ArticleEmergency radiology2021
Yield of CT angiography in penetrating lower extremity trauma.
Article in Emergency radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- CTA Imaging of Peripheral Arterial Injuries.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Vascular Injury of Penetrating Trauma of the Extremities.Emergency medicine international · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCT angiography (CTA) has become a valuable tool in the assessment of suspected arterial injury in patients with penetrating lower extremity trauma. However, expensive imaging such as CTA should be judiciously utilized to ensure value-based care. We therefore assessed the yield of CTA in this setting at a level-1 trauma unit and correlated it with the clinical history provided.
methodsA retrospective descriptive study from 1 July 2013 to 31 June 2018 at a 1386-bed, tertiary-level, public-sector teaching hospital in Cape Town, South Africa.. All patients undergoing CTA for suspected arterial injury following penetrating lower extremity trauma were included. The imaging yield of clinically significant arterial injury and the predictive value of specific clinical signs were determined.
resultsA total of 983 patients (median age 27 years, 91% male) were included; 90% (886/983) had gunshots, 9% (89/983) stabs, and 1% (8/983) other injuries. Despite an average 13% year-on-year increase in CTA performed, there was no change in the proportion demonstrating arterial injury. Thirty-four percent (23/68) of patients with strong (hard) signs of arterial injury (active pulsatile bleeding, rapidly expanding hematoma, absent pulse, palpable thrill, or audible bruit), 11% (49/459) with moderate (soft) signs (history of an arterial bleed, excessive non-pulsatile bleeding, large non-expanding hematoma, major neurological deficit, diminished but appreciable pulse, and arterial proximity), and 5% (24/456) with no indication for imaging had clinically significant arterial injuries. Significant positive correlations were rapidly expanding hematoma (p = 0.009), an absent pulse (p < 0.001), and a diminished pulse (p < 0.001). Significant negative correlations were proximity to a major artery (p = 0.005) and no clinical indication provided (p < 0.001).
conclusionThere is poor correlation between clinical details provided and the presence of arterial injury at our institution. In this context, CTA serves a pivotal role in the definitive identification of arterial injury.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33619684What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.