Radiol Clin N Am 42 (2004) 417 – 425

Emergency ultrasound in trauma patients
John P. McGahan, MDa,*, John Richards, MDb, Maria Luisa C. Fogata, MDa

Division of Diagnostic Radiology, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, 4860 Y Street, Suite 3100, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA b Division of Emergency Medicine, University of California, Davis, School of Medicine, 2315 Stockton Boulevard, PSSB 2100, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA

Although ultrasound (US) was first described in the detection of blunt traumatic splenic injuries more than 30 years ago [1], it was never widely advocated until approximately 10 years ago [2 – 4]. There are probably two reasons for the initial limited use of sonography in blunt traumatized patients. The first is that the use of CT evolved at approximately the same time and was shown to be highly sensitive for evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma [5]. CT not only detected free fluid but also directly demonstrated the organ injury. Sonography also was used initially to detect specific organ injury rather than the free fluid associated with the injury. There were limitations in the ability and sensitivity of sonography in directly demonstrating the injured organ. It was not until the 1990s that the focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST) was developed for the main objective of detecting free fluid in patients with blunt abdominal trauma [2 – 4].

Sonographic examination The initial focus of sonographic examination was a single view of the hepatorenal fossa (Morison’s pouch) [2]. It was soon realized that a more comprehensive examination of the abdomen improved detection of free fluid, however [4]. This included examinations of both upper quadrants, the paracolic gutters, and pelvis. In 1997, McGahan et al [4]

documented that sonographic sensitivity for the detection of free fluid could be improved by having a full bladder. Often in traumatized patients a Foley catheter is placed and the bladder is decompressed, which eliminates the acoustic window in the pelvis needed to detect small or moderate amounts of free fluid. More recently, in an article by Hahn et al [6], patients with proven intra-abdominal injuries after blunt abdominal trauma were evaluated and it was demonstrated that the finding of free fluid with sonography was important. Seventy-eight percent of patients with free fluid on sonography required laparotomy, whereas only 27% without free fluid needed laparotomy. They also showed that examination of Morison’s pouch had the highest detection rate of free fluid in these patients (66%), whereas free fluid was detected 56% of the time in the upper quadrants, 48% of the time in the paracolic gutters, and 36% of the time in the pelvis. Examination of all areas was important, however, because 3 of the 604 patients with intra-abdominal injuries had free fluid only in paracolic gutters [6]. At our institution we always include an examination of the heart for pericardial fluid as a part of the FAST scan. US is also useful in examinations of the chest for pneumothorax or pleural effusion, which are discussed later in this article.

Sonographic findings Free fluid

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: (J.P. McGahan).

Free fluid typically appears as a hypoechoic region within the peritoneal cavity or pelvis and is usually linear or triangular in shape (Fig. 1). The

0033-8389/04/$ – see front matter D 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.rcl.2003.12.005

2. For instance. clotted blood at the . Bowel loops can be distinguished from free fluid because they are round and have peristalsis. With severe injury. in Morison’s pouch. Sonographic sensitivity in detecting injuries in patients with blunt abdominal trauma may be decreased for several reasons. It is important to recognize that although this free fluid is most likely pre-existing and probably physiologic. the fluid between the kidney and liver usually has a linear shape (see Fig. McGahan et al / Radiol Clin N Am 42 (2004) 417–425 Fig. In women of childbearing age. With the bladder decompressed after placement of a Foley catheter. a small amount of ‘‘physiologic’’ free fluid may be noted in the pelvis. free fluid in the dependant portion of the pelvis can be missed.418 J. Another potential pitfall of US detection of free fluid is that hematomas may appear echogenic. Fluid often accumulates at the site of injury but then flows throughout the abdomen and into the pelvis. (C) In the same patient as B. Loops of fluid-filled bowel should not be confused with free intraperitoneal fluid. the blood may appear echogenic as it forms a clot adjacent to the injured organ (Figs. the specificity of sonography is high [4]. it may be secondary to an injury. At the site of injury. In this situation. noted just inferior to the liver and the right kidney that corresponds to free fluid. 1. or a combination of the two. It is impossible in these patients to know if the free fluid is caused by preexisting ascites. with acute angles (arrow). 1). Fluid that surrounds bowel often appears triangular. This should cause little confusion. searching for free fluid in other sites is important. (A) Real-time US examination of the right upper quadrant demonstrates small triangular-shaped hypoechoic region (arrow) that corresponds to free fluid. 3). shape of the fluid depends on its compression by the surrounding structures. traumatic injury. linear hypoechoic region in the hepatorenal fossa (Morison’s pouch) corresponds to free fluid (arrow). In some cases sonography may detect small amounts of free fluid that are not visualized with CT [4]. The sensitivity of sonography for detection of free fluid in the pelvis may be decreased if a full bladder is not used. There maybe several pitfalls in recognition of free fluid within the abdomen (Box 1). Patterns of free fluid.P. In almost all recent studies of the use of sonography for detection of free fluid in patients with blunt abdominal trauma. (B) Real-time US of the right upper quadrant demonstrates larger hypoechoic region. dialysis patients) may have falsepositive sonogram results. Pitfalls Patients with pre-existing ascites or iatrogenic free fluid (eg.

McGahan et al / Radiol Clin N Am 42 (2004) 417–425 419 Fig. for a score of 2. Pitfalls in examination of the abdomen for free fluid  Pre-existing fluid (ascites)  Iatrogenic free fluid as in dialysis or Fig. From the RSNA refresher courses: focused abdominal US for trauma. 2. 3).)      direct peritoneal lavage Pelvic fluid (female) Loops of fluid filled bowel Incomplete or empty bladder Echogenic clot Contained injury .J. and the rate of surgical intervention was 13%. there is often no free fluid associated with contained injuries of solid organs. Echogenic clot/liver laceration. yet 27% of these patients required laparotomy. site of the injury may be echogenic and should not be overlooked (see Figs. in several patients no free fluid was detected. one point was given. slightly hyperechoic region along the anterior aspect of the spleen (arrow) that corresponds to subcapsular hematoma. For the score of 1. Finally. Longitudinal real-time US of the spleen demonstrates well-demarcated.21(Spec No):S191 – 9. diaphragmatic ruptures. 2. Richards JR. The rate of intra-abdominal injury increased to 85% and rate of surgical intervention was 36%.4%. In the article by Hahn et al [6]. (A) Real-time US examination of the right upper quadrant of the abdomen shows right kidney (RTK) and echogenic clot anterior to the liver (RT LOBE). Finally. the percentage of pa- Box 1. For each anatomic region in which fluid was detected. respectively. For instance. and adrenal injuries [4]. pancreatic injuries. Wang L. vascular injuries. sonography is limited and unable to show some types of injuries. including spinal and pelvic fractures. The percentage of patients with a score of 0 who had intra-abdominal injury or required surgical intervention (based on this scoring system) was 1. (B) Real-time examination of the liver demonstrates fairly well marginated echogenic region in the liver (arrows) that corresponds to liver laceration.8] described a scoring system based on the location of the fluid.P. Radiographics 2001. Free fluid scoring systems Scoring systems have been developed to help stratify patients into groups who may or may not require laparotomy. For a score of 3. Others have stratified patients based on either the amount of free fluid in one location or the number of locations in which free fluid was detected. This may be the greatest pitfall of the FAST scan and is discussed later in this article. spleen. or kidney. such as the liver. bowel and mesentery injuries. 3. with permission. Sirlin et al [7. Subcapsular hematoma of the spleen. the rate of intra-abdominal injury was 59%.4% and 0. (From McGahan JP.

10].P. usually more than 95% [11 – 13]. McGahan et al / Radiol Clin N Am 42 (2004) 417–425 tients with intra-abdominal injury remained static at 83%. When sonographic results are compared with clinical outcome. US examination of the left upper quadrant demonstrates poorly marginated spleen with mixed echo pattern (arrows). however. Others have advocated scoring systems based on the number of free fluid sites or the vertical height of free fluid [9. Richards et al [14] demonstrated a sonographic sensitivity rate of 68% for detecting free fluid or solid organ injuries. and all improved clinically. McGahan et al [4] calculated a sensitivity rate of only 63% when sonography was compared with CT or laparotomy and not using clinical observation as a gold standard. Splenic laceration. which corresponds to severe splenic laceration. A diffuse heterogeneous echogenic pattern is the predominant Fig. More recently. Solid organ injury After the initial studies on the use of sonography in detecting organ injuries in the 1970s [1]. they were deemed as having false-negative results. . This detection rate is similar to past studies. In this larger study by Shanmuga- nathan et al. A common theme would be the more the amount of free fluid. The higher the score.24] and Richards et al [25. 310 (66%) of whom had free fluid detected by sonography. Other results from recent literature vary.26]. however. Stengel et al [22] showed that a 7. Polletti et al [17] showed a sensitivity rate of 41% for direct demonstration of organ injury.5-MHz linear ray probe detected solid organ injuries much more readily than a 3. these patients would have been deemed as having true negative results. Other studies have shown that sonography may miss injuries that may require surgery. more recent studies focused on the detection of free fluid [11 – 13]. Shanmuganathan et al [19] studied the use of sonography in more than 11. 4. the greater the likelihood of injury or the need for surgical intervention. This is the main reason for discrepancies in the sensitivities of FAST scan. If clinical improvement had been used as the ‘‘gold’’ standard. Numerous other studies have been published on the topic of the sensitivity of FAST. Sonography can be used to triage patients. but rate of surgical intervention was 63%. In a large review of 3264 patients. Dolich et al [18] reported on 43 patients with false-negative sonography results. 10 of whom (33%) required surgery. but one must remember that it may miss significant injuries that require further intervention. the sensitivity rates of sonography are high. CT should be used for patients with a negative sonography result in whom there is a suggestion of intra-abdominal injury [20. Rothhin et al [12] reported a sensitivity rate of 41. in 744 pediatric patients with blunt abdominal trauma. When using CT as the ‘‘gold’’ standard.21]. the higher the injury rate and the greater the need for laparotomy. Polletti et al [17] demonstrated a sensitivity rate of 93% for sonography. A few recent studies have demonstrated the ability of sonography to detect parenchymal organ abnormalities directly.4% for the direct detection of solid organ injuries by sonography. McGahan et al [4] also reported a sensitivity rate of 41% detection in solid organ injuries. and 26 of these patients required surgery or further intervention. acute solid organ injuries are often echogenic on sonography. Sensitivity of sonography The sensitivity of sonography depends on what is used as the ‘‘gold’’ standard to which US is compared. The probable reason for this discrepancy in sensitivities is that McGahan et al [4] showed that several minor lacerations of the liver or spleen were detected on CT but not detected by FAST. When identified. this same study group showed that sonography had a sensitivity rate of 67% in detection of intra-abdominal injury [15]. Miller et al [16] reported a sensitivity rate of 42% for the FAST scan when compared with CT.5-MHz convex probe. 157 patients (34%) with intra-abdominal injury had no free fluid. These patients did not require surgical intervention.000 patients with blunt abdominal trauma: 467 patients had intraabdominal injury.420 J. Sonographic appearance of solid organ injuries Much of the work on sonographic classification and appearance of solid organ injuries has been performed by McGahan et al [23. For instance.

In 7 patients there was confirmation with CT. For instance. For instance. which adheres to the lung as it moves and slides during normal inspiration and expiration.32]. 5).J. however. sonography also has been proved to be useful in diagnosing pneumothorax [31. (A) Longitudinal scan of the right upper quadrant of the abdomen demonstrates ill-defined region without reniform shape. Martegani et al [27] presented the preliminary evaluation of micro-bubble – enhanced US of abdominal organs in blunt and penetrating trauma. They demonstrated that on the unenhanced scan. With more experienced examiners. Excellent enhancement of the parenchymal organs was obtained in all cases using contrast-enhanced sonography. which appeared hypoechoic on US. The authors believed that the contrast-enhanced sonography might expedite management of trauma patients [27]. (B) Real-time US examination of the right paracolic gutter demonstrates an echogenic region inferior to the kidney in the right paracolic gutter that corresponds to hematoma (arrow). Renal laceration. from a true pericardial effusion. Germany). 6). Blavias et al [30] set up a study with emergency medicine residents and fellows trained in sonography. Sonography had a sensitivity rate of 73% and a specificity rate of only 44% in this study [30]. The liver. no lesions were confidently visualized. More recently.2 to 2. More recently. The bright echogenic line of the visceral pleura. 5. We incorporate the subcostal view of the heart as a portion of the FAST scan in all patients with blunt abdominal trauma. and there was good correlation between contrastenhanced sonography and contrast-enhanced CT in terms of the position and size of the abnormality. 8). sonography can be used to diagnose pneumothorax or free fluid within the thorax. Renal injuries are echogenic. A discrete hyperechoic or diffuse hyperechoic pattern is seen with hepatic injuries (see Fig. with a disorganized appearance that occurs with severe renal lacerations (Fig. 7).P. Absence of the sliding lung is a direct sign of pneumothorax (Fig. contrast-enhanced abdominal US has been used in the evaluation of solid organ injuries in trauma patients (Fig. These authors use SonoVue (Bracco/ ALTANA Pharm. and kidneys were studied over a 3. the spleen in 5 patients. The parietal pleura adheres to the inner muscle of the thorax. a phospholipid coated micro-bubble. This is helpful in diagnosing pericardial effusions (Fig. 2). It must be emphasized that inexperienced examiners often have problems diagnosing pericardial effusions. They detected injuries in the liver in 5 patients. spleen. They had trouble discerning the epicardial fat. and the kidney in 4 patients.30] in traumatized patients. The main reason for diagnosing pericardial effusions is to prevent patients from having a traumatically induced pericardial tamponade. McGahan et al / Radiol Clin N Am 42 (2004) 417–425 421 pattern identified with splenic injuries (Fig. 9). Remembering that the free air within the thorax rises to the most nondependent portion of the thoracic cavity. The chest Sonography has been shown to detect pleural effusions [28]. the US probe is placed in this area to check for pneumotho- Fig. During inspiration and expiration the visceral pleura ‘‘slides’’ back and forth adjacent to the parietal 5-minute interval. Right nephrectomy was performed immediately after the US examination. may be observed on real-time sonography and is a normal finding (Fig. Konstanz. sonography may be useful in detecting moderate pericardial effusions. which corresponds to severe renal laceration (shattered kidney) (arrows). 4). More recently. In traumatized patients.4 mL scanned with a low mechanical index. whereas the visceral pleura adheres to the lung. . sonography also has been shown to be helpful in diagnosing pericardial effusions [29. at the dose of 1. They evaluated 14 patients with abdominal trauma who were scanned with unenhanced US and contrast-enhanced sonography.

(A) Noncontrast US of the spleen appears normal. with CT serving as the reference or ‘‘gold’’ standard. This is the reverberation of the US beam as it strikes the interface between the parietal and visceral pleura and the air in the lung and is reflected back to the transducer. Absence or decrease of the reverberation artifact also may occur in a normal patient if the gain settings are set too low. Pericardial effusion. which corresponds to pericardial effusion. The US probe is placed in the intercostal space. This reverberation produces multiple equally spaced echoes. Either a curved array probe or. The normal motion of the visceral pleura against the parietal pleura is absent with pneumothorax. Contrast-enhanced US of splenic laceration. In a normal patient. McGahan et al / Radiol Clin N Am 42 (2004) 417–425 Fig. Subcostal real-time US of the heart demonstrates anechoic region (long arrow) anterior to the heart. a ‘‘reverberation artifact’’ usually is noted posterior to the parietal visceral pleura interface in a normal patient (see Fig. (B) Contrast-enhanced US with SonoVue demonstrates a large. a linear array probe may be used to detect pneumothorax. 6. Germany. MD.) rax. 7. The reverberation artifact is not identified when there is a pneumothorax.422 J.P. This is observed as lines that are equally spaced from one another and gradually decrease in echogenicity. They studied 27 patients who sustained . (C) Correlative CT demonstrates splenic laceration. The normal ‘‘to and fro’’ motion of the visceral pleura against the parietal pleura is observed in a normal Fig. (Courtesy of Thomas Albrecht. An article by Rowan et al [33] compared the accuracy of sonography with that of the supine chest radiograph in detecting traumatic pneumothorax. Berlin. 8). FRCR. better yet. wedge-shaped defect in the central portion of the spleen. A pneumothorax may produce acoustic shadowing. patient. however.

J. Normal lung. 8. R refers to the interface between the parietal and visceral pleura. blunt thoracic trauma and had US.P. Parallel equally spaced lines of decreasing echogenicity are observed posterior to this. US was more sensitive . Supine chest radiography had a sensitivity rate of only 36% (4 of 11 patients). In their study. Eleven of 27 patients had pneumothoraces as seen with CT. All of the pneumothoraces were detected by sonography. The US probe is placed on the skin surface (S). which corresponds to reverberation artifacts (arrows). The specificity rate of sonography was 94%. for a sensitivity rate of 100%. correspond to reverberation artifacts caused by the US beam ‘‘reverberating’’ or ‘‘bouncing’’ between the pleura and transducer. and 1 of 16 patients had a false-positive diagnosis of pneumothorax. (B) Drawing of reverberation artifact. McGahan et al / Radiol Clin N Am 42 (2004) 417–425 423 Fig. Note that the first echogenic line (open arrow) corresponds to the interface between the parietal and the visceral pleura. Lines labeled as numbers 1 and 2. (C) Similar pattern is seen with sector scan of the lung in another patient. which are of decreasing echogenicity posterior to this. (A) Real-time US examination using linear array probe demonstrates the appearance of the normal lung on US. The radiographic and US findings were compared with CT findings. with a specificity rate of 100%.

[13] Rozycki GS. Use of ultrasonography in the patient with acute abdominal trauma. Emerg Radiol 1996. [7] Sirlin CB.40:607 – 10. Real-time US examination of thorax in this patient with a small pneumothorax demonstrates the echogenic line that corresponds to the parietal and visceral pleura. Casola G. [5] Federle MP. Schleper NH. Small pneumothorax. References [1] Kristensen JK. Bohnen PA. Quantification of fluid on screening ultrasonography for blunt abdominal trauma: a simple scoring system to predict severity of injury. Otsuka T. Aristide G.20:359 – 64. Splenic trauma: evaluation with CT. [10] McKenney KL. Summary US will be used more frequently in the future for the evaluation of traumatized patients. Note more distal reverberation artifacts. To the right side of the image there is loss of this pattern because of a small pneumothorax. Coates TL. McGahan JP. Lopez C. US has been shown to be helpful in detecting pleural effusions and may be useful in detecting pericardial effusions.16: 653 – 62. J Ultrasound Med 2001. McKenney MG. Emergency department ultrasound in the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma. Brown MA. et al. however. [12] Rothlin MA. Am J Emerg Med 2002. Karamanoukian H. Jaffin JH. Homes JF. Sleeman D. Patterns of fluid accumulation on screening ultrasonography for blunt abdominal trauma: comparison with site of injury.34:488 – 95. Martin L.20:351 – 7. Ochsner MG. Wisner DH. In patients who are more stable or in whom US results are negative. Unstable patients with free fluid often can be triaged to the operation room without further imaging tests.31:20 – 3. J Trauma 1993. Blunt abdominal trauma in children: evaluation with emergency US. Nunez DB. Previously. Liu M. J Trauma 1994. Minagl H.20: 595 – 600. Buemann B. Hoyt DB. Ultrasonography for the evaluation of hemoperitoneum during resuscitation: a simple scoring system. Shih HC. Knopf NA. Naf R. the main focus of the sonographic examination was for the detection of free fluid. CT is required. Radiology 2002. Within the chest. J Ultrasound Med 2001. 34:516 – 26. 162:69 – 71. Wu JK. Interpreting the trauma ultrasound: observations in 62 positive cases. Bendavid EJ. Bendavid EJ. Clinical importance of intraperitoneal fluid in patients with blunt intra-abdominal injury. with the use of contrast-enhanced agents. [14] Richards JR. et al.000 consecutive ultrasounds for blunt abdominal trauma. Radiology 1987. Emergency center ultrasonography in the evaluation of hemoperitoneum: a prospective study. Kuehl E. Lentz K. Casola G. 1. Candinas D. Trentz O. [11] McKenney MG. [6] Hahn DD. Am J Emerg Med 1993.137:653 – 7. US has been . [8] Sirlin CB. Jeffrey Jr RB. J Trauma 1993. Brown MA. [3] Kimura A. Griffiths B. [4] McGahan JP.11:342 – 6. [2] Jehle D. McGahan JP. which is noted to the left side of image. Lee CH. Guarino J. [15] Richards JR. J Trauma 1996.P. Hoyt DB. Ko TJ.222:749 – 54. Patel N. Based on recent studies. than chest radiography in the detection of traumatic pneumothoraces. McGahan et al / Radiol Clin N Am 42 (2004) 417–425 shown to be sensitive in detecting pneumothoraces in traumatized patients. Wang L. Rose J. Champion HR. Ultrasonic scanning in the diagnosis of splenic haematomas. Patel N. Amgwerd M. sonography has a sensitivity rate of approximately 40% in direct detection of solid organ injuries. 9. Acta Chir Scand 1971. Sonographic assessment of blunt ab- Fig. J Ultrasound Med 1997. Woo BD. [9] Huang MS. Newberry P. sonography may more reliably detect solid organ injuries. Frick T. Prospective evaluation of surgeons’ use of ultrasound in the evaluation of trauma patients.36:173 – 7. J Trauma 1991. Ultrasound in blunt abdominal and thoracic trauma.3:113 – 7. Offerman SR.424 J. In the future.

P. Gerscovich EO.50:108 – 12. Harvey CJ. Bromberg WJ. McGahan JP. Ultrasound detection of blunt splenic injury. et al. Gillen M. McGahan et al / Radiol Clin N Am 42 (2004) 417–425 dominal trauma: a 4-year prospective study. Injury 2001. Sehouli J.47:1092 – 7.18:207 – 13. The focused abdominal sonography for trauma scan: pearls and pitfalls. Kirkpatrick AW. Radiology 2002. Varela JE. Nantke J. Ann Emerg Med 1997. Potential errors in the diagnosis of pericardial effusion on trauma ultrasound for penetrating injuries. Schwarz KL. et al. . [28] Ma OJ. [29] Aaland MO. Compton RP.7:1261 – 6. Blunt abdominal trauma: the role of emergent sonography and a review of the literature. Shanmuganathan K. DeBehnke D. Rodriguez A. [30] Blaivas M. Jones CD.29:312 – 6. Hemoperitoneum as the sole indicator of abdominal visceral injuries: a potential limitation of screening abdominal US for trauma. Initial experience. Zhan S. Hamilton DR. Radiographics 2001. Jones CD. Not so fast. [27] Martegani A. Unger PF. Sonographic detection of blunt hepatic trauma: hemoperitoneum and parenchymal patterns of injury. 2. J Ultrasound Med 2002. Wang L. [33] Rowan KR. Sherbourne CD. Sherman R. Del Favero C.227:95 – 103.172:897 – 903. Nicolaou S. J Trauma 2001. Pali MJ.32:95 – 103. Use of ultrasonography in the patient with acute renal trauma. Dolich MO. Wasser TE.21:789 – 800. Vermeulen B. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999. Nicolaou S.212:423 – 30. McKenney MG. Kinkel K. Liu D. Bryan III FC.21(Spec No):S191 – 9. Mirvis SE. McGahan JP. Richards JR.5 MHz convex and 7. Forkheim KE. Prospective evaluation of thoracic ultrasound in the detection of pneumothorax. J Trauma 1999. Ultrasound evaluation of the magnitude of pneumothorax: a new concept. Am Surg 1994. McGahan JP. Radiology 2002. Two-dimensional echocardiogram in hemodynamically stable victims of penetrating precordial trauma. Trauma ultrasound examination versus chest radiography in the detection of hemothorax. J Clin Ultrasound 2002.54:52 – 9. McGahan JP. Radiology 1999. Blunt abdominal trauma: should US be used to detect both free fluid and organ injuries? Radiology 2003. [31] Dulchavsky SA. Kirkpatrick AW. Richards JR. Phelan MB. Am Surg 2001. Irmay F. Polletti PA. Pasquale MD. Discriminatory power of 3. Miller MT. Cosgrove DO. Traumatic pneumothorax detection with thoracic US: correlation with chest radiography and CT. J Trauma 2003. McGahan JP.50:201 – 5.J. Ekkernkamp A. Chiu WC. Mateer JR. J Trauma 2001. Cox J. Aiani L. Richards JR. Mayo JR.225: 210 – 4. Cohn SM. Richards J. Bauwens K. McGahan JP. 425 [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] Richards JR.576 ultrasounds for blunt abdominal trauma. J Trauma 2001. [26] Richards JR. Stengel D. Terrier F.51:37 – 43.225(P):358. Acad Emerg Med 2000. [32] Sargsyan AE.60:412 – 5.30:59 – 67. From the RSNA refresher courses: focused abdominal US for trauma.5 MHz linear ultrasound probes for the imaging of traumatic splenic lesions: a feasibility study. McKenney KL. Bohnen PA. Contrast enhanced abdominal ultrasound in trauma using SonoVue. J Ultrasound Med 1999.67:232 – 6. Gerscovich E.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful