These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Evaluation of possible traumatic thoracic aortic injury using aortography and CT.
    Author: Fenner MN, Fisher KS, Sergel NL, Porter DB, Metzmaker CO.
    Journal: Am Surg; 1990 Aug; 56(8):497-9. PubMed ID: 2375550.
    Abstract:
    To identify and compare the methods of evaluation for suspected traumatic aortic rupture, 1,031 trauma charts from 1983-1989 were reviewed. Fifty-nine patients were evaluated for possible aortic injury. Patients who died before completion of the CT or aortogram were excluded. Widening of the mediastinum on chest x ray was the most frequent indication for follow-up studies. Twenty-five had a CT of the aortic arch alone. No study showed disruption. There were no false negative studies. Thirty patients had only aortography. Twenty-four were read as normal (one false negative). Six were read as positive (one false positive). In four, both studies were performed (CT/aortography--TP/TP, TN/TN, TP/FN, FP/FP). (FP = False Positive, TP = True Positive, FN = False Negative, TN = True Negative.) Six received surgical repair of the aortic injury (one death). In this experience, CT was used successfully as a screening tool for aortic disruption. It was highly sensitive in recognizing aortic injuries when present (100% vs. 75% for aortography) and in most cases did not require aortographic verification. False positive rates were comparable (CT = 3.8%, aortography = 7.7%). Specificity was also comparable (CT = 96%, aortography = 92%). Overall, four aortograms were inaccurate while only one CT was inaccurate. We recommend the use of CT for the evaluation of widened mediastinum in the stable patient.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]