Файловый архив студентов. Файловый архив студентов.
1327 вузов, 5482 предметов.
/ Регистрация
FAQ Обратная связь Вопросы и предложения
Добавил:
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Ростовский Государственный Медицинский Университет
Предмет:
Медицина общая
Файл:
Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5198_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана.pdf
Скачиваний:
0
Добавлен:
30.08.2026
Размер:
61 Мб
Скачать
☆
►Содержание►
376
C. Batson et al.
10. Timofeev I, Carpenter KLH, Nortje J, Al-Rawi PG, O’Connell MT, Czosnyka M, etal. Cerebral extracellular chemistry and outcome following traumatic brain injury: a microdialysis study of 223 patients. Brain. 2011;134(Pt 2):484–94.
11. Hasen M, Almojuela A, Zeiler FA.Autonomic dysfunction and asso­ciations with functional and neurophysiological outcome in moder­ate/severe traumatic brain injury: a scoping review. J Neurotrauma [Internet]. [cited 2020 Sep 26]. 2019;36(10):1491–504. Available from: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/neu.2018.6073
12. Lazaridis C, DeSantis SM, Smielewski P, Menon DK, Hutchinson P, Pickard JD, etal. Patient-specic thresholds of intracranial pressure in severe traumatic brain injury. J Neurosurg. 2014;120(4):893–900.
13. Zeiler FA, McFadyen C, Newcombe VFJ, Synnot A, Donoghue EL, Ripatti S, et al. Genetic inuences on patient-oriented out­comes in traumatic brain injury: a living systematic review of non­apolipoprotein E single-nucleotide polymorphisms. J Neurotrauma. 2019;38:1107.
14. Beqiri E, Smielewski P, Robba C, Czosnyka M, Cabeleira MT, Tas J, etal. Feasibility of individualised severe traumatic brain injury management using an automated assessment of optimal cerebral perfusion pressure: the COGiTATE phase II study protocol. BMJ Open. 2019;9(9):e030727.
15. James D, Pennardt AM. Trauma care principles. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island: StatPearls Publishing; 2020. [cited 2020 Oct 3]. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/
NBK547757/.
16. Hawryluk GWJ, Aguilera S, Buki A, Bulger E, Citerio G, Cooper DJ, etal. A management algorithm for patients with intracranial pressure monitoring: the Seattle International Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Consensus Conference (SIBICC). Intensive Care Med [Internet]. 2019;45(12):1783–94. [cited 2020 Oct 3]. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00134- 019- 05805- 9
17. Zeiler FA, Czosnyka M.Monitoring in neurotrauma. In p.24.
18. Chesnut R, Aguilera S, Buki A, Bulger E, Citerio G, Cooper DJ, et al. A management algorithm for adult patients with both brain oxygen and intracranial pressure monitoring: the Seattle International Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Consensus Conference (SIBICC). Intensive Care Med. 2020;46(5):919–29.
19. Zeiler FA, Ercole A, Cabeleira M, Beqiri E, Zoerle T, Carbonara M, etal. Compensatory-reserve-weighted intracranial pressure ver­sus intracranial pressure for outcome association in adult traumatic brain injury: a CENTER-TBI validation study. Acta Neurochir. 2019;161(7):1275–84.
20. Hasen M, Gomez A, Froese L, Dian J, Raj R, Thelin EP, et al. Alternative continuous intracranial pressure-derived cerebro­vascular reactivity metrics in traumatic brain injury: a scop­ing overview. Acta Neurochir [Internet]. [cited 2020 Sep 26]. 2020;162(7):1647–62. Available from: http://link.springer.
com/10.1007/s00701- 020- 04378- 7
21. Gomez A, Dian J, Zeiler FA.Continuous and entirely non- invasive method for cerebrovascular reactivity assessment: technique and implications. J Clin Monit Comput [Internet]. 2020. [cited 2020 Sep 26]; Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/
s10877- 020- 00472- 4;35:307.
22. Güiza F, Meyfroidt G, Piper I, Citerio G, Chambers I, Enblad P, et al. Cerebral perfusion pressure insults and associations with outcome in adult traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2017;34(16):2425–31.
23. Thiara S, Griesdale DE, Henderson WR, Sekhon MS. Effect of cerebral perfusion pressure on acute respiratory distress syndrome. Can J Neurol Sci. 2018;45(3):313–9.
24. Aaslid R, Markwalder T-M, Nornes H.Noninvasive transcranial Doppler ultrasound recording of ow velocity in basal cerebral arter­ies. J Neurosurg [Internet] [cited 2020 Nov 18]. 1982;57(6):769–74. Available from: https://thejns.org/view/journals/j- neurosurg/57/6/
article- p769.xml
25. Aaslid R.The Doppler principle applied to measurement of blood ow velocity in cerebral arteries. In: Aaslid R, editor. Transcranial Doppler Sonography [Internet]. Vienna: Springer Vienna; [cited 2020 Nov 18]; 1986. p.22–38. Available from: http://link.springer.
com/10.1007/978- 3- 7091- 8864- 4_3.
26. Goraj B, Rifkinson-Mann S, Leslie DR, Lansen TA, Kasoff SS, Tenner MS.Correlation of intracranial pressure and transcranial doppler resistive index after head trauma. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 1994;15:1333.
27. Kashif FM, Verghese GC, Novak V, Czosnyka M, Heldt T.Model­based noninvasive estimation of intracranial pressure from cerebral blood ow velocity and arterial pressure. Sci Transl Med [Internet]. [cited 2020 Nov 18]. 2012;4(129):129ra44–4. Available from: https://stm.sciencemag.org/lookup/doi/10.1126/
scitranslmed.3003249
28. Zweifel C, Czosnyka M, Carrera E, de Riva N, Pickard JD, Smielewski P. Reliability of the blood ow velocity Pulsatility index for assessment of intracranial and cerebral perfusion pres­sures in head-injured patients. Neurosurgery [Internet]. [cited 2020 Nov 18]. 2012;71(4):853–61. Available from: https://academic.
oup.com/neurosurgery/article/71/4/853/2594044
29. Cardim D, Robba C, Bohdanowicz M, Donnelly J, Cabella B, Liu X, et al. Non-invasive monitoring of intracranial pressure using transcranial Doppler ultrasonography: is it possible? Neurocrit Care [Internet]. [cited 2020 Nov 18]. 2016;25(3):473–91. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s12028- 016- 0258- 6
30. Czosnyka M, Kirkpatrick PJ.Cerebral perfusion pressure in head­injured patients: a noninvasive assessment using transcranial Doppler ultrasonography. J Neurosurg. 1998;88:7.
31. Tazarourte K, Atchabahian A, Tourtier J-P, David J-S, Ract C, Savary D, etal. Pre-hospital transcranial Doppler in severe trau­matic brain injury: a pilot study: pre-hospital transcranial Doppler. Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica [Internet]. [cited 2020 Nov 18] 2011;55(4):422–428. Available from: http://doi.wiley.
com/10.1111/j.1399- 6576.2010.02372.x
32. Okonkwo DO, Shutter LA, Moore C, Temkin NR, Puccio AM, Madden CJ, etal. Brain oxygen optimization in severe traumatic brain injury phase-II: a phase II randomized trial. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(11):1907–14.
33. Zeiler FA, Thelin EP, Helmy A, Czosnyka M, Hutchinson PJA, Menon DK. A systematic review of cerebral microdialysis and outcomes in TBI: relationships to patient functional outcome, neurophysiologic measures, and tissue outcome. Acta Neurochir [Internet]. [cited 2020 Sep 26]. 2017;159(12):2245–73. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00701- 017- 3338- 2
34. Mathieu F, Khellaf A, Thelin EP, Zeiler FA.Continuous thermal diffusion-based cerebral blood ow monitoring in adult traumatic brain injury: a scoping systematic review. J Neurotrauma [Internet]. [cited 2020 Sep 26]. 2019;36(11):1707–23. Available from: https://
www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/neu.2018.6309
35. Rosenthal G, Sanchez-Mejia RO, Phan N, Hemphill JC, Martin C, Manley GT.Incorporating a parenchymal thermal diffusion cere­bral blood ow probe in bedside assessment of cerebral autoreg­ulation and vasoreactivity in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. J Neurosurg. 2011;114(1):62–70.
36. Le Roux P, Menon DK, Citerio G, Vespa P, Bader MK, Brophy GM, et al. Consensus summary statement of the International Multidisciplinary Consensus Conference on Multimodality Monitoring in Neurocritical Care: a statement for healthcare pro­fessionals from the Neurocritical Care Society and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Neurocrit Care. 2014;21(Suppl
2):S1–26.
37. Dickman CA, Carter LP, Baldwin HZ, Harrington T, Tallman D. Continuous regional cerebral blood ow monitoring in acute craniocerebral trauma. Neurosurgery. 1991;28(3):467–72.
43 Advanced Neuromonitoring forModerate andSevere Traumatic Brain Injury
377
38. Schröder ML, Muizelaar JP. Monitoring of regional cere­bral blood ow (CBF) in acute head injury by thermal diffu­sion. In: Unterberg AW, Schneider G-H, Lanksch WR, editors. Monitoring of cerebral blood ow and metabolism in intensive care [internet], vol. 59. Vienna: Springer Vienna; [cited 2020 Nov 18]; 1993. p. 47–9. Available from: http://link.springer.
com/10.1007/978- 3- 7091- 9302- 0_8.
39. Valadka AB, Hlatky R, Furuya Y, Robertson CS.Brain Tissue P02: Correlation with Cerebral Blood Flow: 2.
40. Hutchinson PJ, Jalloh I, Helmy A, Carpenter KLH, Rostami E, Bellander B-M, et al. Consensus statement from the 2014 International Microdialysis Forum. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(9):1517–28.
41. Mathieu F, Khellaf A, Ku JC, Donnelly J, Thelin EP, Zeiler FA. Continuous near-infrared spectroscopy monitoring in adult traumatic brain injury: a systematic review. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol [Internet] [cited 2020 Sep 26]. 2020;32(4):288–99. Available from:
https://journals.lww.com/10.1097/ANA.0000000000000620
42. Oddo M, Schmidt JM, Carrera E, Badjatia N, Connolly ES, Presciutti M, et al. Impact of tight glycemic control on cerebral glucose metabolism after severe brain injury: a microdialysis study. Crit Care Med. 2008;36(12):3233–8.
43. Stein NR, McArthur DL, Etchepare M, Vespa PM. Early cerebral metabolic crisis after TBI inuences outcome despite adequate hemodynamic resuscitation. Neurocrit Care. 2012;17(1):49–57.
44. Vespa PM, McArthur D, O’Phelan K, Glenn T, Etchepare M, Kelly D, etal. Persistently low extracellular glucose correlates with poor outcome 6 months after human traumatic brain injury despite a lack of increased lactate: a microdialysis study. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2003;23(7):865–77.
45. Wijayatilake DS, Talati C, Panchatsharam S. The monitoring and Management of Severe Traumatic Brain Injury in the United Kingdom: is there a consensus? J Neurosurg Anesthesiol [Internet] [cited 2020 Nov 18]. 2015;27(3):241–5. Available from: http://jour-
nals.lww.com/00008506- 201507000- 00007
46. van Santbrink H, Schouten JW, Steyerberg EW, Avezaat CJJ, Maas AIR.Serial Transcranial Doppler Measurements in Traumatic Brain Injury with Special Focus on the Early Posttraumatic Period: 9.
47. Zurynski YA, Dorsch NWC, Fearnside MR.Incidence and effects of increased cerebral blood ow velocity after severe head injury: a transcranial Doppler ultrasound study II.Effect of vasospasm and hyperemia on outcome. J Neurol Sci [Internet]. [cited 2020 Nov 18]. 1995;134(1–2):41–6. Available from: https://linkinghub.else-
vier.com/retrieve/pii/0022510X9500178X
48. Chan K-H, Miller JD, Dearden NM, Andrews PJD, Midgley S.The effect of changes in cerebral perfusion pressure upon middle cere­bral artery blood ow velocity and jugular bulb venous oxygen saturation after severe brain injury. J Neurosurg [Internet]. [cited 2020 Nov 18]. 1992;77(1):55–61. Available from: https://thejns.
org/view/journals/j- neurosurg/77/1/article- p55.xml
49. Moreno JA, Mesalles E, Gener J, Tomasa A, Ley A, Roca J, etal. Evaluating the outcome of severe head injury with transcranial Doppler ultrasonography. Neurosurg Focus. 2000;8(1):e8.
50. Fatima N, Shuaib A, Chughtai TS, Ayyad A, Saqqur M.The role of transcranial Doppler in traumatic brain injury: a systemic review and meta-analysis. Asian J Neurosurg. 2019;14(3):626–33.
51. Sokoloff C, Williamson D, Serri K, Albert M, Odier C, Charbonney E, et al. Clinical usefulness of transcranial Doppler as a screen­ing tool for early cerebral hypoxic episodes in patients with moderate and severe traumatic brain injury. Neurocrit Care. 2020;32(2):486–91.
52. Ziegler D, Cravens G, Angles G, Gandhi R, Cho P.Use of transcra­nial Doppler in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Crit Care [Internet]. [cited 2020 Nov 18]. 2010;14(Suppl 1):P292. Available from: http://ccforum.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/cc8524
53. Zweifel C, Castellani G, Czosnyka M, Helmy A, Manktelow A, Carrera E, etal. Noninvasive monitoring of cerebrovascular reac­tivity with near infrared spectroscopy in head-injured patients. J Neurotrauma [Internet]. [cited 2020 Nov 18]. 2010;27(11):1951–8. Available from: http://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/
neu.2010.1388
54. Weatherall A, Skowno J, Lansdown A, Lupton T, Garner A. Feasibility of cerebral near-infrared spectroscopy monitor­ing in the pre-hospital environment. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2012;56(2):172–7.
55. Storm C, Leithner C, Krannich A, Wutzler A, Ploner CJ, Trenkmann L.Regional cerebral oxygen saturation after cardiac arrest in 60 patients—A prospective outcome study. 2014;5
56. Alotaiby T, El-Samie FEA, Alshebeili SA, Ahmad I.A review of channel selection algorithms for EEG signal processing. EURASIP J Adv Signal Process [Internet]. [cited 2020 Nov 19]. 2015, 2015;(1):66. Available from: https://asp- eurasipjournals.spring-
eropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13634- 015- 0251- 9
57. Guideline Three: Minimum Technical Standards for EEG Recording in Suspected Cerebral Death. J Clin Neurophysiol [Internet]. [cited 2020 Nov 19]. 1986;3:12–7. Available from: http://journals.lww.
com/00004691- 198610001- 00004
58. Tackla R, Hinzman JM, Foreman B, Magner M, Andaluz N, Hartings JA. Assessment of cerebrovascular autoregulation using regional cerebral blood ow in surgically managed brain trauma patients. Neurocrit Care [Internet]. [cited 2020 Nov 19]. 2015;23(3):339–46. Available from: http://link.springer.
com/10.1007/s12028- 015- 0146- 5
59. Lassen NA.Regulation of cerebral circulation. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Suppl. 1971;45:78–80.
60. Sánchez-Porras R, Santos E, Czosnyka M, Zheng Z, Unterberg AW, Sakowitz OW. ‘Long’ pressure reactivity index (L-PRx) as a measure of autoregulation correlates with outcome in traumatic brain injury patients. Acta Neurochir [Internet]. [cited 2020 Nov 19]. 2012;154(9):1575–81. Available from: http://link.springer.
com/10.1007/s00701- 012- 1423- 0
61. Czosnyka M, Smielewski P, Kirkpatrick P, Laing RJ, Menon D, Pickard JD. Continuous assessment of the cerebral vasomotor reactivity in head injury. Neurosurgery [Internet]. [cited 2020 Nov 17]. 1997;41(1):11–9. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/
neurosurgery/article/41/1/11/2859060
62. Brady KM, Lee JK, Kibler KK, Easley RB, Koehler RC, Shaffner DH. Continuous measurement of autoregulation by spontaneous uctuations in cerebral perfusion pressure: comparison of 3 meth­ods. Stroke. 2008;39(9):2531–7.
63. Zeiler FA, Donnelly J, Calviello L, Lee JK, Smielewski P, Brady K, etal. Validation of pressure reactivity and pulse amplitude indices against the lower limit of autoregulation, part I: experimental intra­cranial hypertension. J Neurotrauma. 2018;35(23):2803–11.
64. Zeiler FA, Lee JK, Smielewski P, Czosnyka M, Brady K.Validation of intracranial pressure-derived cerebrovascular reactivity indices against the lower limit of autoregulation, part II: experimental model of arterial hypotension. J Neurotrauma. 2018;35(23):2812–9.
65. Sorrentino E, Diedler J, Kasprowicz M, Budohoski KP, Haubrich C, Smielewski P, etal. Critical thresholds for cerebrovascular reactiv­ity after traumatic brain injury. Neurocrit Care. 2012;16(2):258–66.
66. Donnelly J, Czosnyka M, Adams H, Cardim D, Kolias AG, Zeiler FA, etal. Twenty-ve years of intracranial pressure monitoring after severe traumatic brain injury: a retrospective, single-center analysis. Neurosurgery. 2019;85(1):E75–82.
67. Zeiler FA, Donnelly J, Smielewski P, Menon DK, Hutchinson PJ, Czosnyka M. Critical thresholds of intracranial pressure-derived continuous cerebrovascular reactivity indices for outcome predic­tion in noncraniectomized patients with traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2018;35(10):1107–15.
378
C. Batson et al.
68. Zeiler FA, Ercole A, Beqiri E, Cabeleira M, Thelin EP, Stocchetti N, etal. Association between cerebrovascular reactivity monitor­ing and mortality is preserved when adjusting for baseline admis­sion characteristics in adult traumatic brain injury: a CENTER-TBI study. J Neurotrauma. 2020;37(10):1233–41.
69. Mathieu F, Zeiler FA, Ercole A, Monteiro M, Kamnitsas K, Glocker B, et al. Relationship between measures of cerebrovas­cular reactivity and intracranial lesion progression in acute trau­matic brain injury patients: a CENTER-TBI study. J Neurotrauma. 2020;37(13):1556–65.
70. Zeiler FA, Beqiri E, Cabeleira M, Hutchinson PJ, Stocchetti N, Menon DK, etal. Brain tissue oxygen and cerebrovascular reactiv­ity in traumatic brain injury: a collaborative European NeuroTrauma effectiveness research in traumatic brain injury exploratory analysis of insult burden. J Neurotrauma. 2020;37(17):1854–63.
71. Zeiler FA, Ercole A, Cabeleira M, Stocchetti N, Hutchinson PJ, Smielewski P, etal. Descriptive analysis of low versus elevated intracranial pressure on cerebral physiology in adult traumatic brain injury: a CENTER-TBI exploratory study. Acta Neurochir. 2020;162(11):2695–706.
72. Zeiler FA, Kim D-J, Cabeleira M, Calviello L, Smielewski P, Czosnyka M.Impaired cerebral compensatory reserve is associated with admission imaging characteristics of diffuse insult in trau­matic brain injury. Acta Neurochir. 2018;160(12):2277–87.
73. Kim D-J, Czosnyka Z, Keong N, Radolovich DK, Smielewski P, Sutcliffe MPF, etal. Index of cerebrospinal compensatory reserve in hydrocephalus. Neurosurgery. 2009;64(3):494–501. discussion 501–502
74. Calviello L, Donnelly J, Cardim D, Robba C, Zeiler FA, Smielewski P, etal. Compensatory-reserve-weighted intracranial pressure and its association with outcome after traumatic brain injury. Neurocrit Care. 2018;28(2):212–20.
75. Le Roux P, Menon DK, Citerio G, Vespa P, Bader MK, Brophy G, etal. The international multidisciplinary consensus conference on multimodality monitoring in neurocritical care: evidentiary tables: a statement for healthcare professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Neurocrit Care. 2014;21(Suppl 2):S297–361.
76. Bennis FC, Teeuwen B, Zeiler FA, Elting JW, van der Naalt J, Bonizzi P, etal. Improving prediction of favourable outcome after 6 months in patients with severe traumatic brain injury using physi­ological cerebral parameters in a multivariable logistic regression model. Neurocrit Care. 2020;33(2):542–51.
77. Zeiler FA, Ercole A, Beqiri E, Cabeleira M, Aries M, Zoerle T, etal. Cerebrovascular reactivity is not associated with therapeutic inten­sity in adult traumatic brain injury: a CENTER-TBI analysis. Acta Neurochir. 2019;161(9):1955–64.
78. Froese L, Batson C, Gomez A, Dian J, Zeiler FA. The limited impact of current therapeutic interventions on cerebrovascular reactivity in traumatic brain injury: a narrative overview. Neurocrit Care. 2020;34:325.
79. Aries MJH, Czosnyka M, Budohoski KP, Steiner LA, Lavinio A, Kolias AG, etal. Continuous determination of optimal cere­bral perfusion pressure in traumatic brain injury. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(8):2456–63.
80. Steiner LA, Czosnyka M, Piechnik SK, Smielewski P, Chateld D, Menon DK, etal. Continuous monitoring of cerebrovascular pres­sure reactivity allows determination of optimal cerebral perfusion pressure in patients with traumatic brain injury. Crit Care Med. 2002;30(4):733–8.
81. Needham E, McFadyen C, Newcombe V, Synnot AJ, Czosnyka M, Menon D. Cerebral perfusion pressure targets individualized to pressure-reactivity index in moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: a systematic review. J Neurotrauma. 2017;34(5):963–70.
82. Zeiler FA, Ercole A, Cabeleira M, Carbonara M, Stocchetti N, Menon DK, etal. Comparison of performance of different optimal
cerebral perfusion pressure parameters for outcome prediction in adult traumatic brain injury: a collaborative European NeuroTrauma effectiveness research in traumatic brain injury (CENTER-TBI) study. J Neurotrauma. 2019;36(10):1505–17.
83. Zeiler FA, Ercole A, Cabeleira M, Beqiri E, Zoerle T, Carbonara M, etal. Patient-specic ICP epidemiologic thresholds in adult trau­matic brain injury: a CENTER-TBI validation study. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2019 Jun;18:28.
84. Zeiler FA, Ercole A, Czosnyka M, Smielewski P, Hawryluk G, Hutchinson PJA, etal. Continuous cerebrovascular reactivity moni­toring in moderate/severe traumatic brain injury: a narrative review of advances in neurocritical care. Brit J Anaesthesia [Internet]. [cited 2020 Sep 26]. 2020;124(4):440–53. Available from: https://
linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0007091219309663
85. McFadyen CA, Zeiler FA, Newcombe V, Synnot A, Steyerberg E, Gruen RL, etal. Apolipoprotein E4 polymorphism and outcomes from traumatic brain injury: a living systematic review and meta­analysis. J Neurotrauma. 2019;17
86. Thelin EP, Zeiler FA, Ercole A, Mondello S, Büki A, Bellander B-M, etal. Serial sampling of serum protein biomarkers for moni­toring human traumatic brain injury dynamics: a systematic review. Front Neurol. 2017;8:300.
87. Maas AIR, Menon DK, Steyerberg EW, Citerio G, Lecky F, Manley GT, et al. Collaborative European NeuroTrauma effectiveness research in traumatic brain injury (CENTER-TBI): a prospective longitudinal observational study. Neurosurgery. 2015;76(1):67–80.
88. Bernard F, Gallagher C, Griesdale D, Kramer A, Sekhon M, Zeiler FA.The CAnadian high-resolution traumatic brain injury (CAHR­TBI) research collaborative. Can J Neurol Sci. 2020;47(4):551–6.
89. Guilfoyle MR, Carpenter KLH, Helmy A, Pickard JD, Menon DK, Hutchinson PJA. Matrix metalloproteinase expression in contusional traumatic brain injury: a paired microdialysis study. J Neurotrauma. 2015;32(20):1553–9.
90. Zeiler FA, Thelin EP, Czosnyka M, Hutchinson PJ, Menon DK, Helmy A.Cerebrospinal uid and microdialysis cytokines in severe traumatic brain injury: a scoping systematic review. Front Neurol. 2017;8:331.
91. Needham EJ, Helmy A, Zanier ER, Jones JL, Coles AJ, Menon DK. The immunological response to traumatic brain injury. J Neuroimmunol. 2019;332:112–25.
92. Killen MJ, Giorgi-Coll S, Helmy A, Hutchinson PJ, Carpenter KL.Metabolism and inammation: implications for traumatic brain injury therapeutics. Expert Rev Neurother. 2019;19(3):227–42.
93. Orešič M, Posti JP, Kamstrup-Nielsen MH, Takala RSK, Lingsma HF, Mattila I, etal. Human serum metabolites associate with sever­ity and patient outcomes in traumatic brain injury. EBioMedicine. 2016;12:118–26.
94. Helmy A, Guilfoyle MR, Carpenter KLH, Pickard JD, Menon DK, Hutchinson PJ.Recombinant human interleukin-1 receptor antago­nist promotes M1 microglia biased cytokines and chemokines fol­lowing human traumatic brain injury. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab. 2016;36(8):1434–48.
95. Thelin EP, Carpenter KLH, Hutchinson PJ, Helmy A.Microdialysis monitoring in clinical traumatic brain injury and its role in neuro­protective drug development. AAPS J. 2017;19(2):367–76.
96. Yue JK, Vassar MJ, Lingsma HF, Cooper SR, Okonkwo DO, Valadka AB, etal. Transforming research and clinical knowledge in traumatic brain injury pilot: multicenter implementation of the common data elements for traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2013;30(22):1831–44.
97. Thelin EP, Raj R, Bellander B-M, Nelson D, Piippo-Karjalainen A, Siironen J, etal. Comparison of high versus low frequency cere­bral physiology for cerebrovascular reactivity assessment in trau­matic brain injury: a multi-center pilot study. J Clin Monit Comput. 2020;34(5):971–94.
Part V
Emergency Ultrasound and Trauma Imaging

Basic Trauma Ultrasound

MarkusZiesmann, AndrewW.Kirkpatrick, andLawrenceMarshall Gillman
44

Introduction

During the assessment of an acutely unstable trauma patient, favor is given to rapid investigations which will expedite denitive care. In conjunction with the chest and pelvis X-rays, the Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma, or FAST, is perhaps the most readily available diag­nostic tool that is capable of changing the management of that patient. This role had historically been fullled by Diagnostic Peritoneal Lavage (DPL), but the quicker, nonin­vasive FAST scan has replaced DPL as the standard of care. Point-of-care ultrasound examination can be performed quickly, can expedite decision-making, and can diagnose surgical injuries faster, facilitating more rapid transition to the operating theatre.
The goal of the FAST exam is to identify free uid in the abdomen or around the pericardium. It is not possible to dif­ferentiate on FAST between blood, urine, amniotic uid, or GI contents, but in the context of a hemodynamically unsta­ble trauma victim, it is presumed that any free uid repre­sents intraabdominal hemorrhage, and thus any exam revealing free uid is a positive test. Notably, any of the men­tioned non-bloody uids found in an unstable patient would also represent a surgical diagnosis and, therefore, the goal of FAST is to diagnose free uid, not blood. The extended FAST (E-FAST) includes the addition of ultrasonography of the thorax to look for pneumothoraces and is discussed fur­ther in Chap. 45: Trauma Ultrasound: Beyond the FAST Exam.
M. Ziesmann (*) · L. Marshall Gillman Health Sciences Centre, Winnipeg, MB, Canada e-mail: mziesmann2@hsc.mb.ca; lawrence.gillman@umanitoba.ca
A. W. Kirkpatrick Trauma Services, Foothills Hospital, Calgary, AB, Canada e-mail: Andrew.Kirkpatrick@albertahealthservices.ca

The FAST Examination

Technique
Because most patients will be subject to spine mobility limi­tations at the time of the FAST exam, positioning simply requires a supine patient with a table parallel to the oor. The examination of all four sites may be performed in any order, so long as all four sites are imaged systematically and accu­rately. Some sonographers prefer to start the exam with the pericardial view which will allow for calibration of the device’s gain setting based on intra-cardiac blood. Others advocate starting the exam in the right upper quadrant, as this is the region most likely to yield positive ndings. Regardless of the order of exams, approaching the exam in a systematic and organized way is necessary to both learn the techniques and ensure that nothing is overlooked. Examination of the thorax if proceeding to an E-FAST exam occurs after the conventional FAST is complete.
The FAST exam is performed using a low frequency (2.5 to 5 MHz) curvilinear or phased array probe which will allow for adequate depth of visualization during the study. In brief, the ultrasound device creates images based on the detection of reected sound waves such that dense tissue appears bright white and non-echogenic tissue appears dark black on the ultrasound’s display. The exam may be made more difcult by the presence of obesity, gas-distended vis­cera, subcutaneous emphysema, or COPD [1], and the pres­ence of preexisting ascites makes the exam uninterpretable. An inverse relationship exists between the depth of penetra­tion and resolution of the scan; patients with a large body habitus may be difcult to investigate.
The pericardium is examined in the subxiphoid view using the liver as an acoustic window. The pericardium forms a potential space around the heart, sometimes containing a trivial amount of uid that would not be detected on FAST (Fig.44.1). Any anechoic uid seen within this space there­fore represents a positive study and a presumed diagnosis of hemopericardium. One common mistake in evaluating the
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2025 L. Marshall Gillman, S. Widder (eds.), Trauma Team Dynamics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-86312-7_44
381
382
M. Ziesmann et al.
a
Fig. 44.1 Pericardial view of the FAST exam - Image a shows a normal pericardium with no uid, while image b shows a positive pericardial FAST with uid indicated by the arrow
pericardium is to declare a positive study after mistaking epi­cardial fat for free uid; an epicardial fat pad is adherent to the cardiac tissue and will move with the cardiac contrac­tions. A false negative pericardial FAST exam may result from a large rent in the pericardium decompressing hemo­pericardium into the pleural space rather than developing a cardiac tamponade; considering the pericardial FAST in con­text with other clinical signs is important.
If the sonographer cannot obtain satisfactory views in the subxiphoid plane, a left parasternal approach may be attempted. The probe should be placed immediately to the left of the sternum at the fourth or fth intercostal space, initially with the probe marker to the patient’s right. After obtaining a view of the heart, the probe can be rotated with the marker toward the right shoulder and then the left shoul­der, for long-axis and short-axis views respectively. This technique may be preferred in patients with signicant obesity.
The view of the right upper quadrant also uses the liver as a sonographic window. The probe is placed on the patient between the anterior and mid-axillary line, positioning the probe in the eighth to eleventh intercostal space, parallel to the ribs. Angle the probe counter-clockwise to minimize rib shadows if necessary. The probe indicator should be oriented toward the patient’s head. Proper examination of the right upper quadrant should visualize the liver edge, the inferior pole of the right kidney, and Morison’s Pouch (the potential space between the liver and the right kidney, or the hepatore­nal space) (Fig.44.2). Landmarking Morison’s Pouch may be made easier by identifying the bright white Gerota’s fas­cia of the kidneys posteriorly. No single probe orientation will adequately visualize all of these landmarks and thus sweeping of the probe, moving the probe superiorly or infe-
b
ling their breathing to allow adequate visualization. Visualization of an anechoic (black) stripe between the liver and kidney or near the tip of the liver is considered a positive exam.
Proceeding in a clockwise manner to the left upper quad­rant, the spleen is used as a sonographic window and the probe is placed on the posterior axillary line at the eighth or ninth intercostal space. Again, the probe indicator is pointed toward the patient’s head and the probe may need to be rotated to minimize rib shadows. Examining the left upper quadrant requires visualization of the subphrenic and peri­splenic spaces and the left kidney (Fig. 44.3). The probe must be systematically swept, moved, or angled to visualize all three spaces. Anechoic (black) blood may be seen between the spleen and kidney or often above the spleen and just under the diaphragm with either of these ndings being con­sidered a positive test.
Finally, the pelvic view is obtained by using the bladder as a sonographic window (Fig.44.4). While we describe this as a pelvis view, the view obtained is actually the inferior abdomen; the anatomic pelvis is a retroperitoneal location, and the FAST does not function well at nding retroperito­neal uid. A good pelvic view is dependent on a full bladder, as an empty bladder limits the ability to detect small amounts of free uid. In patients with a urinary catheter inserted, the examiner may clamp this catheter or instill up to 200cc of warm isotonic uid to optimize the study. The pelvic view is obtained with a sagittal probe orientation, again orienting the marker toward the patient’s head. The probe is swept from right to left or vice versa, paying attention to the retro­vesicular space in males and the retro-uterine space in females for the presence of anechoic (black) free uid. As before the presence of anechoic uid is considered a positive
riorly, and/or angling cephalad and caudad may be required. An awake and responsive patient may be coached on control-
and the pelvis reexamined.
44 Basic Trauma Ultrasound
383
Fig. 44.2 Right upper quadrant (RUQ) view of the FAST exam - Image a shows a normal RUQ view with no uid in the hepatorenal space (arrow), while image b shows a positive RUQ FAST with uid indicated by the arrow
a
a
b
b
Fig. 44.3 Left upper quadrant (LUQ) view of the FAST exam - Image a shows a normal LUQ view with no uid in the splenorenal space (arrow), while image b shows a positive LUQ FAST with uid indicated by the arrow
A positive FAST is one that demonstrates any free uid anywhere. Even if some views are incomplete, the presence of even a single positive view renders the exam positive. A negative FAST is one that demonstrates no uid everywhere; all four sites must be adequately and completely imaged without positive ndings. If any view of any space is not adequately visualized, but the visualized spaces are negative, the exam must be scored “indeterminate” and the patient will require further investigation.
tions, including a 28% reduction in CT scans, and an 89% reduction in DPL performance [3].
One review compared the FAST to various examinations and investigations in blunt trauma patients, concluding that a positive FAST is better at detecting intra-abdominal injuries than exam ndings of rebound tenderness, seatbelt signs, hypotension, abdominal distention, and guarding and also was better than adjunct investigations including reported base decits, deranged liver enzymes, anemia, or an abnor­mal chest X-ray. The presence of free intraperitoneal uid on bedside ultrasonography corresponds to a likelihood ratio of
Uses
30 that there is indeed an intraabdominal injury [4].
Perhaps the biggest advantage that FAST provides a
Blunt Abdominal Trauma
FAST is best studied in the context of blunt abdominal trauma. The Sonographic Outcomes Assessment Program (SOAP) trial was a prospective randomized study that con­cluded that FAST offered signicant benets including a 64% reduced time to operative intervention, decreased num­bers of computed tomography (CT) scans, a 27% decrease in length of hospital stay, fewer complications, and a signicant cost savings [2]. Investigation with FAST has been shown to signicantly change management plans in 33% of applica-
Trauma Team Leader is its ready availability as a bedside tool. In circumstances of hemodynamic instability which would normally preclude CT scanning, the sensitivity of FAST is greatly increased. The sensitivity of ultrasound in the hypotensive trauma population approaches 100% [5, 6]. In an unstable patient, sonographic examinations can be completed in 2–4min [5, 7, 8]. Up to 90% of patients with massive hemoperitoneum may be identied by examining only Morison’s Pouch [6], with a mean examination time in one study of only 19s for patients with positive ndings [5].
384
M. Ziesmann et al.
Fig. 44.4 Pelvic view of the FAST exam - Image a shows a normal pelvic view with no uid, while image b shows a positive pelvic FAST with uid indicated by the arrow
a
The point-of-care nature of the FAST exam facilitates repeat exams where necessary. When confronted by a negative examination and no immediate indication for sur­gery, denitive diagnostic testing (usually with a CT scan) is usually the next step. In scenarios where a CT scan is not available, such as a mass casualty scenario or in a resource­limited clinical setting, repeating the FAST exam can be con­sidered. With time—and thus, in a bleeding patient, an increased volume of intraperitoneal free uid—sensitivity of the exam increases. Repeat examination may be useful in assessing GI injuries that are poorly detected by FAST, increasing the sensitivity from 38% to 85% when repeated in 12–24h in one study [9].
While FAST is most often associated with level 1 trauma centers, the exam may have a role in triaging patients either prehospital or from peripheral centers to centers of denitive care. A patient requiring transfer to a trauma center with a positive FAST exam may be considered for transport directly to an operating theater which can be prepared in advance of the patient’s arrival. In regions with access to prehospital FAST, time in the emergency room is reduced, with shorter door-to-CT and door-to-OR times [10, 11] while preserving a high reported sensitivity and sensitivity of the exam [12].
After considering the evidence, we are left with the con­clusion that FAST in the blunt trauma population requires an assessment of hemodynamic stability as a decision point. As we will discuss in the “Limitations” section, in the patient who is hemodynamically stable, other diagnostic modalities may yield more denitive diagnoses and subsequent man­agement. FAST has replaced diagnostic peritoneal lavage and, like DPL [13], FAST serves to alter management only in the unstable patient. In a hypotensive population after blunt abdominal trauma, FAST was able to identify 97% of patients with surgical injuries; in a subset of patients too unstable to undergo CT scanning, 64% of patients with a positive FAST had surgical injuries, whereas zero patients with a negative FAST had surgical injuries [14].
In summary, in the blunt trauma population, FAST changes management only in the unstable population. In the stable population, FAST may have limited use as part of the ATLS Circulation assessment, for reassessment of a dynami-
b
cally changing patient, in austere or resource-limited envi­ronments, and potentially for the triaging of inbound patients referred from non-trauma centers.
Penetrating Trauma
The role of FAST in penetrating injuries is somewhat less­ened, as hollow organ injury does not necessarily present with massive hemoperitoneum and thus FAST is less sensi­tive in this population [15]. One particularly useful applica­tion, however, is to conrm or rule out massive hemoperitoneum in cases of junctional injuries for the pur­poses of surgical planning about which body cavity contains the primary problem [16].
The most signicant application of FAST in the penetrat­ing trauma population is to rule out cardiac injuries. Though much of the evidence is derived from small studies, the sen­sitivity of FAST to pericardial blood after penetrating chest trauma consistently approaches 100% [17–19]. Of patients with a positive pericardial FAST, surgical intervention is the next step [17]. In patients with a high clinical suspicion of cardiac injury, examination is rapid, with a mean time to examine the pericardium of under one minute [20]. The FAST exam shows some ability to discriminate survivable versus non-survivable patients presenting with trauma­induced cardiac arrest, for the purposes of triaging candidacy for a resuscitative thoracotomy. In patients with traumatic arrest and cardiac standstill on FAST, resuscitative thoracot­omy may be futile [21].
Limitations
The major limitations of FAST studies all pertain to its pri­mary purpose: to detect free uid. The purpose, in other words, is not to denitively diagnose all possible injuries. When considering the evidence surrounding the use of FAST exams, it is important to consider the outcome variables for a given study. Outcomes of “agreement with ndings at lapa­rotomy” or “agreement with CT scanning” invariably dem­onstrate low sensitivity. CT scanning is far more sensitive for any injury that does not produce signicant amounts of free
44 Basic Trauma Ultrasound
385
uid, such as hollow organ injury, retroperitoneal injury, or solid organ injury with minimal blood loss. The goal of a FAST exam is singular: to identify free uid contributing to hemodynamic instability. Thus, when interpreting the data for or against the use of FAST, one must bear in mind the outcomes against which it is compared.
Critics of the FAST exam note that it is a poor single test for diagnosing the presence of an abdominal visceral injury. Using CT as a reference standard, we know that 34% of patients with known visceral injuries have no appreciable hemoperitoneum [22]. Studies comparing FAST to CT scan or laparotomy ndings have reported sensitivities ranging from 41% to 94% [23–27]. When specically considering sensitivity for hemoperitoneum, FAST has a sensitivity of 91%, considerably better than its sensitivity for detecting all injuries (69%) [26].
Because we know that ultrasound may not detect all inju­ries, a negative FAST in a clinically deteriorating patient requires further investigation or exploration. False-negative FAST exams—that is, studies failing to detect free uid despite the presence of intraabdominal injury—often result in clinical deterioration of the patient. A large proportion of false-negative FAST patients require operative intervention [16, 23, 24, 28,
29] with false-negative rates of 1.7–6.1% in blunt trauma [23,
24. 28] and 9–29% in penetrating trauma [16, 29, 30] reported.
Therefore, while a negative FAST may be reassuring, further clinical deterioration always mandates further investigations. Notably, patients with severe pelvic fractures are one known cohort at increased risk of false- negative exams [31], and up to 19% of true-positive exams in this population represent uro­peritoneum rather than hemoperitoneum [32]. Whenever pos­sible, hemodynamically stable patients without indications for urgent interventions should be investigated with cross-sectional imaging to rule out missed injuries.
The smallest amount of free uid detectable by FAST exam varies by the location of the exam and the origin of the uid. For pelvic-originating free uid to be visible in the left upper quadrant for example, the uid must have tracked up the right paracolic gutter, through the right upper quadrant and to the left upper quadrant, implying a signicant volume of uid even if the actual observed amount is quite small. Over 600 cc of pelvic uid is required before it can be detected in the right upper quadrant [29], but in contrast, trace physiologic free uid, ranging from 5 to 20cc, is occa­sionally identied on pelvis views which may contribute to false-positives [30]. In female patients, uid isolated to the anatomic cul-de-sac (Pouch of Douglas) is of traumatic ori­gin only 1.8% of the time, whereas 57.7% of patients with upper-quadrant free uid have injuries [32]. A small amount of visualized uid does not necessarily represent a small amount of bleeding and, therefore, the scoring of the FAST exam is categorical and not quantitative and must be inter­preted in a clinical context of the patient’s stability.
The FAST exam remains somewhat controversial in a pediatric patient population, with mixed study results reported. The FAST exam does have moderate to high sensi­tivity and specicity in hemodynamically unstable pediatric blunt abdominal trauma patients, and does correlate posi­tively with a need for surgical intervention; however, a high sensitivity was only achieved in this population by delaying FAST performance for several hours, which undermines the goal of using FAST to make rapid triage and treatment deci­sions [33]. Like in adult patients, the routine use of FAST exams in stable pediatric patients is not supported by evi­dence and demonstrates no benet as measured by ER length of stay, missed injuries, or cost of care [34].
Finally, all ultrasound investigations are limited by opera­tor abilities. Because FAST, like all ultrasound techniques, depends on a single individual to perform the exam and interpret the results—typically in real time—the quality of the test depends both on the operator’s technical ability to capture images and also on the operator’s ability to interpret them. Thus, there are two main areas in which an individual operator’s success rate may be negatively impacted.
One study investigating operator dependence assessed resident physicians and attending physicians in their reviews of pre-recorded pericardial ultrasounds in penetrating trauma patients. Substantial differences in diagnostic specicity were found between residents and attending physicians (67% vs. 90%) and those self-reporting minimal versus large expe­rience with the ultrasound technique (65% vs. 93%) [35]. Evidence of operator dependence also exists for the detec­tion of hemoperitoneum. One attempt at assessing the FAST learning curve found that novice sonographers have error rates of 17% with incomplete exam rates of 25%; after com­pleting twenty-ve studies, both rates decreased to 5% [36]. The optimum number of studies needed to certify compe­tence in FAST performance has not been dened with con­sensus, and credentialing requirements vary around the globe and by certifying organization.

Summary

The FAST examination is a powerful tool that can potentially change patient management when used as part of a trauma resuscitation. The exam is rapid, provides management­changing information, does not signicantly delay other tests or resuscitative efforts, and does not harm the patient when performed without signicant delay. A positive FAST exami­nation is an indication of laparotomy in the unstable patient. Negative examinations, which risk possible missed injuries, should always be followed with further investigations such as CT scanning in the stable population. Negative FAST investigations in the unstable trauma patient should prompt a rapid reassessment of the ATLS primary survey, but
386
M. Ziesmann et al.
ultimately persistent hemodynamic instability may be an indication for exploratory surgery regardless of FAST results, recognizing that user experience, training, and exam limita­tions may contribute to false-negative studies.
Rapid interpretation of FAST results allows the Trauma Team Leader to assess the patient’s immediate needs and may reduce delays to operative interventions, costs, and adverse outcomes.
Key Points
• Ultrasound is an important tool in the resuscitation of trauma patients; it is an adjunct to, not a replace­ment of, existing standards of resuscitation such as the clinical exam or ATLS surveys.
• A negative FAST exam is one where all four regions are thoroughly imaged and no uid is seen; an inde­terminate exam is one where all four regions cannot be adequately imaged.
• Any free uid in any quadrant, even in an otherwise indeterminate exam, is a positive FAST exam.
• The sensitivity of ultrasound is diminished by inex­perienced operators, obesity, COPD, excessive bowel gas, and some associated injuries; a negative exam in an unstable patient is not reassuring and warrants further investigation.

References

1. Boulanger BR, Brenneman FD, Kirkpatrick AW, McLellan BA, Nathens AB.The indeterminate abdominal sonogram in multisys­tem blunt trauma. JTACS. 1998;45(1):52–6.
2. Melniker LA, Leibner E, McKenney MG, Lopez P, Briggs WM, Mancuso CA. Randomized controlled clinical trial of point-of­care limited ultrasonography for trauma in the emergency depart­ment: the rst sonography outcomes assessment program trial. Ann Emerg Med. 2006;48(3):227–35.
3. Ollerton JE, Sugrue M, Balogh Z, D’Amours SK, Giles A, Wyllie P.Prospective study to evaluate the inuence of FAST on trauma patient management. JTACS. 2006;60(4):785–91.
4. Nishijima DK, Simel SL, Wisner DH, Holmes JF. Does this adult patient have a blunt intra-abdominal injury? JAMA. 2012;307(14):1517–27.
5. Wherrett LJ, Boulanger BR, McLellan BA, Brenneman FD, Rizoli SB, Culhane J, Hamilton P. Hypotension after blunt abdominal trauma: the role of emergent abdominal sonography in surgical tri­age. JTACS. 1996;41(5):815–20.
6. Rozycki GS, Ballard RB, von Feliciano D, Schmidt JA, Pennington SD.Surgeon-performed ultrasound for truncal injuries. Ann Surg. 1998;228(4):557–67.
7. Thomas B, Falcone RE, Vasquez D, Santanello S, Townsend M, Hockenberry S, Innes J, Wanamaker SB.Ultrasound evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma: program implementation, initial experi­ence, and learning curve. JTACS. 1997;42(3):384–90.
8. Ma OJ, Mateer JR, Ogata M, Kefer MP, Wittmann D, Aprahamian C. Prospective analysis of a rapid trauma ultra­sound examination performed by emergency physicians. JTACS. 1995;38(6):879–85.
9. Mohammadi A, Ghasemi-rad M. Evaluation of gastrointestinal injury in blunt abdominal trauma “FAST is not reliable”: the role of repeated ultrasonography. World J Emerg Surg. 2012;7(1):2–6.
10. Lucas B, Hempel D, Otto R, Brenner F, Stier M, Marzi I, Breitkreutz R, Walcher F. Prehospital FAST reduces time to admission and operative treatment: a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2021;48:2701.
11. Gamberini L, Tartaglione M, Giugni A, Alban L, Allegri D, Coniglio C, Lupi C, Chiarini V, Mazzoli CA, Heusch-Lazzeri E, Tugnoli G, Gordini G. The role of prehospital ultrasound in reducing time to denitive care in abdominal trauma patients with moderate to severe liver and spleen injuries. Injury. 2022;53(5):1587–95.
12. van der Weide L, Popal Z, Terra M, Schwarte LA, Ket JCF, Kooij FO, Exadaktylos AK, Zuidema WP, Giannakopolous GF.Prehospital ultrasound in the management of trauma patients: systematic review of the literature. Injury. 2022;50(12):2167–75.
13. McKenney M, Lentz K, Nunez D, Sosa JL, Sleeman D, Axelrad A, Martin L, Kirton O, Oldham C.Can ultrasound replace diagnos­tic peritoneal lavage in the assessment of blunt trauma? JTACS. 1994;37(3):439–41.
14. Farahmand N, Sirlin CB, Brown MA, Shragg GP, Fortlage D, Hoyt DB, Casola G.Hypotensive patients with blunt abdominal trauma: performance of screening US.Radiology. 2005;235(2):436–43.
15. Quinn AC, Sinert R.What is the utility of the focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST) exam in penetrating torso trauma? Injury. 2011;42(5):482–7.
16. Boulanger BR, Kearney PA, Tsuei B, Ochoa JB.The routine use of sonography in penetrating torso injury is benecial. JTACS. 2001;51(2):320–5.
17. Tayal VS, Beatty MA, Marx JA, Tomaszewski CA, Thomason MH.FAST (focused assessment with sonography in trauma) accu­rate for cardiac and intraperitoneal injury in penetrating anterior chest trauma. J Ultrasound Med. 2004;23(4):467–72.
18. Varin DS, Ringburg AN, van Lieshout EM, Patka P, Schipper IB. Accuracy of conventional imaging of penetrating torso injuries in the trauma resuscitation room. Eur J Emerg Med. 2009;16(6):305–11.
19. Rozycki GS, Feliciano DV, Ochsner MG, Knudson MM, Hoyt DB, Davis F, Hammerman D, Figueredo V, Harviel JD, Han DC, Schmidt JA.The role of ultrasound in patients with possible pen­etrating cardiac wounds: a prospective multicenter study. JTACS. 1999;46(4):551–2.
20. Rozycki GS, Feliciano DV, Schmidt JA, Cushman JG, Sisley AC, Ingram W, Ansley JD.The role of surgeon-performed ultra­sound in patients with possible cardiac wounds. Ann Surg. 1996;223(6):737–44.
21. Inaba K, Chouliaras K, Zakaluzny S, Swadron S, Mailhot T, Seif D, Teixeira P, Sivrikoz E, Ives C, Barmparas G, Koronakis N, Demetriades D. FAST ultrasound examination as a predic­tor of outcomes after resuscitative thoracotomy. Ann Surg. 2015;262(3):512–8.
22. Shanmuganathan K, Mirvis SE, Sherbourne CD, Chiu WC, Rodriguez A.Hemoperitoneum as the sole indicator of abdominal visceral injuries: a potential limitation of screening abdominal US for trauma. Radiology. 1999;212(2):423–30.
23. Natarajan B, Gupta PK, Prateek K, Gupta MD, Cemaj S, Sorensen M, Hatzoudis GI, Amor FR. FAST scan: is it worth doing in hemodynamically stable blunt trauma patients? Surgery. 2010;148(4):695–701.
24. Miller MT, Pasquale MD, Bromberg WJ, Wasser TE, Cox J.Not so FAST.JTACS. 2003;54(1):59–60.
25. McGahan JP, Rose J, Coates TL, Wisner DH, Newberry P.Use of ultrasound in the patient with acute abdominal trauma. Journal of Ultrasound Medicine. 1997;16(10):653–62.
26. Tso P, Rodriguez A, Cooper C, Militello P, Mirvis S, Badellino MM, Br B, Foss FA Jr, Hinson DM, Mighty HE.Sonography in
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
Помощь Обратная связь Вопросы и предложения Пользовательское соглашение Политика конфиденциальности