Authors

EAST Practice Management Guidelines Work Group

William S. Hoff, MD, Brandywine Hospital, Coatesville, PA
Michelle Holevar, MD, Mount Sinai Hospital, Chicago, IL
Kimberly K. Nagy, MD, Cook County Hospital and Rush University, Chicago, IL
Lisa Patterson, MD, Wright State University, Dayton, OH
Jeffrey S. Young, MD, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA
Abenamar Arrillaga, MD, Greenville Memorial Hospital, Greenville, SC
Michael P. Najarian, DO, Lehigh Valley Hospital, Allentown, PA
Carl P. Valenziano, MD, Morristown Memorial Hospital, Morristown, NJ

Address for correspondence

William S. Hoff, MD, FACS
Brandywine Hospital—Department of Traumatology
201 Reeceville Road Coatesville, PA 19320
Phone: (610) 383-8099 / Fax: (610) 383-8352
E-mail: bill.hoff@uphs.upenn.edu

I. Statement of the problem

Evaluation of patients who have sustained blunt abdominal trauma (BAT) may pose a significant diagnostic challenge to the most seasoned trauma surgeon. Blunt trauma produces a spectrum of injury from minor, single-system injury to devastating, multi-system trauma. Trauma surgeons must have the ability to detect the presence of intra-abdominal injuries across this entire spectrum. While a carefully performed physical examination remains the most important method to determine the need for exploratory laparotomy, there is little Level I evidence to support this tenet. In fact, several studies have highlighted the inaccuracies of the physical examination in BAT.^[1][2] The effect of altered level of consciousness as a result of neurologic injury, alcohol or drugs, is another major confounding factor in assessing BAT.

Due to the recognized inadequacies of physical examination, trauma surgeons have come to rely on a number of diagnostic adjuncts. Commonly used modalities include diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) and computed tomography (CT). Although not available universally, focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) has recently been included in the diagnostic armamentarium. Diagnostic algorithms outlining appropriate use of each of these modalities individually have been established. Several factors influence the selection of diagnostic testing: (1) type of hospital—i.e., trauma center vs. “non-trauma” hospital; (2) access to a particular technology at the surgeon’s institution; (3) the surgeon’s individual experience with a given diagnostic modality. As facilities evolve, technologies mature and surgeons gain new experience, it is important that any diagnostic strategy constructed be dynamic.

The primary purpose of this study was to develop an evidence-based, systematic diagnostic approach to BAT utilizing the three major diagnostic modalities: i.e., DPL, CT and FAST. This diagnostic regimen would be designed such that it could be reasonably applied by all general surgeons performing an initial evaluation of BAT.

II. Process

A. Identification of references

A MEDLINE search was performed using the key words “abdominal injuries”and thesubheading“diagnosis”. This search was limited further to (1) clinical research, (2) published in English, (3) publication dates January 1978 through February 1998. The initial search yielded 742 citations. Case reviews, review articles, meta- analyses, editorials, letters to the editor, technologic reports, pediatric series and studies involving a significant number of penetrating abdominal injuries were excluded prior to formal review. Additional references, selected by the individual subcommittee members, were then included to compile the master reference list of 197 citations.

B. Quality of the references

Articles were distributed among subcommittee members for formal review. A review data sheet was completed for each article reviewed which summarized the main conclusions of the study, and identified any deficiencies in the study. Further, reviewers classified each reference by the methodology established by the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as follows:

Class I: Prospective, randomized, double-blinded study Class II: Prospective, randomized, non-blinded trial Class III: Retrospective series, meta-analysis Following review by the subcommittee, references were excluded based on poor

design or invalid conclusions. An evidentiary table was constructed using the remaining 101 references: Class I (20); Class II (32); Class III (49). Recommendations were based on studies included in the evidentiary table.

III. Recommendations

A. Level I

1. Exploratory laparotomy is indicated for patients with a positive DPL.
2. CT is recommended for the evaluation of hemodynamically stable patients with equivocal findings on physical examination, associated neurologic injury, or multiple extra-abdominal injuries. Under these circumstances, patients with a negative CT should be admitted for observation.
3. CT is the diagnostic modality of choice for nonoperative management of solid visceral injuries.
4. In hemodynamically stable patients, DPL and CT are complementary diagnostic modalities.

B. Level II

1. FAST may be considered as the initial diagnostic modality to exclude hemoperitoneum. In the presence of a negative or indeterminate FAST result, DPL and CT have complementary roles.
2. When DPL is used, clinical decisions should be based on the presence of gross blood on initial aspiration (i.e., 10 ml) or microscopic analysis of lavage effluent.
3. In hemodynamically stable patients with a positive DPL, follow-up CT scan should be considered, especially in the presence of pelvic fracture or suspected injuries to the genitourinary tract, diaphragm or pancreas.
4. Exploratory laparotomy is indicated in hemodynamically unstable patients with a positive FAST. In hemodynamically stable patients with a positive FAST, follow-up CT permits nonoperative management of select injuries.
5. Surveillance studies (i.e., DPL, CT, repeat FAST) are required in hemodynamically stable patients with indeterminate FAST results.

C. Level III

1. Objective diagnostic testing (i.e., FAST, DPL, CT) is indicated for patient with abnormal mentation, equivocal findings on physical examination, multiple injuries, concomitant chest injury or hematuria.
2. Patients with seatbelt sign (SBS) should be admitted for observation and serial physical examination. Detection of intraperitoneal fluid by FAST or CT in a patient with SBS mandates either DPL to determine the nature of the fluid or exploratory laparotomy.
3. CT is indicated for the evaluation of suspected renal injuries.
4. A negative FAST should prompt follow-up CT for patients at high risk for intraabdominal injuries (e.g., multiple orthopedic injuries, severe chest wall trauma, neurologic impairment).
5. Splanchnic angiography may be considered in patients who require angiography for the evaluation of other injuries (e.g., thoracic aortic injury, pelvic fracture).

IV. Scientific Foundation

A. Diagnostic Peritoneal Lavage (DPL)

DPL was introduced by Root in 1965 as a rapid and accurate method to identify the presence of intra-abdominal hemorrhage following trauma.^[3] Subsequent studies have confirmed the efficacy of DPL in diagnosing abdominal hemorrhage as well as its superiority over physical examination alone.^[4] The accuracy of DPL has been reported between 92% and 98%.^{[5][6][7][8][9][10]} The high sensitivity of DPL is due to the significant false positive rate of the technique.^[11][12][13] Several authors have highlighted the importance of interpreting DPL results in the context of the overall clinical condition of the patient. A positive DPL does not necessarily mandate immediate laparotomy in the hemodynamically stable patient.^{[12][14][15][16]} DPL has been shown to be more efficient than CT scan in identifying patients that require surgical exploration.^[17]

The complication rate associated with DPL is quite low.^[18] The incidence of complications is lower for open DPL compared with to the closed technique. However, closed DPL can be performed more rapidly.^{[19][20][21][22]} Studies designed to examine the ability of physicians to estimate the red blood cell (RBC) count in DPL fluid have demonstrated the poor sensitivity of visual inspection.^[23][24][25] A positive DPL, based on microscopic analysis of lavage fluid, has been defined as > 10⁵ RBC/mm³. It has been recommended that patients with RBC counts in the equivocal range (i.e., 25,000–75,000 RBC/mm3) undergo additional diagnostic testing, such as CT scanning.^[12]

The false positive rate for DPL is increased in patients with pelvic fractures.^[26][27] In order to avoid sampling the retroperitoneal hematoma, a suprpa-umbilical approach has been recommended, theoretically reducing the chances of a false positive result.^[28]

The advantages of DPL for detection of hollow visceral injuries have been clearly demonstrated.^[29][30] Two studies which advocate analysis of DPL fluid for amylase and alkaline phosphatase consistent with enteric injuries have been disputed.^[31][32][33] Similarly, the utility of the DPL white blood cell (WBC) count has been questioned.^[34][35][36] DPL is sensitive for mesenteric injury and, in fact, has been shown to be superior to CT for the diagnosis of this injury.^[37]

Thus, DPL is a safe, rapid and accurate method for determining the presence of intraperitoneal blood in victims of BAT. It is more accurate than CT for the early diagnosis of hollow visceral and mesenteric injuries, but it does not reliably exclude significant injuries to retroperitoneal structures. False positive results may occur in the presence of pelvis fractures. Hemodynamically stable patients with equivocal results are best managed by additional diagnostic testing to avoid unnecessary laparotomies.

B. Computed Tomography (CT)

Routine use of CT for the evaluation of BAT was not initially viewed with overwhelming enthusiasm. CT requires a cooperative, hemodynamically stable patient. In addition, the patient must be transported out of the trauma resuscitation area to the radiographic suite. Specialized technicians and the availability of a radiologist for interpretation were also viewed as factors which limited the utility of CT for trauma patients. CT scanners are now available in most trauma centers and, with the advent of helical scanners, scan time has been significantly reduced. As a result, CT has become an accepted part of the traumatologist’s armamentarium.

The accuracy of CT in hemodynamically stable blunt trauma patients has been well established. Sensitivity between 92% and 97.6% and specificity as high as 98.7% has been reported in patients subjected to emergency CT.^[38][39] Most authors recommend admission and observation following a negative CT scan.^[40][41] In a recent study of 2774 patients, the authors concluded that the negative predictive value (99.63%) of CT was sufficiently high to permit safe discharge of BAT patients following a negative CT scan.^[42]

CT is notoriously inadequate for the diagnosis of mesenteric injuries and may also miss hollow visceral injuries. In patients at risk for mesenteric or hollow visceral injury, DPL is generally felt to be a more appropriate test.^[37][43] A negative CT scan in such a patient cannot reliably exclude intra-abdominal injuries.

CT has the unique ability to detect clinically unsuspected injuries. In a series of 444 patients in whom CT was performed to evaluate renal injuries, 525 concomitant abdominal and/or retroperitoneal injuries were diagnosed. Another advantage of CT scanning over other diagnostic modalities is its ability to evaluate the retroperitoneal structures.^[40] Kane performed CT in 44 hemodynamically stable blunt trauma patients following DPL. In 16 patients, CT revealed significant intra-abdominal or retroperitoneal injuries not diagnosed by DPL. Moreover, the findings on CT resulted in a modification to the original treatment plan in 58% of the patients.^[44]

C. Focused Abdominal Sonography for Trauma (FAST)

In recent years, focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) has emerged as a useful diagnostic test in the evaluation of BAT. The advantages of the FAST examination have been clearly established. FAST is noninvasive, may be easily performed and can be done concurrently with resuscitation. In addition, the technology is portable and may be easily repeated if necessary.^{[45][46][47][48]} In most cases, FAST may be completed within 3 or 4 minutes.^[49][50][51] The test is especially useful for detecting intra-abdominal hemorrhage in the multiply injured or pregnant patient.^[52]

A noted drawback to the FAST examination is the fact that a positive examination relies on the presence of free intraperitioneal fluid. In the hands of most operators, ultrasound will detect a minimum of 200 mL of fluid.^[53] Injuries not associated with hemoperitoneum may not be detected by this modality.^[49][54][55] Thus, ultrasound is not a reliable method for excluding hollow visceral injury.^{[47][49][56][57][58]} In addition, the FAST examination cannot be used to reliably grade solid organ injuries. Therefore, in the hemodynamically stable patient, a follow-up CT scan should be obtained if nonoperative management is contemplated.^[59]

FAST compares favorably with more traditionally utilized diagnostic tests. In the hemodynamically stable patient with BAT, FAST offers a viable alternative to DPL.^[60] DPL may also be used as a complementary examination in the hemodynamically stable patient in the presence of an equivocal or negative ultrasound with strong clinical suspicion of visceral injury.^[61][62] FAST has demonstrated utility in hemodynamically stable patients with BAT.^[58][60][63] In addition, ultrasound has been shown to be more cost-effective when compared to DPL or CT.^[45][47][60]

Overall, FAST has a sensitivity between 73% and 88%, a specificity between 98% and 100% and is 96% to 98% accurate.^{[46][50][57][58][64][65]} This level of accuracy is independent of the practitioner performing the study. Surgeons, emergency medicine physicians, ultrasound technicians and radiologists have equivalent results.^{[46][53][64][65][66]}

D. Other Diagnostic Modalities

As interest in laparoscopic procedures has increased among general surgeons, there has been speculation regarding the role of diagnostic laparoscopy (DL) in the evaluation of BAT. One of the potential benefits postulated is the reduction of nontherapeutic laparotomies. With modification of the technique to include smaller instruments, portable equipment and local anesthesia, DL may be a useful tool in the initial evaluation of BAT. Although there are no randomized, controlled studies comparing DL to more commonly utilized modalities, experience at one institution using minilaparoscopy demonstrated a 25% incidence of positive findings on DL, which were successfully managed nonoperatively and would have resulted in nontherapeutic laparotomies.^[67]

Although its ultimate role remains unclear, another modality to be considered in the diagnostic evaluation of BAT is visceral angiography. This modality may have diagnostic value when employed in conjunction with angiography of the pelvis or chest, or when other diagnostic studies are inconclusive.^[68]

V. Summary

Injury to intra-abdominal viscera must be excluded in all victims of BAT. Physical examination remains the initial step in diagnosis but has limited utility under select circumstances. Thus, various diagnostic modalities have evolved to assist the trauma surgeon in the identification of abdominal injuries. The specific tests selected are based on the clinical stability of the patient, the ability to obtain a reliable physical examination and the provider’s access to a particular modality. It is important to emphasize that many of the diagnostic tests utilized are complementary rather than exclusionary.

Based on the above recommendations, a reasonable diagnostic approach to BAT is summarized in Figures 1 and 2. In hemodynamically stable patients with a reliable physical examination, clinical findings may be used to select patients who may be safely observed. In the absence of a reliable physical examination, the main diagnostic choice is between CT or FAST (with CT in a complementary role). Hemodynamically unstable patients may be initially evaluated with FAST or DPL.

VI. Future Investigation

Recent literature is replete with studies that emphasize the many advantages of ultrasound in the valuation of BAT. Although this technology is becoming more available to trauma surgeons, for a variety of reasons, it has not become universally available in all centers. Continued research addressing the utility of FAST, with emphasis on its advantages specific to resource utilization, is suggested. In addition, studies should be designed to more closely evaluate the feasibility of FAST as the sole diagnostic test in hemodynamically stable patients. Perhaps safe strategies for nonoperative management of solid visceral injuries could be developed which rely on FAST alone, such that the number of CT scans could be reduced.

VII. References

1. Rodriguez A, DuPriest RW Jr., Shatney CH: Recognition of intra-abdominal injury in blunt trauma victims. A prospective study comparing physical examination with peritoneal lavage. Am Surg 48: 457–459, 1982.
2. Schurink GW, Bode PJ, van Luijt PA, et al: The value of physical examination in the diagnosis of patients with blunt abdominal trauma: a retrospective study. Injury 28: 261–265, 1997.
3. Root HD, Hauser CW, McKinley CR, et al: Diagnostic peritoneal lavage. Surg 57: 633–637, 1965.
4. Bivins BA, Sachatello CR, Daughtery ME, et al: Diagnostic peritoneal lavage is superior to clinical evaluation in blunt abdominal trauma. Am Surg 44: 637–641, 1978.
5. Smith SB, Andersen CA: Abdominal trauma: the limited role of peritoneal lavage. Am Surg 48: 514–517, 1982.
6. Henneman PL, Marx JA, Moore EE, et al: Diagnostic peritoneal lavage: accuracy in predicting necessary laparotomy following blunt and penetrating trauma. J Trauma 30: 1345–1355, 1990.
7. Krausz MM, Manny J, Austin E, et al: Peritoneal lavage in blunt abdominal trauma. SG & O 152: 327–330, 1981.
8. MooreJB, Moore EE, Markivchick VJ, et al: Diagnostic peritoneal lavage for abdominal trauma: superiority of the open technique at the infraumbilical ring. J Trauma 21: 570–572, 1981.
9. Jacob ET, Cantor E: Discriminate diagnostic peritoneal lavage in blunt abdominal injuries: accuracy and hazards. Am Surg 45: 11–14, 1979.
10. Fischer RP, Beverlin BC, Engrav LH, et al: Diagnostic peritoneal lavage: fourteen years and 2586 patients later. Am J Surg 136: 701–704, 1978.
11. Bilge A, Sahin M: Diagnostic peritoneal lavage in blunt abdominal trauma. Eur J Surg 157: 449–451, 1991.
12. DeMaria EJ: Management of patients with indeterminate diagnostic peritoneal lavage results following blunt trauma. J Trauma 31: 1627–1631, 1991.
13. Van Dongen LM, de Boer HH: Peritoneal lavage in closed abdominal injury. Injury 16: 227–229, 1985.
14. Day AC, Rankin N, Charlesworth P: Diagnostic peritoneal lavage: integration with clinical information to improve diagnostic performance. J Trauma 32: 52–57, 1992.
15. Barba C, Owen D, Fleiszer D, et al: Is positive diagnostic peritoneal lavage an absolute indication for laparotomy in all patients with blunt trauma? The Montreal General Hospital experience. Can J Surg 34: 442–445, 1991.
16. Drost TF, Rosemurgy AS, Kearney RE, et al: Diagnostic peritoneal lavage. Limited indications due to evolving concepts in trauma care. Am Surg 57: 126–128, 1991.
17. Blow O, Bassam D, Butler K, et al: Speed and efficiency in the resuscitation of blunt trauma patients with multiple injuries: the advantage of diagnostic peritoneal lavage over abdominal computerized tomography. J Trauma 44: 287–290, 1998.
18. Davis JW, Hoyt DB, Mackersie RC, et al: Complications in evaluating abdominal trauma: diagnostic peritoneal lavage versus computerized axial tomography. J Trauma 30: 1506–1509, 1990.
19. Lopez-Viego MA, Mickel TJ, Weigelt JA: Open versus closed diagnostic peritoneal lavage in the evaluation of abdominal trauma. Am J Surg 160: 594–597, 1990.
20. Cue JI, Miller FB, Cryer HM,III, et al: A prospective, randomized comparison between open and closed peritoneal lavage techniques. J Trauma 30: 880–883, 1990.
21. Wilson WR, Schwarcz TH, Pilcher DB: A prospective randomized trial of the Lazarus-Nelson vs. the standard peritoneal dialysis catheter for peritoneal lavage in blunt abdominal trauma. J Trauma 27: 1177–1180, 1987.
22. Felice PR, Morgan AS, Becker DR: A prospective randomized study evaluating periumbilical versus infraumbilical peritoneal lavage: a preliminary report. A combined hospital study. Am Surg 53: 518–520, 1987.
23. Gow KW, Haley LP, Phang PT, et al: Validity of visual inspection of diagnostic peritoneal lavage fluid. Can J Surg 39: 114–119, 1996.
24. Wyatt JP, Evans RJ, Cusack SP: Variation among trainee surgeons in interpreting diagnostic peritoneal lavage fluid in blunt abdominal trauma. J Royal Coll Surg (Edin) 37: 104–106, 1992.
25. Driscoll P, Hodgkinson D, Mackway-Jones K: Diagnostic peritoneal lavage: It’s red but is it positive? Injury 23: 267–269, 1992.
26. Mendez C, Gubler KD, Maier RV: Diagnostic accuracy of peritoneal lavage in patients with pelvic fractures. Arch Surg 129: 477–482, 1994.
27. Hubbard SG, Bivins BA, Sachatello CR, et al: Diagnostic errors with peritoneal lavage in patients with pelvic fractures. Arch Surg 114: 844–846, 1979.
28. Cochran W, Sobat WS: Open versus closed diagnostic peritoneal lavage. A multiphasic prospective randomized comparison. Ann Surg 200: 24–28, 1984.
29. Meyer DM, Thal ER, Weigelt JA, et al: Evaluation of computed tomography and diagnostic peritoneal lavage in blunt abdominal trauma. J Trauma 29: 1168–1170, 1989.
30. Burney RE, Mueller GL, Coon WW, et al: Diagnosis of isolated small bowel injury following blunt abdominal trauma. Ann Emerg Med 12: 71–74, 1983.
31. McAnena OJ, Marx JA, Moore EE: Peritoneal lavage enzyme determinations following blunt and penetrating abdominal trauma. J Trauma 31: 1161–1164, 1991.
32. McAnena OJ, Marx JA, Moore EE: Contributions of peritoneal lavage enzyme determinations to the management of isolated hollow visceral abdominal injuries. Ann Emerg Med 20: 834–837, 1991.
33. Megison SM, Weigelt JA: The value of alkaline phosphatase in peritoneal lavage. Ann Emerg Med 19: 503–505, 1990.
34. D’Amelio LF, Rhodes M: A reassessment of peritoneal lavage leukocyte count in blunt abdominal trauma. J Trauma 30: 1291–1293, 1990.
35. Soyka JM, Martin M, Sloan EP, et al: Diagnostic peritoneal lavage: is an isolated WBC count greater that or equal to 500/mm3 predictive of intra-abdominal injury requiring celiotomy in blunt trauma patients? J Trauma 30: 874–879, 1990.
36. Jacobs DG, Angus L, Rodriguez A, et al: Peritoneal lavage white count: a reassessment. J Trauma 30: 607–612, 1990.
37. Ceraldi CM, Waxman K: Computerized tomography as an indicator of isolated mesenteric injury. A comparison with peritoneal lavage. Am Surg 56: 806–810, 1990.
38. Peitzman AB, Makaroun MS, Slasky BS, et al: Prospective study of computed tomography in initial management of blunt abdominal trauma. J Trauma 26: 585–592, 1986.
39. Webster VJ: Abdominal trauma: Pre-operative assessment and postoperative problems in intensive care. Anaest Int Care 13: 258–262, 1985.
40. Lang EK: Intra-abdominal and retroperitoneal organ injuries diagnosed on dynamic computed tomograms obtained for assessment of renal trauma. J Trauma 30: 1161–1168, 1990.
41. Matsubara TK, Fong HM, Burns CM: Computed tomography of abdomen (CTA) in management of blunt abdominal trauma. J Trauma 30: 410–414, 1990.
42. Livingston DH, Lavery RF, Passannante MR, et al: Admission or observation is not necessary after a negative abdominal computed tomographic scan in patients with suspected blunt abdominal trauma: Results of a prospective, multi-institutional trial. J Trauma 44: 272–282, 1998.
43. Nolan BW, Gabram SG, Schwartz RJ, et al: Mesenteric injury from blunt abdominal trauma. Am Surg 61: 501–506, 1995.
44. Kane NM, Dorfman GS, Cronan JJ: Efficacy of CT following peritoneal lavage in abdominal trauma. J Comp Asst Tomo 11: 998–1002, 1987.
45. Branney SW, Moore EE, Cantrill SV, et al: Ultrasound based key clinical pathway reduces the use of hospital resources for the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma. J Trauma 42: 1086–1090, 1997.
46. Healey MA, Simons RK, Winchell RJ, et al: A prospective evaluation of abdominal ultrasound in blunt trauma: Is it useful? J Trauma 40: 875–883, 1996.
47. Glaser K, Tschmelitsch J, Klingler P, et al: Ultrasonography in the management of blunt abdominal and thoracic trauma. Arch Surg 129: 743–747, 1994.
48. Liu M, Lee CH, P’eng FK: Prospective comparison of diagnostic peritoneal lavage, computed tomographic scanning, and ultrasonography for the diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma. J Trauma 35: 267–270, 1993.
49. Boulanger BR, McLellan BA, Brenneman FD, et al: Emergent abdominal sonography as a screening test in a new diagnostic algorithm for blunt trauma. J Trauma 40: 867–874, 1996.
50. Boulanger BR, Brenneman FD, McLellan BA, et al: A prospective study of emergent abdominal sonography after blunt trauma. J Trauma 39: 325–330, 1995.
51. Ma OJ, Kefer MP, Mateer JR, et al: Evaluation of hemoperitoneum using a singlevs. multiple-view ultrasonographic examination. Acad Emerg Med 2: 581–586, 1995.
52. Rozycki GS, Ochsner MG, Jaffin JH, et al: Prospective evaluation of surgeons’ use of ultrasound in the evaluation of trauma patients. J Trauma 34: 516–527, 1993.
53. Branney SW, Wolfe RE, Moore EE, et al: Quantitative sensitivity of ultrasound in detecting free intraperitoneal fluid. J Trauma 39: 375–380, 1995.
54. Sherbourne CD, Shanmuganathan K, Mirvis SE, et al: Visceral injury without hemoperitoneum: a limitation of screening abdominal songography for trauma. Emerg Radiol 4: 349–354, 1997.
55. Tso P, Rodriguez A, Cooper C: Sonography in blunt abdominal trauma: a preliminary progress report. J Trauma 33: 39–44, 1992.
56. Buzzas GR, Kern SJ, Smith RS, et al: A comparison of sonographic examinations for trauma performed by surgeons and radiologists. J Trauma 44: 604–608, 1998.
57. Smith SR, Kern SJ, Fry WR, et al: Institutional learning curve of surgeon-performed trauma ultrasound. Arch Surg 133: 530–536, 1998.
58. McKenney MG, Martin L, Lentz K, et al: 1000 consecutive ultrasounds for blunt abdominal trauma. J Trauma 40: 607–612, 1996.
59. Chambers JA, Pilbrow WJ: Ultrasound in abdominal trauma: an alternative to peritoneal lavage. Arch Emerg Med 5: 26–33, 1988.
60. McKenney KL, McKenney MG, Nunez DB, et al: Cost reduction using ultrasound in blunt abdominal trauma. Emerg Radiol 4: 3–6, 1997.
61. Kimura A, Otsuka T: Emergency center ultrasonography in the evaluation of hemoperitoneum: A prospective study. J Trauma 31: 20–23, 1991.
62. Gruessner R, Mentges B, Duber C, et al: Sonography versus peritoneal lavage in blunt abdominal trauma. J Trauma 29: 242–244, 1989.
63. Rothlin MA, Naf R, Amgwerd M, et al: Ultrasound in blunt abdominal and thoracic trauma. J Trauma 34: 488–495, 1993.
64. Kern SJ, Smith RS, Fry WR, et al: Sonographic examination of abdominal trauma by senior surgical residents. Am Surg 63: 669–674, 1997.
65. Rozycki GS, Ochsner MG, Schmidt JA, et al: A prospective study of surgeon-performed ultrasound as the primary adjuvant modality for injured patient assessment. J Trauma 39: 492–500, 1995.
66. McKenney M, Lentz K, Nunez D, et al: Can ultrasound replace diagnostic peritoneal lavage in the assessment of blunt trauma? J Trauma 37: 439–441, 1994.
67. Berci G, Sackier JM, Paz-Partlow M: Emergency laparoscopy. Am J Surg 161: 332335, 1991.
68. Ward RE: Study and management of blunt trauma in the immediate post-impact period. Rad Clin NA 19: 3–7, 1981.

Tables