injuries procedure were collected, organ injuries were assessed by comparing the results of enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and CEUS with American Association for Trauma Surgery standards. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of CEUS were calculated by drawing cross-tabulations using CECT as a standard.The diagnostic performance between CEUS and CECT were compared by McNemar-Bowke test. The diagnostic consistency between CEUS and CECT was analyzed by kappa consistency test, the cost differences were compared by rank sum test, and the adverse reactions of CEUS were reported. Results: A total of 42 patients with blunt abdominal trauma were included, predominantly male patients. 30 injury patients were found by CECT and 29 injury patients were found by CEUS, and the sensitivity of CEUS was found to be 93.33%, specificity 91.67%, positive predictive value 96.55%, negative predictive value 84.62%, and diagnostic accuracy 92.86%, respectively. McNemar-Bowke test showed that there was no statistical difference in diagnostic performance between CEUS and CECT (χ2=1,P=0.317). Kappa consistency test found that its Kappa value was 0.966. No adverse events were observed and the single time cost was significantly lower than that of CECT (￥806 vs. ￥1657,P=0.000). Conclusion: CEUS is a safe, effective, convenient, low-cost, and radiation-free imaging method that can be used as an effective alternative method to CECT in blunt abdominal trauma patients. |
| Key words: blunt abdominal trauma, CEUS, CECT, diagnostic value |
