Skip to main content
PMC home page
African Health Sciences logoLink to African Health Sciences
. 2006 Sep;6(3):187–190.

Focussed Assessment Sonograph Trauma (FAST) and CT scan in blunt abdominal trauma: surgeon's perspective

Mohamed M Radwan 1, Fikri M Abu-Zidan 1
PMCID: PMC1831890  PMID: 17140344

Abstract

Background

Diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma is a real challenge even for experienced trauma surgeons. Diagnostic tools that help the treating doctor in optimum management of blunt abdominal trauma include; Focussed Assessment Sonography for Trauma (FAST), Diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) and CT scan.

Objectives

the aim of this communication is to define the recent role of FAST and CT scan of the abdomen in the diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma.

Findings and conclusions

FAST is useful as the initial diagnostic tool for abdominal trauma to detect intraabdominal fluid. With proper training and understanding the limitations of ultrasound, the results of FAST can be optimized. DPL is indicated to diagnose suspected internal abdominal injury when ultrasound machine is not available, there is no trained person to perform FAST, or the results of FAST are equivocal or difficult to interpret in a haemodynamically unstable patient. In contrast, in haemodynamically stable patients the diagnostic modality of choice is CT with intravenous contrast. It is useful to detect free air and intraperitoneal fluid, delineate the extent of solid organ injury, detect retroperitoneal injuries, and help in the decision for conservative treatment. Helical CT is done rapidly which reduces the time the patient stays in the CT scan room. Furthermore, this improves sagittal and coronal reconstruction images which are useful for detecting ruptured diaphragm.

Running title: FAST and CT scan in trauma

Introduction

Diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma is a real challenge even for experienced trauma surgeons. The clinical findings are usually not reliable. Abdominal examination is compounded by different factors like fractures of lower chest ribs, contusion and abrasions of the abdominal wall, presence of fractured lumbar vertebrae with retroperitoneal haematoma, and reduced level of consciousness. Diagnostic tools that help the treating doctor to take critical decisions like the need for laparotomy or conservative treatment are mandatory if we aim for a favorable outcome. Diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) had been the gold standard to detect intraperitoneal fluid since the sixties. Use of Focussed Assessment Sonography for Trauma (FAST) and helical CT scan have dramatically changed our methods for diagnosing blunt abdominal trauma, refined our decisions, and enabled us to select patients for conservative treatment. The choice of a particular modality depends on the haemodynamic stability of the patient, the reliability of physical examination, the severity of associated injuries, and the availability of a particular diagnostic modality. The aim of this communication is to define the recent role of FAST and CT scan of the abdomen in the diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma.

Focussed Assessment Sonography for Trauma (FAST)

FAST was initially started in Europe and Japan in the eighties to be adopted by North America in the early nineties. From there it has spread worldwide1,2. It is worthy to note that Kuwait was one of the earliest countries in the Middle East to start FAST in the Emergency Department3.

FAST is a goal directed study answering a simple question as to whether there is intraperitoneal fluid or not. (Fig 1). It is a safe quick diagnostic tool that can be learnt easily2,3. It is of great value for those patients who are haemodynamically unstable and who can not be shifted to CT scan room. One of the great advantages is that it can be done bedside during resuscitation without the need to move the patient from the resuscitation room. The great value of FAST lies in its high sensitivity for detecting intraperitoneal fluid which accumulates in dependent areas around the liver, spleen and pouch of Douglas2. This sensitivity may reach up to 100%. The finding of free intraperitoneal fluid in a hypotensive patient alerts the treating doctor that the patient may need an urgent laparotomy. Limitations of ultrasound have to be well understood when using FAST. Ultrasound is not accurate in obese patients due to lack of penetration of sonographic waves. Furthermore, it will be difficult to visualize intra-abdominal structures in case there is ileus or surgical emphysema under the skin. Ultrasonography is highly accurate in detecting intraperitoneal fluid but it can not differentiate between blood, urine, bile or ascites. That is why the sonographic findings have to be correlated with the clinical findings to make critical decisions. FAST has to be used within a diagnostic algorithm to have a proper role4. Ultrasound should be used as the clinician's stethoscope in the clinical setting. In case the patient is haemodynamically stable then the CT scan of the abdomen is the diagnostic modality of choice5. Ultrasound will miss 25% of intra-abdominal injuries in case it is the only diagnostic tool6,7. Furthermore, ultrasound is not accurate in detecting retroperitoneal or gastrointestinal lesions6,7.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Open in a new tab

Sonographic sagittal section of the right upper quadrant showing the liver, kidney and free fluid in hepatorenal pouch (arrows).

The use of FAST has replaced the use of DPL for detecting intraperitoneal bleeding in the majority of patients3. We think that FAST should always be performed before DPL in the Emergency Room because it is non invasive and takes shorter time. DPL is indicated to diagnose suspected internal abdominal injury when ultrasound machine is not available, there is no trained person to perform FAST, or the results of FAST are equivocal or difficult to interpret in a haemodynamically unstable patient so the patient can not be shifted to a CT scan room2

Recently different trials on FAST using portable hand held ultrasound machines have shown that they have comparable accuracy to hospital based ultrasound machines in detecting fluid (8). This proved useful to define patients who need to be swiftly evacuated to the hospital in prehospital settings and mass causality situations2.

In general the results of FAST will depend on three factors: the ultrasound machine, the patient and the operator. The ability of the ultrasound machine will vary depending on its specifications. Black and white B mode is all what is needed to perform FAST but the machine should have proper resolution and gain. The patient's body build, obesity, presence of ileus from trauma or presence of surgical emphysema can make the FAST study difficult. The technical details of using FAST are beyond the scope of this manuscript. This has been detailed elsewhere (2). Finally the experience of the operator is a major factor that affects the results (9). It was proven that the results of FAST are not different in the hands of surgeons, radiologists or emergency physicians if they were trained properly10. Training should include a theoretical part and a practical part after which a hospital based credentialing process should be started1, 11, 12. This is essential to assure the quality of health care given to patients.

Computed tomography

The contrast enhanced CT scan is a non invasive procedure. It has become the gold standard radiographic modality in evaluating blunt abdominal trauma patients6. CT scanners are available now in most trauma centers. With the advent of helical CT scan, scan time has become significantly shorter.

CT scan is indicated in blunt abdominal trauma in haemodynamically stable patients with equivocal findings on physical examination, neurological injury or impaired sensorium due to drugs or alcohol, multiple extra-abdominal injuries13, and when the mechanism of injury is suggestive of duodenal or pancreatic injury 14. CT scan is contraindicated in a blunt abdominal trauma patient with clear indication of laparotomy and in haemodynamically unstable patient.

CT scan has a high accuracy reaching about 95%. It has a very high negative predictive value reaching almost 100%13. Despite that, patients with suspected abdominal injury should be admitted for at least 24 hours in the hospital for observation even with a negative CT scan result15. CT provides a detailed image of injuries. Finding free intraperitoneal air or rupture diaphragm are definite indications for laparotomy. It is very useful in defining the severity of solid organ injury (Fig 2) and guiding the non operative management and decisions for surgery. Helical CT with contrast enhancement can detect arterial extravasations (contrast blush) in blunt abdominal trauma patients (Fig 3). This can be used to localize the anatomical sites of injury and to guide angiographic or surgical intervention16. Follow up CT scan is useful to help making clinical decisions when adopting a conservative approach. It allows adequate assessment of retroperitoneal structures. This is a major advantage over the other modalities. Furthermore, it allows the assessment of blood perfusion of different organs (Fig 4). Helical CT scan sagittal and coronal reconstruction images are useful for detecting ruptured diaphragm. Moreover, it seems to improve the diagnosis of gastrointestinal injuries17.

Fig 2.

Fig 2

Open in a new tab

CT scan of the abdomen with intravenous contrast in a 4-years old pedestrian who was hit by a car showing multiple lacerations of the spleen (arrows). The patient was hemodynamically stable and was treated conservatively.

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Open in a new tab

CT with intravenous contrast in a 30 years old male driver who was involved in a road traffic collision. CT has shown active contrast blush inside the liver (arrow). The patient ended with a laparotomy. There is also free fluid near the spleen (arrow heads).

Fig 4.

Fig 4

Open in a new tab

CT scan of the abdomen with intravenous contrast showing good perfusion of the right kidney. There is an injury to the right kidney reaching up to the right pelvis with extravasation of fluid around the kidney (arrow heads).

Nevertheless, CT scanning has certain limitations. It needs a specialized technician to perform it and a radiologist to read it. CT scan, although very sensitive in detecting solid organ injuries, may miss mesenteric tears, bowel injury especially small tears, diaphragmatic rupture if coronal and sagittal reconstruction was not made, and pancreatic injury if done early after trauma18,19 A large multi-institutional study has shown that 13% of patients with perforated small bowel injury had a normal CT scan preoperatively20. Intravenous and oral contrast has the hazards of aspiration, delay in diagnosis when oral contrast is used, and allergic reaction with the use of intravenous contrast 21.

The presence of free intraperitoneal fluid in blunt abdominal trauma in absence of a detectable solid organ injury creates a clinical dilemma. There is a probability of 25% of missing bowel lesions. DPL is advised in that situation if a conservative approach is advocated22.

Conclusions

FAST is useful as the initial diagnostic tool for abdominal trauma to detect intraabdominal fluid. Indications for diagnostic peritoneal lavage are becoming more restricted. In haemodynamically stable patients, the diagnostic modality of choice is CT scanning. These three modalities are complementary and not competitive. Their usefulness is maximized when they are applied properly within defined clinical algorithms.

References

  • 1.Abu-Zidan FM, Freeman P, Mandivia Diku. The first Australasian workshop on bedside ultrasound in the Emergency Department. NZ Med J. 1999;112:322–324. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Dittrich K, Abu-Zidan FM. Role of Ultrasound in Mass-Casualty Situations. International Journal of Disaster Medicine. 2004;2:18–23. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Abu-Zidan FM, Al-Zayat I, Sheikh M, Mousa I, Behbehani A. Role of ultrasonography in blunt abdominal trauma, a prospective study. Eur J Surg. 1996;162:361–365. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.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. 1997;42:1086–1090. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199706000-00017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Shanmuganathan K. Multi-detector row CT imaging of blunt abdominal trauma. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2004;25:180–204. doi: 10.1016/j.sult.2004.02.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Abu-Zidan Fm, Sheikh M, Jaddallah F, Windsor JA. Blunt abdominal trauma: Comparison of ultrasonography and computed tomography. Austral Radiol. 1999;43:440–443. doi: 10.1046/j.1440-1673.1999.00708.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Stengel D, Bauwens K, Sehouli J, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of emergency ultrasonography for blunt abdominal trauma. Br J Surg. 2001;88:901–912. doi: 10.1046/j.0007-1323.2001.01777.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Kirkpatrick AW, Simons RK, Brown R, et al. The handheld FAST: experience with hand-held trauma sonography in a level-I urban trauma center. Injury. 2002;33:303–308. doi: 10.1016/s0020-1383(02)00017-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Thomas B, Falcone RE, Vasquez D, et al. Ultrasound evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma: program implementation, initial experience, and learning curve. J Trauma. 1997;42:384–388. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199703000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.McKenney MG, McKenney KL, Compton RP, et al. Can surgeons evaluate emergency ultrasound scans for blunt abdominal trauma. J Trauma. 1998;44:649–653. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199804000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Abu-Zidan F, Seösteen A-K, Wang J, al-Ayoubi F, Lennquist S. Establishment of a teaching animal model for sonographic diagnosis of trauma. J Trauma. 2004;56:99–104. doi: 10.1097/01.TA.0000038546.82954.3D. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Abu-Zidan FM, Dittrich K, Czechowski J, Kazzam E. Establishment of a “Focused Assessment Sonography for Trauma” (FAST) Course. Saudi Med J. 2005;26:806–811. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Peitzman AB, Makaroun MS, Slasky BS, Ritter P. Prospective study of computed tomography in initial management of blunt abdominal trauma. J Trauma. 1986;26:585–592. doi: 10.1097/00005373-198607000-00001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Jayaraman MV, Mayo-Smith WW, Movson JS, Dupuy DE, Wallach MT. CT of the duodenum: an overlooked segment gets its due. Radiographics. 2001;(21 Spec No):S147–S160. doi: 10.1148/radiographics.21.suppl_1.g01oc01s147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.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. 1998;44:273–280. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199802000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Shanmuganathan K, Mirvis SE, Sover ER. Value of contrast-enhanced CT in detecting active hemorrhage in patients with blunt abdominal or pelvic trauma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;16:65–69. doi: 10.2214/ajr.161.1.8517323. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Elton C, Riaz AA, Young N, Schamschula R, Papadopoulos B, Malka V. Accuracy of computed tomography in the detection of blunt bowel and mesenteric injuries. Br J Surg. 2005;92:1024–1028. doi: 10.1002/bjs.4931. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Breen DJ, Janzen DL, Zwirewich CV, Nagy AG. Blunt bowel and mesenteric injury: diagnostic performance of CT signs. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1997;21:706–712. doi: 10.1097/00004728-199709000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Murray JG, Caoili E, Gruden JF, Evans SJ, Halvorsen RA, Jr, Mackersie RC. Acute rupture of the diaphragm due to blunt trauma: diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;166:1035–1039. doi: 10.2214/ajr.166.5.8615237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Fakhry SM, Watts DD, Luchette FA EAST Multi-Institutional Hollow Viscus Injury Research Group, author. Current diagnostic approaches lack sensitivity in the diagnosis of perforated blunt small bowel injury: analysis from 275,557 trauma admissions from the EAST multi-institutional HVI trial. J Trauma. 2003;54:295–306. doi: 10.1097/01.TA.0000046256.80836.AA. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Federle MP, Peitzman A, Krugh J. Use of oral contrast material in abdominal trauma CT scans: is it dangerous? J Trauma. 1995;38:51–53. doi: 10.1097/00005373-199501000-00015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Rodriguez C, Barone JE, Wilbanks TO, Rha CK, Miller K. Isolated free fluid on computed tomographic scan in blunt abdominal trauma: a systematic review of incidence and management. J Trauma. 2002;53:79–85. doi: 10.1097/00005373-200207000-00016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from African health sciences are provided here courtesy of Makerere University Medical School

RESOURCES