HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) AVI Movies All Versions of this Article: 2463070652v1 246/3/903    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Google Scholar Articles by Valentino, M. Articles by Barozzi, L. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Valentino, M. Articles by Barozzi, L.

Blunt Abdominal Trauma: Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-enhanced US in Children—Initial Experience¹

¹ From the Department of Emergency, Surgery, and Transplants, Radiology Unit (M.V., L.B.); Department of Internal Medicine and Gastroenterology (C.S., A.M.M.L.); Department of Radiology (P.P.); Department of Pediatric Surgery (M.L.); and Anesthesia Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (S.B.), S. Orsola-Malpighi, University Hospital, Via Massarenti 9, 40138 Bologna, Italy. Received April 11, 2007; revision requested June 11; revision received July 3; accepted August 1; final version accepted September 25. Address correspondence to M.V. (e-mail: valentino{at}aosp.bo.it).

Purpose: To prospectively compare the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasonography (US) with those of contrast material–enhanced US in the depiction of solid organ injuries in children with blunt abdominal trauma, with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) as the reference standard.

Materials and Methods: The study protocol was approved by the ethics board, and written informed consent was obtained from parents. US, contrast-enhanced US, and contrast-enhanced CT were performed in 27 consecutive children (19 boys, eight girls; mean age, 8.9 years ± 2.8 [standard deviation]) with blunt abdominal trauma to determine if solid abdominal organ injuries were present. Sensitivity, specificity, agreement, accuracy, number of lesions correctly identified, and positive and negative predictive values were determined for US and contrast-enhanced US, as compared with contrast-enhanced CT.

Results: In 15 patients, contrast-enhanced CT findings were negative. Contrast-enhanced CT depicted 14 solid organ injuries in 12 patients. Lesions were in the spleen (n = 7), liver (n = 4), right kidney (n = 1), right adrenal gland (n = 1), and pancreas (n = 1). Contrast-enhanced US depicted 13 of the 14 lesions in 12 patients with positive contrast-enhanced CT findings and no lesions in the patients with negative contrast-enhanced CT findings. Unenhanced US depicted free fluid in two of 15 patients with negative contrast-enhanced CT findings and free fluid, parenchymal lesions, or both in eight of 12 patients with positive contrast-enhanced CT findings. Overall, the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced US was better than that of US, as sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 92.2%, 100%, 100%, and 93.8%, respectively.

Conclusion: Contrast-enhanced US was almost as accurate as contrast-enhanced CT in depicting solid organ injuries in children.

Supplemental material: http://radiology.rsnajnls.org/cgi/content/full/2463070652/DC1

© RSNA, 2008