Trauma
Majid Zamani; Farhad Heydari; Mehrdad Esmailian
Volume 5, Issue 1 , January 2019, , Pages 14-18
Abstract
Objective: The present study examines the diagnostic accuracy of abdominal ultrasonography and urinalysis test in children with blunt abdominal trauma, compared with CT scan. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic value of ultrasound and urinalysis test with CT scan as a golden standard ...
Read More
Objective: The present study examines the diagnostic accuracy of abdominal ultrasonography and urinalysis test in children with blunt abdominal trauma, compared with CT scan. The aim of this study was to compare the diagnostic value of ultrasound and urinalysis test with CT scan as a golden standard diagnostic method in predicting abdominal peritoneal injury in these patients.Methods: This prospective study, based on diagnostic accuracy evaluation, was performed on children with blunt abdominal traumas less than 12 years of age who were referred to the emergency department from 2017-2018 and for whom abdominal ultrasonography, urinalysis and abdominal CT scans were requested. Demographic data, mechanism of trauma, the results of urine tests, ultrasound and CT scan of the abdomen were recorded. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were used to measure the diagnostic power of the tests.Results: In this study, 100 children with multiple traumas were included. The mean age of these patients was 5.75 ± 3 years with a range of 1-12 years. In terms of sexual distribution, 69 (69%) were boys and 31 (31%) were girls. According to the results, ultrasound with an abnormal urinalysis test had sensitivity of 85.7%, specificity of 91.9%, positive predictive value of 63.2% and negative predictive value of 97.5%. The accuracy was 91%.Conclusion: According to the results of this study, the combination of ultrasonography and urinalysis resulted in a significant increase in diagnostic value (P <0.001). Pediatric patients with a negative ultrasonography and urinalysis test should be observed rather than subjected to the radiation risk of CT.
Emergency medicine
Farhad Heydari; Shiva Samsam Shariat; Saeed Majidinejad; Babak Masoumi
Volume 4, Issue 1 , January 2018, , Pages 24-28
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to use ultrasonography for the diagnosis and confirmation of Pulled Elbow treatment.Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study initiated in 2014 and continued until 2015. We used simple sampling method and recruited 60 samples among patients aged 4 months to ...
Read More
Objective: The aim of this study was to use ultrasonography for the diagnosis and confirmation of Pulled Elbow treatment.Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study initiated in 2014 and continued until 2015. We used simple sampling method and recruited 60 samples among patients aged 4 months to 6 years. The apparatus used in this study was an ultrasonogram with transducer 12 MHz probe. Ultrasound evaluation of both hands was undertaken and after reduction, the physical examination was performed to confirm the diagnosis made by ultrasonography. Then, the results were recorded by a physician in a checklist and entered into SPSS software (version 20) for further analysis.Results: In this study, 60 children with pulled elbow injuries were studied. Of these, 27 patients (45%) were girls (female) and 33 (55%) were boys (male). This indicates the higher incidence of injury among males than females. The highest incidence of pulled elbow injury was observed in children aged 3 (15%). The accuracy of ultrasonography method for the confirmation of treatment was reported to be 92%.Conclusion: This study aimed to confirm the considered therapeutic method based on the result of ultrasonography performed after the treatment. Accordingly, the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography in confirming the considered therapeutic method for the treatment of pulled elbow was obtained higher than 90%.