emedicine.medscape.

com

Blunt Abdominal Trauma

Updated: Mar 30, 2022
Author: Eric L Legome, MD; Chief Editor: John Geibel, MD, MSc, DSc, AGAF

Overview

Practice Essentials
Blunt abdominal trauma (see the image below) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among all age groups.
Identification of serious intra-abdominal pathology is often challenging; many injuries may not manifest during the initial
assessment and treatment period.

Blunt abdominal trauma. Right kidney injury with blood in perirenal space. Injury resulted from high-speed motor vehicle
collision.

Signs and symptoms

The initial clinical assessment of patients with blunt abdominal trauma is often difficult and notably inaccurate. The most
reliable signs and symptoms in alert patients are as follows:

Pain

Tenderness

Gastrointestinal hemorrhage

Hypovolemia

Evidence of peritoneal irritation

However, large amounts of blood can accumulate in the peritoneal and pelvic cavities without any significant or early
changes in the physical examination findings. Bradycardia may indicate the presence of free intraperitoneal blood.

On physical examination, the following injury patterns predict the potential for intra-abdominal trauma:

Lap belt marks: Correlate with small intestine rupture

Steering wheel–shaped contusions

 Ecchymosis involving the flanks (Grey Turner sign) or the umbilicus (Cullen sign): Indicates retroperitoneal
hemorrhage, but is usually delayed for several hours to days

Abdominal distention

Auscultation of bowel sounds in the thorax: May indicate a diaphragmatic injury

Abdominal bruit: May indicate underlying vascular disease or traumatic arteriovenous fistula

Local or generalized tenderness, guarding, rigidity, or rebound tenderness: Suggests peritoneal injury

Fullness and doughy consistency on palpation: May indicate intra-abdominal hemorrhage

Crepitation or instability of the lower thoracic cage: Indicates the potential for splenic or hepatic injuries

See Clinical Presentation for more detail.

Diagnosis

Assessment of hemodynamic stability is the most important initial concern in the evaluation of a patient with blunt abdominal
trauma. In the hemodynamically unstable patient, a rapid evaluation for hemoperitoneum can be accomplished by means of
diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) or the focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST). Radiographic studies of
the abdomen are indicated in stable patients when the physical examination findings are inconclusive.

Diagnostic peritoneal lavage

DPL is indicated for the following patients in the setting of blunt trauma:

Patients with a spinal cord injury

Those with multiple injuries and unexplained shock

Obtunded patients with a possible abdominal injury

Intoxicated patients in whom abdominal injury is suggested

Patients with potential intra-abdominal injury who will undergo prolonged anesthesia for another procedure

FAST

Bedside ultrasonography is a rapid, portable, noninvasive, and accurate examination that can be performed by emergency
clinicians and trauma surgeons to detect hemoperitoneum.

The current FAST examination protocol consists of 4 acoustic windows (pericardiac, perihepatic, perisplenic, pelvic) with the
patient supine.

An examination is interpreted as positive if free fluid is found in any of the 4 acoustic windows, negative if no fluid is seen,
and indeterminate if any of the windows cannot be adequately assessed.

Computed tomography

Computed tomography is the standard for detecting solid organ injuries. CT scans provide excellent imaging of the
pancreas, duodenum, and genitourinary system.

CT scanning often provides the most detailed images of traumatic pathology and may assist in determination of operative
intervention[1, 2, 3, 4] Unlike DPL or FAST, CT can determine the source of hemorrhage.

See Workup for more detail.

Management

Treatment of blunt abdominal trauma begins at the scene of the injury and is continued upon the patient’s arrival at the ED or
trauma center. Management may involve nonoperative measures or surgical treatment, as appropriate.

Indications for laparotomy in a patient with blunt abdominal injury include the following:

Signs of peritonitis

Uncontrolled shock or hemorrhage

Clinical deterioration during observation

Hemoperitoneum findings on FAST or DPL

Nonoperative management

In blunt abdominal trauma, including severe solid organ injuries, selective nonoperative management has become the
standard of care. Nonoperative management strategies are based on CT scan diagnosis and the hemodynamic stability of
the patient, as follows:

For the most part, pediatric patients can be resuscitated and treated nonoperatively; some pediatric surgeons often
transfuse up to 40 mL/kg of blood products in an effort to stabilize a pediatric patient

Hemodynamically stable adults with solid organ injuries, primarily those to the liver and spleen, may be candidates for
nonoperative management

Splenic artery embolotherapy, although not standard of care, may be used for adult blunt splenic injury

Nonoperative management involves closely monitoring vital signs and frequently repeating the physical examination

See Treatment and Medication for more detail.

Pathophysiology
Intra-abdominal injuries secondary to blunt force are attributed to collisions between the injured person and the external
environment and to acceleration or deceleration forces acting on the person’s internal organs. Blunt force injuries to the
abdomen can generally be explained by 3 mechanisms.

The first mechanism is deceleration. Rapid deceleration causes differential movement among adjacent structures. As a
result, shear forces are created and cause hollow, solid, visceral organs and vascular pedicles to tear, especially at relatively
fixed points of attachment. For example, the distal aorta is attached to the thoracic spine and decelerates much more quickly
than the relatively mobile aortic arch. As a result, shear forces in the aorta may cause it to rupture. Similar situations can
occur at the renal pedicles and at the cervicothoracic junction of the spinal cord.

Classic deceleration injuries include hepatic tear along the ligamentum teres and intimal injuries to the renal arteries. As
bowel loops travel from their mesenteric attachments, thrombosis and mesenteric tears, with resultant splanchnic vessel
injuries, can result.

The second mechanism involves crushing. Intra-abdominal contents are crushed between the anterior abdominal wall and
the vertebral column or posterior thoracic cage. This produces a crushing effect, to which solid viscera (eg, spleen, liver,
kidneys) are especially vulnerable.

The third mechanism is external compression, whether from direct blows or from external compression against a fixed object
(eg, lap belt, spinal column). External compressive forces result in a sudden and dramatic rise in intra-abdominal pressure
and culminate in rupture of a hollow viscous organ (ie, in accordance with the principles of Boyle law).

The liver and spleen seem to be the most frequently injured organs, though reports vary. The small and large intestines are
the next most frequently injured organs. Recent studies show an increased number of hepatic injuries, perhaps reflecting
increased use of CT scanning and concomitant identification of more injuries.

Etiology
Vehicular trauma is by far the leading cause of blunt abdominal trauma in the civilian population. Auto-to-auto and auto-to-
pedestrian collisions have been cited as causes in 50-75% of cases. Other common etiologies include falls and industrial or
recreational accidents. Rare causes of blunt abdominal injuries include iatrogenic trauma during cardiopulmonary
resuscitation, manual thrusts to clear an airway, and the Heimlich maneuver.

Background
The care of the trauma patient is demanding and requires speed and efficiency. Evaluating patients who have sustained
blunt abdominal trauma remains one of the most challenging and resource-intensive aspects of acute trauma care.[5, 6]

Blunt abdominal trauma is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among all age groups. Identification of serious intra-
abdominal pathology is often challenging. Many injuries may not manifest during the initial assessment and treatment period.
Missed intra-abdominal injuries and concealed hemorrhage are frequent causes of increased morbidity and mortality,
especially in patients who survive the initial phase after an injury.
Physical examination findings are notoriously unreliable. One reason is that mechanisms of injury often result in other
associated injuries that may divert the physician’s attention from potentially life-threatening intra-abdominal pathology. Other
common reasons are an altered mental state and drug and alcohol intoxication.

Coordinating a trauma resuscitation demands a thorough understanding of the pathophysiology of trauma and shock,
excellent clinical and diagnostic acumen, skill with complex procedures, compassion, and the ability to think rationally in a
chaotic milieu.

Blunt abdominal trauma usually results from motor vehicle collisions (MVCs), assaults, recreational accidents, or falls. The
most commonly injured organs are the spleen, liver, retroperitoneum, small bowel, kidneys (see the image below), bladder,
colorectum, diaphragm, and pancreas. Men tend to be affected slightly more often than women.

Blunt abdominal trauma. Right kidney injury with blood in perirenal space. Injury resulted from high-speed motor vehicle
collision.

For more information, see the following:

Pediatric Abdominal Trauma

Penetrating Abdominal Trauma

Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST)

Abdominal Vascular Injuries

Anatomy
The abdomen can be arbitrarily divided into 4 areas. The first is the intrathoracic abdomen, which is the portion of the upper
abdomen that lies beneath the rib cage. Its contents include the diaphragm, liver, spleen, and stomach. The rib cage makes
this area inaccessible to palpation and complete examination.

The second is the pelvic abdomen, which is defined by the bony pelvis. Its contents include the urinary bladder, urethra,
rectum, small intestine, and, in females, ovaries, fallopian tubes, and uterus. Injury to these structures may be
extraperitoneal in nature and therefore difficult to diagnose.

The third is the retroperitoneal abdomen, which contains the kidneys, ureters, pancreas, aorta, and vena cava. Injuries to
these structures are very difficult to diagnose on the basis of physical examination findings. Evaluation of the structures in
this region may require computed tomography (CT) scanning, angiography, and intravenous pyelography (IVP).

The fourth is the true abdomen, which contains the small and large intestines, the uterus (if gravid), and the bladder (when
distended). Perforation of these organs is associated with significant physical findings and usually manifests with pain and
tenderness from peritonitis. Plain x-ray films are helpful if free air is present. Additionally, diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL)
is a useful adjunct.
Epidemiology
United States statistics

By nearly every measure, injury ranks as one of the most pressing health issues in the United States. More than 150,000
people die each year as a result of injuries, such as motor vehicle crashes, fires, falls, drowning, poisoning, suicide, and
homicide. Injuries are the leading cause of death and disability for US children and young adults.

According to the 2000 statistics from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, trauma (unintentional and
intentional) was the leading cause of death in persons aged 1-44 years. Further review of the data reveals that in those aged
15-25 years, 14,113 persons died from unintentional injuries, 73% of which were related to vehicular trauma. In individuals
aged 25-34 years, 57% of the 11,769 deaths reported were from motor vehicle collisions.

In 2001, approximately 30 million people visited emergency departments (EDs) for the treatment of nonfatal injuries, and
more than 72,000 people were disabled by injuries. Injury imposes exceptional costs, both in health care dollars and in
human losses, to society.

The true frequency of blunt abdominal trauma, however, is unknown. Data collected from trauma centers reflect patients who
are transported to or seek care at these centers; these data may not reflect patients presenting to other facilities. The
incidence of out-of-hospital deaths is unknown.

One review from the National Pediatric Trauma Registry by Cooper et al reported that 8% of patients (total=25,301) had
abdominal injuries. Eighty-three percent of those injuries were from blunt mechanisms. Automobile-related injuries
accounted for 59% of those injuries.[7] Similar reviews from adult trauma databases reflect that blunt trauma is the leading
cause of intra-abdominal injury and that MVC is the leading mode of injury. Blunt injuries account for approximately two
thirds of all injuries.

Hollow viscus trauma is more frequent in the presence of an associated, severe, solid organ injury, particularly to the
pancreas. Approximately two thirds of patients with hollow viscus trauma are injured in MVCs.

International statistics

In 1990, approximately 5 million people died worldwide as a result of injury. The risk of death from injury varied strongly by
region, age, and sex. Approximately 2 male deaths due to violence were reported for every female death. Injuries accounted
for approximately 12.5% of all male deaths, compared with 7.4% of female deaths.

Globally, injury accounts for 10% of all deaths; however, injuries in sub-Saharan Africa are far more destructive than in other
areas. In sub-Saharan Africa, the risk of death from trauma is highest in those aged 15-60 years, and the proportion of such
deaths from trauma is higher than in any other region of the world. South Africa, for instance, has a traffic death rate per unit
of distance traveled that is surpassed only by those of Korea, Kenya, and Morocco.

Estimates indicate that by 2020, 8.4 million people will die yearly from injury, and injuries from traffic collisions will be the
third most common cause of disability worldwide and the second most common cause in the developing world.

Data from the World Health Organization (WHO) indicate that falls from heights of less than 5 meters are the leading cause
of injury, and automobile crashes are the next most frequent cause. These data reflect all injuries, not just blunt injuries to
the abdomen.

A review from Singapore described trauma as the leading cause of death in those aged 1-44 years. Traffic accidents, stab
wounds, and falls from heights were the leading modes of injury. Blunt abdominal trauma accounted for 79% of cases.[8]

A similar paper from India reported that blunt abdominal trauma is more frequent in males aged 21-30 years; the majority of
patients were injured in automobile accidents. A German study indicated that, of patients with vertical deceleration injuries
(ie, falls from heights), only 5.9% had blunt abdominal injuries.

Age-related differences in incidence

Most studies indicate that the peak incidence is in persons aged 14-30 years. A review of 19,261 patients with blunt
abdominal trauma revealed equal incidence of hollow viscus injuries in both children (ie, ≤14 y) and adults.

Sex-related differences in incidence

According to national and international data, blunt abdominal trauma is more common in men. The male-to-female ratio is
60:40.

Prognosis
Overall prognosis for patients who sustain blunt abdominal trauma is favorable. Without statistics that indicate the number of
out-of-hospital deaths and the total number of patients with blunt trauma to the abdomen, a description of the specific
prognosis for patients with intra-abdominal injuries is difficult. Mortality rates for hospitalized patients are approximately 5-
10%.

The National Pediatric Trauma Registry reported that 9% of pediatric patients with blunt abdominal trauma died. Of these,
only 22% were reported as having intra-abdominal injuries as the likely cause of death.[7]

A review from Australia of intestinal injuries in blunt trauma reported that 85% of injuries occurred from vehicular accidents.
The mortality rate was 6%. In a large review of operating room deaths in which blunt trauma accounted for 61% of all
injuries, abdominal trauma was the primary identified cause of death in 53.4% of cases.

Patient Education
Proper adjustment of restraints in motor vehicles is an important aspect of patient education. The following are key
recommendations:

Wear lap belts in conjunction with shoulder restraints.

Adjust lap belts so that they fit snugly, and place them across the lower abdomen and below the iliac crests.

Wear restraints even in vehicles equipped with supplemental vehicle restraints (eg, airbags).

Adjust seats and steering wheels so that the distance between the abdominal wall and the steering wheel is as wide
as possible while still allowing proper control of the vehicle.

Advise patients to practice defensive driving by observing speed limits and keeping a safe distance between them and other
automobiles on the road.

For patient education resources, see the Kidneys and Urinary System Center, as well as Blood in the Urine and Bruises.

Presentation

History
Initially, evaluation and resuscitation of a trauma patient occur simultaneously. In general, do not obtain a detailed history
until life-threatening injuries have been identified and therapy has been initiated. The initial assessment begins at the scene
of the injury, with information provided by the patient, family, bystanders, or paramedics, or police.

Important factors relevant to the care of a patient with blunt abdominal trauma, specifically those involving motor vehicles,
include the following:

The extent of vehicular damage

Whether prolonged extrication was required

Whether the passenger space was intruded

Whether a passenger died

Whether the person was ejected from the vehicle

The role of safety devices such as seat belts and airbags

The presence of alcohol or drug use

The presence of a head or spinal cord injury

Whether psychiatric problems were evident

Important elements of the pertinent history include the following:

Allergies

Medications
 Past medical and surgical history

Time of last meal

Immunization status

Events leading to the incident

Social history, including history of substance abuse

Information from family and friends

The mnemonic AMPLE (A llergies, M edications, P ast medical history, L ast meal or other intake, and E vents leading to
presentation) is often useful as a means of remembering key elements of the history.

A history of out-of-hospital hypotension is a predictor of more significant intra-abdominal injuries. Even if the patient is
normotensive at arrival in the emergency department (ED), he or she should be considered to be at increased risk.

Physical Examination
Primary survey

Resuscitation is performed concomitantly and continues as the physical examination is completed. Priorities in resuscitation
and diagnosis are established on the basis of hemodynamic stability and the degree of injury. The goal of the primary survey,
as directed by the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) protocol, is to identify and expediently treat life-threatening
injuries. The protocol includes the following:

Airway, with cervical spine precautions

Breathing

Circulation

Disability

Exposure

It is imperative for all personnel involved in the direct care of a trauma patient to exercise universal precautions against body
fluid exposure. The incidence of infectious diseases (eg, HIV, hepatitis) is significantly higher in trauma patients than in the
general public, with some centers reporting rates as high as 19%. Even in medical centers with relatively low rates of
communicable diseases, safely determining who is infected with such pathogens is impossible.

The standard barrier precautions include a hat, eye shield, face mask, gown, gloves, and shoe covers. Unannounced trauma
arrival is probably the most common situation that leads to a breach in barrier precautions. Personnel must be instructed to
adhere to these guidelines at all times, even if it means a 30-second delay in patient care.

Secondary survey

After an appropriate primary survey and initiation of resuscitation, attention should be focused on the secondary survey of
the abdomen. The secondary survey is the identification of all injuries via a head-to-toe examination. For life-threatening
injuries that necessitate emergency surgery, a comprehensive secondary survey should be delayed until the patient has
been stabilized.

At the other end of the spectrum are victims of blunt trauma who have a benign abdomen upon initial presentation. Many
injuries initially are occult and manifest over time. Frequent serial examinations, in conjunction with the appropriate
diagnostic studies, such as abdominal computed tomography (CT) and bedside ultrasonography, are essential in any patient
with a significant mechanism of injury.

The evaluation of a patient with blunt abdominal trauma must be accomplished with the entire patient in mind, with all injuries
prioritized accordingly. This implies that injuries involving the head, the respiratory system, or the cardiovascular system may
take precedence over an abdominal injury.

The abdomen should neither be ignored nor be the sole focus of the treating clinician and surgeon. In an unstable patient,
the question of abdominal involvement must be expediently addressed. This is accomplished by identifying free intra-
abdominal fluid with diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) or focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST). The
objective is rapid identification of those patients who need a laparotomy.

The initial clinical assessment of patients with blunt abdominal trauma is often difficult and notably inaccurate. Associated
injuries often cause tenderness and spasms in the abdominal wall and make diagnosis difficult. Lower rib fractures, pelvic
fractures, and abdominal wall contusions may mimic the signs of peritonitis. In a collected series of 955 patients, Powell et al
reported that clinical evaluation alone has an accuracy rate of only 65% for detecting the presence or absence of
intraperitoneal blood.[9]

In general, accuracy increases if the patient is reevaluated repeatedly and at frequent intervals. However, repeated
examinations may not be feasible in patients who need general anesthesia and surgery for other injuries. The greatest
compromise of the physical examination occurs in the setting of neurologic dysfunction, which may be caused by head injury
or substance abuse.

The most reliable signs and symptoms in alert patients are pain, tenderness, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, hypovolemia, and
evidence of peritoneal irritation. However, large amounts of blood can accumulate in the peritoneal and pelvic cavities
without any significant or early changes in the physical examination findings. Bradycardia may indicate the presence of free
intraperitoneal blood in a patient with blunt abdominal injuries.

The respiratory pattern should be observed because abdominal breathing may indicate spinal cord injury. A sensory
examination of the chest and abdomen should be performed to evaluate the potential for spinal cord injury. Spinal cord injury
may interfere with the accurate assessment of the abdomen by causing decreased or absent pain perception.

The abdominal examination must be systematic. The abdomen is inspected for abrasions or ecchymosis. Particular attention
should be paid to injury patterns that predict the potential for intra-abdominal trauma (eg, lap belt abrasions, steering wheel–
shaped contusions). In most studies, lap belt marks have been correlated with rupture of the small intestine and an
increased incidence of other intra-abdominal injuries.

Ecchymosis involving the flanks (Grey Turner sign) or the umbilicus (Cullen sign) indicates retroperitoneal hemorrhage, but
this is usually delayed for several hours to days.

Visual inspection for abdominal distention, which may be due to pneumoperitoneum, gastric dilatation secondary to assisted
ventilation or swallowing of air, or ileus produced by peritoneal irritation, is important.

Auscultation of bowel sounds in the thorax may indicate the presence of a diaphragmatic injury. Abdominal bruit may
indicate underlying vascular disease or traumatic arteriovenous fistula.

Palpation may reveal local or generalized tenderness, guarding, rigidity, or rebound tenderness, which suggests peritoneal
injury. Such signs appearing soon after an injury suggest leakage of intestinal content. Peritonitis due to intra-abdominal
hemorrhage may take several hours to develop.

Fullness and doughy consistency on palpation may indicate intra-abdominal hemorrhage. Crepitation or instability of the
lower thoracic cage indicates the potential for splenic or hepatic injuries associated with lower rib injuries.

Tenderness on percussion constitutes a peritoneal sign. Tenderness mandates further evaluation and probably surgical
consultation.

Rectal and bimanual vaginal pelvic examinations should be performed.[10] A rectal examination should be done to search
for evidence of bony penetration resulting from a pelvic fracture, and the stool should be evaluated for gross or occult blood.
The evaluation of rectal tone is important for determining the patient’s neurologic status, and palpation of a high-riding
prostate suggests urethral injury.

The genitals and perineum should be examined for soft tissue injuries, bleeding, and hematoma. Pelvic instability indicates
the potential for lower urinary tract injury, as well as pelvic and retroperitoneal hematoma. Open pelvic fractures are
associated with a mortality rate exceeding 50%.

A nasogastric tube should be placed routinely (in the absence of contraindications, eg, basilar skull fracture) to decompress
the stomach and to assess for the presence of blood. If the patient has evidence of a maxillofacial injury, an orogastric tube
is preferred.

As the assessment continues, a Foley catheter is placed and a sample of urine is sent for analysis for microscopic
hematuria. If injury to the urethra or bladder is suggested because of an associated pelvic fracture, then a retrograde
urethrogram is performed before catheterization.

With respect to the primary and secondary surveys, pediatric patients are assessed and treated—at least initially—as adults.
However, there are obvious anatomic and clinical differences between children and adults that must be kept in mind,
including the following:

A pediatric patient’s physiologic response to injury is different.

Effective communication with a child is not always possible.

Physical examination findings become more important in children.

A pediatric patient’s blood volume is smaller, predisposing to rapid exsanguinations.

Technical procedures in pediatric patients tend to be more time consuming and challenging.
 A child’s relatively large body surface area contributes to rapid heat loss.

Perhaps the most significant difference between pediatric and adult blunt trauma is that, for the most part, pediatric patients
can be resuscitated and treated nonoperatively. Some pediatric surgeons often transfuse up to 40 mL/kg of blood products in
an effort to stabilize a pediatric patient. Obviously, if this fails and the child continues to be unstable, laparotomy is indicated.

Tertiary survey

The concept of the tertiary trauma survey was first introduced by Enderson et al to assist in the diagnosis of any injuries that
may have been missed during the primary and secondary surveys.[11] The tertiary survey involves a repetition of the primary
and secondary surveys and a revision of all laboratory and radiographic studies. In 1 study, a tertiary trauma survey detected
56% of injuries missed during the initial assessment within 24 hours of admission.[12]

Complications
Complications associated with blunt abdominal trauma include but are not limited to the following:

Missed injuries

Delays in diagnosis

Delays in treatment

Iatrogenic injuries

Intra-abdominal sepsis and abscess

Inadequate resuscitation

Delayed splenic rupture

In patients that undergo laparotomy and repair, complications are similar to other conditions that require operative
intervention.

DDx

Diagnostic Considerations
Identification of intra-abdominal injuries can be challenging. Common pitfalls in diagnosis include the following:

Failure to suspect intra-abdominal injury from appropriate mechanisms

Failure to evaluate abdominal/flank/costal margin pain after blunt abdominal injury

Failure to obtain timely surgical consultation and operative intervention

Failure to recognize intra-abdominal hemorrhage and delay operation for additional diagnostic testing in the face of
hemodynamic compromise

Differential Diagnoses
Domestic Violence

Hemorrhagic Stroke

Hypovolemic Shock

Lower Genitourinary (Urethral, Penile, Scrotal, Testicular) Trauma Management in the ED

Penetrating Abdominal Trauma in Emergency Medicine

Pregnancy Trauma

Upper Genitourinary Trauma

Workup

Workup

Approach Considerations
In recent years, laboratory evaluation of trauma patients has been a matter of significant discussion. Commonly
recommended studies include serum glucose, complete blood count (CBC), serum chemistries, serum amylase, urinalysis,
coagulation studies, blood typing and cross-matching, arterial blood gases (ABGs), blood ethanol, urine drug screens, and a
urine pregnancy test (for females of childbearing age).

Serum electrolyte values, creatinine level, and glucose values are often obtained for reference, but typically they have little
or no value in the initial management period.

Aggressive radiographic and surgical investigation is indicated in patients with persistent hyperamylasemia or
hyperlipasemia, conditions that suggest significant intra-abdominal injury.

All patients should have their tetanus immunization history reviewed. If it is not current, prophylaxis should be given.

The most important initial concern in the evaluation of a patient with blunt abdominal trauma is an assessment of
hemodynamic stability. In the hemodynamically unstable patient, a rapid evaluation must be made regarding the presence of
hemoperitoneum. This can be accomplished by means of diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) or the focused assessment
with sonography for trauma (FAST). Radiographic studies of the abdomen are indicated in stable patients when the physical
examination findings are inconclusive.

A prospective, observational study by Kwok et al indicates that in children with blunt torso trauma, plain anteroposterior
pelvic radiographs have only 78% sensitivity in detecting pelvic fracture or dislocation. The investigators found that such
radiographic examination performed in the emergency department detected pelvic fracture or dislocation in only 297 of 382
patients known to have these injuries. The study also indicated that computed tomography (CT) scanning has a much higher
sensitivity in such cases. Eighty four of the 85 patients whose injuries were not detected by radiography underwent CT
scanning, which detected fracture or dislocation in 82 of them (98% sensitivity). The investigators stated, however, that CT
scanning should be used only if physical exam findings indicate the presence of such trauma.[13, 14]

Go to Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST) for complete information on this topic.

Blood Studies
Complete blood count

The presence of massive hemorrhage is usually obvious from hemodynamic parameters, and an abnormal hematocrit value
merely confirms the diagnosis. Normal hemoglobin and hematocrit results do not rule out significant hemorrhage. Patients
bleed whole blood. Until blood volume is replaced with crystalloid solution or hormonal effects (eg, adrenocorticotropic
hormone [ACTH], aldosterone, antidiuretic hormone [ADH]) and transcapillary refill occurs, anemia may not develop.

Bedside diagnostic testing with rapid hemoglobin or hematocrit machines may quickly identify patients who have
physiologically significant volume deficits and hemodilution. Reported hemoglobin from ABG measurements also may be
useful in identifying anemia. Some studies have correlated a low initial hematocrit (ie, < 30%) with significant injuries.

Do not withhold transfusion in patients who have relatively normal hematocrit results (ie, >30%) but have evidence of clinical
shock, serious injuries (eg, open-book pelvic fracture), or significant ongoing blood loss. Hemodynamic instability in an adult
despite the administration of 2 L of fluid indicates ongoing blood loss and is an indication for immediate blood transfusion.
Use platelet transfusions to treat patients with thrombocytopenia (ie, platelet count < 50,000/µL) and ongoing hemorrhage.

An elevated white blood cell (WBC) count on admission is nonspecific and does not predict the presence of a hollow viscus
injury (HVI). The diagnostic value of serial WBC counts for predicting HVI within the first 24 hours after trauma is very
limited.[15]

Serum electrolyte measurements

Recently, the usefulness of routine serum chemistries of trauma patients has been questioned. Most trauma victims are
younger than 40 years and rarely are taking medications that may alter electrolytes (eg, diuretics, potassium replacements).

The more prudent choice when attempting to limit cost involves selective ordering of these studies. Selection should be
based on the patient’s medications, the presence of concurrent nausea or vomiting, the presence of dysrhythmias, or a
history of renal failure or other chronic medical problems associated with electrolyte imbalance.
Serum glucose and carbon dioxide measurements

If blood gas measurements are not routinely obtained, serum chemistries that measure serum glucose and carbon dioxide
levels are indicated. Rapid bedside blood-glucose determination, obtained with a finger-stick measuring device, is important
for patients with altered mental status.

Liver function tests

Liver function tests (LFTs) may be useful in the patient with blunt abdominal trauma; however, test findings may be elevated
for several reasons (eg, alcohol abuse).[16] One study has shown that an aspartate aminotransferase (AST) or alanine
aminotransferase (ALT) level more than 130 U corresponds with significant hepatic injury.[17] Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH)
and bilirubin levels are not specific indicators of hepatic trauma.

Serum amylase or lipase measurements

The serum lipase or amylase level is neither sensitive nor specific as a marker for major pancreatic or enteric injury. Normal
levels do not exclude a major pancreatic injury. Elevated levels may be caused by injuries to the head and face or by an
assortment of nontraumatic causes (eg, alcohol, narcotics, various other drugs). Amylase or lipase levels may be elevated
because of pancreatic ischemia caused by the systemic hypotension that accompanies trauma.

However, persistent hyperamylasemia or hyperlipasemia (eg, abnormal elevation 3-6 hours after trauma) should raise the
suggestion of significant intra-abdominal injury and is an indication for aggressive radiographic and surgical investigation.

Coagulation profile

The cost-effectiveness of routine prothrombin time (PT)/activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) determination upon
admission is questionable. PT or aPTT should be measured in patients who have a history of blood dyscrasias (eg,
hemophilia), who have synthetic problems (eg, cirrhosis), or who take anticoagulant medications (eg, warfarin, heparin).

Blood typing, screening, and cross-matching

Blood from all trauma patients with suspected blunt abdominal injury should be screened and typed. If an injury is identified,
this practice greatly reduces the time required for cross-matching. An initial cross-match should be performed on a minimum
of 4-6 units for those patients with clear evidence of abdominal injury and hemodynamic instability. Until cross-matched
blood is available, O-negative or type-specific blood should be used.

Arterial blood gas measurements

ABG values may provide important information in major trauma victims. In addition to information about oxygenation (eg,
partial pressure of oxygen [PO2] and arterial oxygen saturation [SaO2]) and ventilation (partial pressure of carbon dioxide
[PCO2]), this test provides valuable information regarding oxygen delivery through calculation of the alveolar-arterial (A-a)
gradient. ABG determinations also report total hemoglobin more rapidly than CBCs.

Upon initial hospital admission, suspect metabolic acidemia to result from the lactic acidosis that accompanies shock. A
moderate base deficit (ie, more than –5 mEq) indicates the need for aggressive resuscitation and determination of the
etiology.

Attempt to improve systemic oxygen delivery by ensuring an adequate SaO2 (ie, >90%) and by acquiring volume
resuscitation with crystalloid solutions and, if indicated, blood.

Drug and alcohol screening

Perform drug and alcohol screens on trauma patients who have alterations in their level of consciousness. Breath or blood
testing may quantify alcohol level.

Urine Studies
Indications for diagnostic urinalysis include significant trauma to the abdomen and/or flank, gross hematuria, microscopic
hematuria in the setting of hypotension, and a significant deceleration mechanism.[18]

Obtain a contrast nephrogram by utilizing intravenous pyelography (IVP) or computed tomography (CT) scanning with
intravenous (IV) contrast. Gross hematuria indicates a workup that includes cystography and IVP or CT scanning of the
abdomen with contrast.

Perform a urine toxicologic screen as appropriate. Obtain a serum or urine pregnancy test on all females of childbearing age.
Plain Radiography
Although their overall value in the evaluation of patients with blunt abdominal trauma is limited, plain films can demonstrate
numerous findings. The chest radiograph may aid in the diagnosis of abdominal injuries such as ruptured hemidiaphragm
(eg, a nasogastric tube seen in the chest) or pneumoperitoneum.

The pelvic or chest radiograph can demonstrate fractures of the thoracolumbar spine. The presence of transverse fractures
of the vertebral bodies (ie, Chance fractures) suggests a higher likelihood of blunt injuries to the bowel. In addition, free
intraperitoneal air, or trapped retroperitoneal air from duodenal perforation, may be seen.

Ultrasonography
The use of diagnostic ultrasonography to evaluate a patient with blunt trauma for abdominal injuries has been advocated
since the 1970s. European and Asian investigators have extensive experience with this technology and are leaders in the
use of ultrasound for the diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma.

The first American report of physician-performed abdominal ultrasonography in the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma
was published in 1992 by Tso and colleagues.[19] Since then, numerous articles have been published in the United States
advocating the use of ultrasound (ie, FAST) in the evaluation of the patient with blunt abdominal trauma.

Bedside ultrasonography is a rapid, portable, noninvasive, and accurate examination that can be performed by emergency
clinicians and trauma surgeons to detect hemoperitoneum. In fact, in many medical centers, the FAST examination has
virtually replaced DPL as the procedure of choice in the evaluation of hemodynamically unstable trauma patients.

The FAST examination is based on the assumption that all clinically significant abdominal injuries are associated with
hemoperitoneum. However, the detection of free intraperitoneal fluid is based on factors such as the body habitus, injury
location, presence of clotted blood, position of the patient, and amount of free fluid present.

In a patient with isolated blunt abdominal trauma and multisystem injuries, FAST performed by an experienced sonographer
can rapidly identify free intraperitoneal fluid (generally appearing as a black stripe). The sensitivity for solid organ
encapsulated injury is moderate in most studies. Hollow viscus injury (HVI) rarely is identified; however, free fluid may be
visualized. For patients with persistent pain or tenderness or those developing peritoneal signs, FAST may be considered as
a complementary measure to CT scanning, DPL, or exploration.

The minimum threshold for detecting hemoperitoneum is unknown and remains a subject of interest. Kawaguchi and
colleagues found that 70 mL of blood could be detected,[20] whereas Tiling et al found that 30 mL is the minimum
requirement for detection with ultrasonography.[21] They also concluded that a small anechoic stripe in the Morison pouch
represents approximately 250 mL of fluid, whereas 0.5-cm and 1-cm stripes represent approximately 500 mL and 1 L of free
fluid, respectively.

The current FAST examination protocol consists of 4 acoustic windows with the patient supine. These windows are
pericardiac, perihepatic, perisplenic, and pelvic (known as the 4 P s). An examination is interpreted as positive if free fluid is
found in any of the 4 acoustic windows and as negative if no fluid is seen. An examination is deemed indeterminate if any of
the windows cannot be adequately assessed.

The pericardial window is obtained via a subcostal or transthoracic approach. It provides a 4-chamber view of the heart and
can detect the presence of hemopericardium, which is demonstrated by the separation of the visceral and parietal pericardial
layers. The perihepatic window yields views of portions of the liver, diaphragm, and right kidney. It reveals fluid in the
Morison pouch (see the images below), the subphrenic space, and the right pleural space.
Blunt abdominal trauma. Normal Morison pouch (ie, no free fluid).

Blunt abdominal trauma. Free fluid in Morison pouch.

The perisplenic window provides views of the spleen and the left kidney and reveals fluid in the splenorenal recess (see the
images below), the left pleural space, and the subphrenic space. The pelvic window makes use of the bladder as a
sonographic window and thus is best accomplished while the patient has a full bladder. In males, free fluid is seen as an
anechoic area (sonographically black) in the rectovesicular pouch or cephalad to the bladder. In females, fluid accumulates
in the Douglas pouch, posterior to the uterus.
Blunt abdominal trauma. Normal splenorenal recess.

Blunt abdominal trauma. Free fluid in splenorenal recess.

FAST’s diagnostic accuracy generally is equal to that of DPL. Studies in the United States have demonstrated the value of
bedside sonography as a noninvasive approach for rapid evaluation of hemoperitoneum. The studies demonstrate a degree
of operator dependence; however, some studies have shown that with a structured learning session, even novice operators
can identify free intra-abdominal fluid, especially if more than 500 mL of fluid is present. Sensitivity and specificity of these
studies range from 85% to 95%.[22, 23, 24, 25, 26]

As noted, FAST relies on hemoperitoneum to identify patients with injury. Chiu and colleagues, in their study of 772 patients
with blunt trauma undergoing FAST scans, reported 52 patients had an abdominal injury.[27] Of the 52 patients, 15 (29%)
had no hemoperitoneum on FAST or CT scan results. These findings suggest that the reliance on hemoperitoneum as the
sole indicator of abdominal visceral injury limits the utility of FAST as a diagnostic screening tool in stable patients with blunt
abdominal trauma.

Rozycki et al studied 1540 patients and reported that ultrasonography was the most sensitive and specific modality for the
evaluation of hypotensive patients with blunt abdominal trauma (sensitivity and specificity, 100%).[26]

A randomized clinical trial by Holmes et al reported that FAST examination did not improve clinical care (use of resources,
ED length of stay, missed intra-abdominal injuries, or hospital charges) in 975 hemodynamically stable children younger than
18 years of age treated for blunt torso trauma.[28]
Hemodynamically stable patients with positive FAST results may require a CT scan to better define the nature and extent of
their injuries. Taking every patient with a positive FAST result to the operating room may result in an unacceptably high
laparotomy rate.

Hemodynamically stable patients with negative FAST results require close observation, serial abdominal examinations, and
a follow-up FAST examination. However, strongly consider performing a CT scan, especially if the patient is intoxicated or
has other associated injuries.

A Cochrane Review reported that positive point-of-care sonography findings can help guide treatment decisions, however, a
negative point-of-care sonography exam should not eliminate abdominal trauma injuries and should be verified with another
reference test (e.g. CT), particularly in pediatric cases.[29]

Hemodynamically unstable patients with negative FAST results are a diagnostic challenge. Options include DPL, exploratory
laparotomy, and, possibly, a CT scan after aggressive resuscitation.

Go to Focused Assessment with Sonography in Trauma (FAST) for complete information on this topic.

Computed Tomography
Although expensive and potentially time-consuming, CT scanning often provides the most detailed images of traumatic
pathology and may assist in determination of operative intervention.[1, 2, 3, 4] CT remains the criterion standard for the
detection of solid organ injuries (see the image below). In addition, a CT scan of the abdomen can reveal other associated
injuries, notably vertebral and pelvic fractures and injuries in the thoracic cavity.

Blunt abdominal trauma with liver laceration.

CT scanning, unlike DPL or FAST, has the capability to determine the source of hemorrhage (see the image below). In
addition, many retroperitoneal injuries go unnoticed with DPL and FAST examinations.
Blunt abdominal trauma with splenic injury and hemoperitoneum.

Transport only hemodynamically stable patients to the CT scanner. When performing CT scans, closely and carefully monitor
vital signs for clinical evidence of decompensation. Preliminary evidence suggests that a flat vena cava on CT scan is a
marker for underresuscitation and may be correlated with higher mortality and hemodynamic decompensation.[30]

CT scans provide excellent imaging of the pancreas, duodenum, and genitourinary system. The images can help quantitate
the amount of blood in the abdomen and can reveal individual organs with precision. The primary advantage of CT scanning
is its high specificity and use for guiding nonoperative management of solid organ injuries.

Drawbacks of CT scanning relate to the need to transport the patient from the trauma resuscitation area and the additional
time required to perform CT scanning compared to FAST or DPL.

In addition, CT scanning may miss injuries to the diaphragm and perforations of the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, especially
when performed soon after the injury. Although some pancreatic injuries may be missed with a CT scan performed soon
after trauma, virtually all are identified if the scan is repeated in 36-48 hours. For selected patients, endoscopic retrograde
cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) may complement CT scanning to rule out a ductal injury.

Finally, CT scanning is relatively expensive and time consuming and requires oral or intravenous (IV) contrast, which may
cause adverse reactions. The best CT imagery requires both oral and IV contrast. Some controversy has arisen over the use
of oral contrast and whether the additional information it provides negates the drawbacks of increased time to administration
and risk of aspiration. The value of oral contrast in diagnosing bowel injury has been debated, but no definitive answer exists
at this time.

A prediction rule created by Holmes and colleagues for use in children who have suffered blunt torso trauma demonstrated a
negative predictive value of 99.9% for identifying patients at very low risk for intra-abdominal injuries undergoing acute
intervention and for whom CT scanning could be obviated.[31, 32] The rule consists of the following 7 patient history and
physical examination findings (in descending order of importance):

No evidence of abdominal wall trauma or seat belt sign

Glasgow Coma Scale score >13 (see the Glasgow Coma Scale calculator)

No abdominal tenderness

No evidence of thoracic wall trauma

No complaints of abdominal pain

No decreased breath sounds

No vomiting

A prospective analysis that evaluated the use of computed tomography of the abdomen and pelvis (CTAP) in 1193 blunt
trauma patients under 14 years of age reported that a negative CTAP indicates that clinically significant abdominal injury is
unlikely. For the 479 asymptomatic patients with negative imaging, the median length of stay was 3 days and there were not
any missed injuries.[33, 34]
Diagnostic Laparoscopy
The introduction of minimally invasive surgery has revolutionized many surgical diagnostic protocols. In the late 1980s and
early 1990s, there was considerable interest in the use of laparoscopy for evaluation and management of blunt and
penetrating abdominal trauma. Subsequent studies, however, revealed major limitations to this approach and cautioned
against its widespread use. The most important limitation is inability to reliably identify hollow viscus and retroperitoneal
injuries, even in the hands of experienced laparoscopists.

Diagnostic laparoscopy involves placing a subumbilical or subcostal trocar for the introduction of the laparoscope and
creating other ports for retractors, clamps, and other tools necessary for visualization of the repair.

Diagnostic laparoscopy has been most useful in the evaluation of possible diaphragmatic injuries, especially in penetrating
thoracoabdominal injuries on the left side.[35, 36, 37] In blunt trauma, it has no clear advantages over less invasive
modalities such as DPL and CT scanning; furthermore, complications can result from trocar misplacement.

Diagnostic Peritoneal Lavage

The idea of evaluating the abdomen by analyzing its contents was first used in the diagnosis of acute abdominal conditions.
In 1906, Salomon described the passage of a urethral catheter by means of a trocar inserted through the abdominal wall to
obtain samples of peritoneal fluid with the aim of establishing the diagnosis of peritonitis from infectious agents (eg,
pneumococcal or tuberculous organisms). This technique has since been refined and is now known as abdominal
paracentesis.

In 1926, Neuhof and Cohen described the sampling of peritoneal fluid in cases of acute pancreatitis and blunt abdominal
trauma by passing a spinal needle through the abdominal wall.[38] In 1965, Root et al reported the use of percutaneous DPL
in patients who had sustained blunt abdominal trauma.[39]

DPL is used as a method of rapidly determining the presence of intraperitoneal blood. It is particularly useful if the history
and abdominal examination of an unstable patient with multisystem injuries are either unreliable (eg, because of head injury,
alcohol, or drug intoxication) or equivocal (eg, because of lower rib fractures, pelvic fractures, or confounding clinical
examination).

DPL is also useful for patients in whom serial abdominal examinations cannot be performed (eg, those in an angiographic
suite or operating room during emergency orthopedic or neurosurgical procedures).[40]

DPL is indicated for the following patients in the setting of blunt trauma:

Patients with a spinal cord injury

Those with multiple injuries and unexplained shock

Obtunded patients with a possible abdominal injury

Intoxicated patients in whom abdominal injury is suggested

Patients with potential intra-abdominal injury who will undergo prolonged anesthesia for another procedure

The only absolute contraindication to DPL is the obvious need for laparotomy. Relative contraindications include morbid
obesity, a history of multiple abdominal surgeries, and pregnancy.

Various methods of introducing the catheter into the peritoneal space have been described. These include the open,
semiopen, and closed methods. The open method requires an infraumbilical skin incision that is extended to and through the
linea alba. (In pregnant patients or in patients with particular risk for potential pelvic hematoma, the incision should be placed
superior to the umbilicus.) The peritoneum is opened, and the catheter is inserted under direct visualization.

The semiopen method is identical, except that the peritoneum is not opened and the catheter is delivered percutaneously
through the peritoneum into the peritoneal cavity. The closed technique requires the catheter to be inserted blindly through
the skin, subcutaneous tissue, linea alba, and peritoneum.

The closed and semiopen techniques at the infraumbilical site are preferred at most centers. The fully open method is the
most technically demanding and is restricted to those situations in which the closed or semiopen technique is unsuccessful
or is deemed unsafe (eg, patients with pelvic fractures, pregnancy, obesity, or prior abdominal operations).

After insertion of the catheter into the peritoneum, attempt to aspirate free intraperitoneal blood (at least 15-20 mL). DPL
results are considered positive in a blunt trauma patient if 10 mL of grossly bloody aspirate is obtained before infusion of the
lavage fluid or if the siphoned lavage fluid contains more than 100,000 red blood cells (RBCs)/µL, more than 500 white blood
cells (WBCs)/µL, elevated amylase content, bile, bacteria, vegetable matter, or urine. Only approximately 30 mL of blood is
needed in the peritoneum to produce a microscopically positive DPL result.

If findings are negative, infuse 1 L of crystalloid solution (eg, lactated Ringer solution) into the peritoneum. Then, allow this
fluid to drain by gravity, and ensure that laboratory analysis is performed.

Complications of DPL include bleeding from the incision and catheter insertion, infection (ie, wound, peritoneal), and injury to
intra-abdominal structures (eg, urinary bladder, small bowel, uterus). These complications may increase the possibility of
false-positive studies. Additionally, infection of the incision, peritonitis from the catheter placement, laceration of the urinary
bladder, or injury to other intra-abdominal organs can occur.

Bleeding from the incision, dissection, or catheter insertion can cause false-positive results that may lead to unnecessary
laparotomy. Achieve appropriate hemostasis prior to entering the peritoneum and placing the catheter. False-positive DPL
results can occur if an infraumbilical approach is used in a patient with a pelvic fracture. A pelvic x-ray film should be
obtained prior to performing DPL if a pelvic fracture is suggested. Before DPL is attempted, the urinary bladder and stomach
should be decompressed.

DPL has been shown in some studies to have a diagnostic accuracy of 98-100%, a sensitivity of 98-100%, and a specificity
of 90-96%. It has some advantages, including high sensitivity, rapidity, and immediate interpretation. The main limitations of
DPL include its potential for iatrogenic abdominal injury and its high sensitivity, which can lead to nontherapeutic
laparotomies.

With the availability of fast, noninvasive, and better imaging modalities (eg, FAST, CT scanning), the role of DPL is now
limited to the evaluation of unstable trauma patients in whom FAST results are negative or inconclusive. In some contexts,
DPL may be complemented with a CT scan if the patient has positive lavage results but stabilizes.

Treatment

Approach Considerations
Treatment of blunt abdominal trauma begins at the scene of the injury and is continued upon the patient’s arrival at the
emergency department (ED) or trauma center. Management may involve nonoperative measures or surgical treatment, as
appropriate.

Indications for laparotomy in a patient with blunt abdominal injury include the following:

Signs of peritonitis

Uncontrolled shock or hemorrhage

Clinical deterioration during observation

Hemoperitoneum findings after focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) or diagnostic peritoneal
lavage (DPL) examinations

Finally, surgical intervention is indicated in patients with evidence of peritonitis based on physical examination findings.

Operative treatment is not indicated in every patient with positive FAST scan results. Hemodynamically stable patients with
positive FAST findings may require a computed tomography (CT) scan to better define the nature and extent of their injuries.
Operating on every patient with positive FAST scan findings may result in an unacceptably high laparotomy rate.

Resuscitative thoracotomy is not recommended in patients with blunt thoracoabdominal trauma who have pulseless
electrical activity upon arrival in the emergency department (ED). The survival rate in this situation is virtually 0%. These
patients may be allowed a thoracotomy in the ED only if they have signs of life upon arrival.

Prehospital Care
Prehospital care focuses on rapidly evaluating life-threatening problems, initiating resuscitative measures, and initiating
prompt transport to a definitive care site.[41, 42] The injured patient is at risk for progressive deterioration from continued
bleeding and requires rapid transport to a trauma center or the closest appropriate facility, with appropriate stabilization
procedures performed en route. Hence, securing the airway, placing large-bore intravenous (IV) lines, and administering IV
fluid must take place en route, unless transport is delayed.

A study by Nirula et al demonstrates the importance of field triage protocols that allow immediate transport to definitive care
sites for very severely injured patients.[43] In the study, the odds of death were 3.8 times greater for patients initially triaged
to a nontrauma center. Such responses require preplanning within a mature trauma system and mandate appropriate
prehospital training and protocols.

Use endotracheal intubation to secure the airway of any patient who is unable to maintain the airway or who has potential
airway threats. Secure the airway in conjunction with in-line cervical immobilization in any patient who may have suffered
cervical trauma. Provide artificial ventilation by using a high fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) for patients who exhibit
compromised breathing respirations. Maintain oxygen saturation (SaO2) at more than 90-92%.

External hemorrhage rarely is associated with blunt abdominal trauma. If external bleeding is present, control it with direct
pressure. Note any signs of inadequate systemic perfusion. Consider intraperitoneal hemorrhage whenever evidence of
hemorrhagic shock is found in the absence of external hemorrhage.

Initiate volume resuscitation with crystalloid solution; however, never delay patient transport while IV lines are inserted. En
route, administer a fluid bolus of lactated Ringer or normal saline solution to patients with evidence of shock.[44, 45]

Titrate IV fluid therapy to the patient’s clinical response. Because overaggressive volume resuscitation may lead to recurrent
or increased hemorrhage, IV fluids should be titrated to a systolic blood pressure of 90-100 mm Hg. This practice should
provide the mean blood pressure necessary to maintain perfusion of the vital organs.

Acquire expeditious and complete spinal immobilization on patients with multisystem injuries and on patients with a
mechanism of injury that has potential for spinal cord trauma. In the rural setting, the pneumatic antishock garment may
have a role for treating shock resulting from a severe pelvic fracture.

Promptly notify the destination hospital so that that facility can activate its trauma team and prepare for the patient.

Emergency Department Care

Upon the patient’s arrival in the emergency department (ED) or trauma center, a rapid primary survey should be performed
to identify immediate life-threatening problems.

The first priority is reassessment of the airway. Protection of the cervical spine with in-line immobilization is absolutely
mandatory. If intubation is indicated, attempt nasotracheal (ie, if no contraindications) or endotracheal intubation. If possible,
perform and record a brief neurologic examination prior to neuromuscular blockade and intubation. If intubation is
unsuccessful, perform cricothyroidotomy (see the video below).

Surgical cricothyroidotomy Seldinger. Video courtesy of Therese Canares, MD, and Jonathan Valente, MD, Rhode Island
Hospital, Brown University.

After an airway has been established, adequate ventilatory exchange is assessed by auscultation of both lung fields.
Patients who display apnea or hypoventilation require respiratory support, as do those patients with tachypnea. Provide all
patients with supplemental oxygen from a device capable of delivering a high fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) (eg, a
nonrebreather mask).

Clinical diagnosis of a tension pneumothorax is treated with needle decompression followed by chest thoracostomy tube
placement. Other mechanical factors that can interfere with ventilation include sucking chest wounds, a hemothorax, and
pulmonary contusion. Treat these aggressively and expediently.

The next priority in the primary survey is an assessment of the circulatory status of the patient. Circulatory collapse in a
patient with blunt abdominal trauma is usually caused by hypovolemia from hemorrhage. Identification of hypovolemia and
signs of shock necessitate vigorous resuscitation and attempts to identify the source of blood loss.

Effective volume resuscitation is accomplished by controlling external hemorrhage and infusing warmed crystalloid solution
via 2 large-bore (eg, 18-gauge) peripheral IV lines. Use central lines (preferably femoral by using a large-bore line such as a
Cordis catheter) and cutdowns (eg, saphenous, brachial) for patients in whom percutaneous peripheral access cannot be
established. Administer a rapid bolus of crystalloid.

Hemodynamic instability despite the administration of 2 L of fluid to adult patients indicates ongoing blood loss and is an
indication for immediate blood transfusion. Administer type O, Rh-negative blood if cross-matched or type-specific blood is
not available.

The CONTROL trial, the only prospective randomized trial of factor VII in trauma patients, evaluated the efficacy and safety
of recombinant factor VIIa as an adjunct to direct hemostasis in major trauma. Results showed a small decrease in blood
utilization but no mortality benefit. Currently available data do not support empiric use of factor VIIa for civilian trauma
patients.[46]

The primary survey is completed with a brief neurologic assessment of the patient using elements of the Glasgow Coma
Scale (see the Glasgow Coma Scale calculator). The patient is undressed and draped in clean, dry, warm sheets.
After the primary survey and initial resuscitation have begun, complete the secondary survey, as described earlier (see
Physical Examination). Perform a thorough head-to-toe examination, paying attention to evidence of the mechanism of injury
and potentially injured areas. Before the placement of a nasogastric tube and Foley catheter, perform appropriate head,
neck, pelvic, perineum, and rectal examinations. “Log-roll” the patient to examine the back and palpate the entire spinal
column.

On the basis of the injury mechanism and the findings from physical examination, obtain initial trauma radiographic studies.
In general, trauma suite views include lateral cervical spine, anterior portable chest, and pelvis radiographs. In-line spinal
immobilization must be continued until spinal fractures have been ruled out. Additional radiographs are indicated for other
findings in the secondary survey.

Bedside ultrasonography using a trauma examination protocol (eg, FAST) can be used to determine the presence of
intraperitoneal hemorrhage (see the images below). If findings are negative or equivocal, DPL may be performed in
hemodynamically unstable patients.

Ultrasound image of right flank. Clear hypoechoic stripe exists between right kidney and liver in Morison pouch.

Ultrasound image of left flank in same patient, with thin hypoechoic stripe above spleen and wider hypoechoic stripe in
splenorenal recess.

Depending on patient stability, injury mechanism, and likelihood of intra-abdominal injury, further investigation may be
warranted for patients who are hemodynamically stable after the initial assessment and resuscitation and who have negative
or equivocal FAST or DPL results. Further investigation includes contrast-enhanced CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis or
serial examinations and ultrasonography.

Nonoperative Management
Nonoperative management (NOM) strategies based on CT scan diagnosis and the hemodynamic stability of the patient are
now being used in adults for the treatment of solid organ injuries, primarily those to the liver and spleen. In blunt abdominal
trauma, including severe solid organ injuries, selective nonoperative management has become the standard of care.

Angiography is a valuable modality in nonoperative management of abdominal solid organ injuries from blunt trauma in
adults. It is used aggressively for nonoperative control of hemorrhage, thereby obviating nontherapeutic cost-inefficient
laparotomies.

Splenic artery embolotherapy (SAE), although not standard of care, is another nonoperative management modality for adult
blunt splenic injury. Requarth et al conducted a metaanalysis comparing outcomes data for observational management
versus SAE by splenic injury grade cohort. Results show the failure rate of observational management increases with splenic
injury grade, whereas the failure rate of SAE does not change significantly from splenic injury grades 1 to 5. In grade 4 and 5
injuries, SAE is associated with significantly higher salvage rates. The SAE success rate noted may in part be due to the fact
that SAE was introduced later in the experience surveyed, and the improved NOM failure rate may be due to other factors
that came into play as the experience proceeded.[47]

The trend toward simply observing hemodynamically stable patients with injuries involving the spleen, liver, or kidneys is
becoming more popular. In a study of pediatric patients, those with blunt abdominal trauma who were hemodynamically
stable after fluid replacement of less than 40 mL/kg, had proven evidence of solid organ injuries, and remained stable were
admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (ICU) under surgical management. No deaths and no immediate or long-term
complications were reported in this group.

If the decision has been made to observe the patient, closely monitor vital signs and frequently repeat the physical
examination. An increased temperature or respiratory rate can indicate a perforated viscus or the formation of an abscess.
Pulse and blood pressure can also change with sepsis or intra-abdominal bleeding. Physical examination findings reflecting
peritonitis are an indication for surgical intervention.

A study by Mora et al evaluated the differences in outcomes among children with blunt pancreatic injuries managed
operatively and nonoperatively. The study concluded that overall, children managed nonoperatively have equivalent or better
outcomes when compared with operative and delayed operative management in regard to death, overall complications,
length of stay, ICU length of stay, and ICU use.[48]

Surgical Management
Resuscitative thoracotomy
Resuscitative thoracotomy in the ED is only occasionally life-saving. It is an aggressive, desperate measure intended to save
a patient whose death is thought to be imminent or otherwise inevitable. Survival with good neurologic recovery is more
likely for patients with penetrating trauma than for patients with blunt trauma. Thoracotomy may have a role in selected
patients with penetrating injuries to the neck, chest, or extremities and those with signs of life within 5 minutes of arrival in
the ED.

A resuscitative thoracotomy is seldom of benefit for patients with cardiac arrest secondary to blunt or head injury or for those
without vital signs at the scene of the accident. Patients with blunt thoracoabdominal trauma with pulseless electrical activity
upon arrival in the ED have a survival rate of virtually 0% and are poor candidates for resuscitative thoracotomy. Patients
with blunt trauma may be allowed a thoracotomy in the ED only if they have signs of life upon arrival.

In a patient with hemoperitoneum from blunt thoracoabdominal trauma, the goals of a resuscitative thoracotomy in the ED
are (1) to cross-clamp the aorta, diverting available blood to the coronaries and cerebral vessels during resuscitation; (2) to
evacuate pericardial tamponade; (3) to directly control thoracic hemorrhage; and (4) to open the chest for cardiac massage.

Laparotomy and definitive repair

Indications for laparotomy in a patient with blunt abdominal injury include signs of peritonitis, uncontrolled shock or
hemorrhage, clinical deterioration during observation, and hemoperitoneum findings after FAST or DPL examinations (see
Workup).

When laparotomy is indicated, broad-spectrum antibiotics are given. A midline incision is usually preferred. When the
abdomen is opened, hemorrhage control is accomplished by removing blood and clots, packing all 4 quadrants, and
clamping vascular structures. Obvious hollow viscus injuries (HVIs) are sutured. After intra-abdominal injuries have been
repaired and hemorrhage has been controlled by packing, a thorough exploration of the abdomen is then performed to
evaluate the entire contents of the abdomen.

After intraperitoneal injuries are controlled, the retroperitoneum and pelvis must be inspected. Do not explore pelvic
hematomas. Use external fixation of pelvic fractures to reduce or stop blood loss in this region. Explore large or expanding
midline retroperitoneal hematomas, with the anticipation of damage to the large vascular structures, pancreas, or duodenum.
Do not explore small or stable perinephric hematomas.
After the source of bleeding has been stopped, further stabilizing the patient with fluid resuscitation and appropriate warming
is important. After such measures are complete, perform a thorough exploratory laparotomy with appropriate repair of all
injured structures.

A study by Crookes et al suggests that the true morbidity of a negative laparotomy may not be as high as previously
believed.[49] They conclude that in blunt abdominal trauma patients, exploratory laparotomy to establish a diagnosis does
not result in increased morbidity in a 30-day period, compared with no laparotomy. In other words, it is safer to undergo
laparotomy with negative findings than to delay treatment of an injury.

It must be stressed, however, that in this digital era with high-resolution imaging the need to take a patient for exploratory
laparotomy only to establish a diagnosis may be unnecessary and expensive if, for instance, the CT is negative and the
patient is hemodynamically stable.

Patients who had gross enteric contamination of the peritoneal cavity are given appropriate antibiotics for 5-7 days.

If a pelvic hematoma was found and the patient continues to lose blood after external fixation of a pelvic fracture,
arteriography with embolization can be used to stop the small percentage of arterial bleeding found in pelvic fractures.

In adults, splenic artery embolization has been shown to improve nonoperative splenic salvage rates. A retrospective review
showed that this procedure may be useful in the adolescent population as well, particularly in patients with high-grade
injuries or with evidence of splenic vascular injury, although this is not the standard of care.[50]

A multicenter study found that delays in returning to the operating room after damage control laparotomy are associated with
the failure to achieve primary fascial closure. The study also concluded that the best results were attained if the reoperation
took place within 24 hours of the initial surgery.[51, 52]

Consultations
The best outcomes from trauma are obtained by involving consultants who possess specific expertise and training in
managing trauma patients. Consider evaluation by a trauma surgeon for all patients with evidence of blunt abdominal
trauma. Clearly, hemodynamic instability or the identification of significant abnormalities during physical examination or a
diagnostic procedure necessitates the involvement of a trauma surgeon.

Specific physical examination findings that call for timely surgical evaluation are as follows:

History of blunt abdominal trauma, shock, or abnormal vital signs (eg, tachycardia, hypotension)

Evidence of shock without obvious external blood loss

Evidence of peritonitis (eg, marked tenderness, involuntary guarding, percussion tenderness)

Findings consistent with potential intra-abdominal injury (eg, lap belt signs, lower rib fractures, lumbar spine fractures)

Altered levels of consciousness or sensation, whether due to drugs, alcohol, or head/spinal injury

Patients who require other prolonged operative intervention (eg, orthopedic procedures)

Specific findings on diagnostic studies that call for timely surgical evaluation include evidence of free fluid or solid organ
injury on sonograms or CT scans.

Although a trend toward nonoperative management of hepatic, splenic, and renal injuries in patients who are
hemodynamically normal has occurred, a trained trauma surgeon must oversee this care.

Other specific findings that indicate timely trauma surgeon involvement are as follows:

Positive findings on DPL

Evidence of extravasated contrast or extraluminal air on an upper gastrointestinal series (eg, duodenal rupture), plain
abdominal radiography, or cystography

Serious pelvic fractures

Evidence of bladder rupture on contrast cystogram or gross hematuria

Elevated findings on liver function studies

If consultants with expertise in managing blunt abdominal injuries are unavailable, arrange patient transfer to the nearest
appropriate trauma center as soon as injury is identified. Lengthy diagnostic workup is counterproductive once it is
recognized that a patient cannot be managed at the initial facility. Physician-to-physician consultation must occur before
transport to ensure that the receiving facility has the resources necessary to care for the patient.
Long-Term Monitoring
Before discharge, provide patients with detailed instructions that describe signs of undiagnosed injury. Increased abdominal
pain or distention, nausea or vomiting, weakness, lightheadedness or fainting, or new bleeding in urine or feces mandates
immediate return and further evaluation. Ensure that close follow-up care and repeat examinations are available for all
patients.

Guidelines

Guidelines Summary
WSES guidelines

The World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES) has published guidelines on bowel trauma diagnosis and management.
Highlights of the guidelines on blunt bowel injury include the following[53] :

Management of the awake and oriented patient with blunt abdominal trauma starts with the primary survey, E-FAST,
physical examination, secondary survey, blood chemistry, vital signs, and contrast-enhanced abdominal CT.
The presence of a seatbelt sign should prompt a CT scan and a high index of suspicion for bowel injury.
In selected cases, repeat CT might be considered. Patients with equivocal signs on initial CT scan should be
reimaged after 6 hours. In patients who demonstrate evolving clinical signs suspicious for bowel injury, reimaging
should be considered.
The presence of highly specific CT findings such as extraluminal air, extraluminal oral contrast, or bowel-wall defects
warrants prompt surgical exploration.
The presence of highly sensitive CT findings such as free fluid in the absence of solid-organ injury, abnormal
enhancement of bowel wall, and mesenteric stranding can be used as an adjunct to the clinical picture but should not
solely determine management.

Medication

Medication Summary
Judiciously prescribe pain medications to patients who are discharged. To prevent masked or delayed presentations, ensure
that a close follow-up for reevaluation is available to all patients who are provided pain medications. With the potential for
hemorrhage, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) probably should be avoided. Acetaminophen with or without
small quantities of mild narcotic analgesics may be all that should be prescribed initially. Minimize use of analgesics in
patients who are admitted for observation.

Patients who undergo laparotomy may require routine perioperative antibiotics. Patients with repaired hollow organ injury
may require additional antibiotics.

Analgesics

Class Summary
Pain control is essential to quality patient care. It ensures patient comfort, promotes pulmonary toilet, and prevents
exacerbations in tachycardia and hypertension.

Morphine sulfate (Duramorph, Astramorph, MS Contin, Avinza, Kadian)

Morphine is the drug of choice for narcotic analgesia due to its reliable and predictable effects, safety profile, and ease of
reversibility with naloxone. Like fentanyl, morphine sulfate is easily titrated to desired level of pain control.
Morphine sulfate administered intravenously may be dosed in a number of ways. It is commonly titrated until the desired
effect is obtained.

Fentanyl citrate (Fentora, Abastral, Duragesic)

A synthetic opioid analgesic that is primarily a mu receptor agonist, fentanyl is 50-100 times more potent than morphine. It
has a short duration of action (1-2 h) and minimal cardiovascular effects, such as hypotension. Respiratory depression is
uncommon, but this effect lasts longer than its analgesic effect. Fentanyl is frequently used in patient-controlled analgesia for
relief of pain. Unlike morphine, fentanyl is not commonly associated with histamine release.

Acetaminophen and hydrocodone (Vicodin, Lortab, Norco)

This drug combination is indicated for relief of moderate to severe pain.

Hydromorphone (Dilaudid)
Hydromorphone is a potent semisynthetic opiate agonist similar in structure to morphine. It is approximately 7-8 times as
potent as morphine on mg-to-mg basis, with a shorter or similar duration of action.

Acetaminophen with codeine (Tylenol-3)

This combination is a mild narcotic analgesic. Provide the family with a small supply for use when pain severity is greater
than can be managed with acetaminophen alone. Counsel parents to use for severe pain only, not as the first medication for
each symptom.

Antibiotics

Class Summary
Empiric antimicrobial therapy must be comprehensive and should cover all likely pathogens in the context of the clinical
setting.

Cefazolin
Cefazolin is a first-generation semisynthetic cephalosporin, which, by binding to 1 or more penicillin-binding proteins, arrests
bacterial cell wall synthesis and inhibits bacterial replication. It has a poor capacity to cross the blood-brain barrier. Cefazolin
is primarily active against skin flora, including S aureus. Regimens for intravenous and intramuscular dosing are similar. It is
typically used alone for skin and skin-structure coverage.

Cephalexin (Keflex)
This is a first-generation cephalosporin that inhibits bacterial replication by inhibiting bacterial cell wall synthesis. It is
bactericidal and is effective against rapidly growing organisms forming cell walls.

Resistance occurs by the alteration of penicillin-binding proteins. Cephalexin is effective for treatment of infections caused by
streptococcal or staphylococcal organisms, including penicillinase-producing staphylococci. It may use to initiate therapy
when streptococcal or staphylococcal infection is suspected.

It is used orally when outpatient management is indicated.

Cefotaxime (Claforan)
Cefotaxime is a third-generation cephalosporin with a broad gram-negative spectrum, lower efficacy against gram-positive
organisms, and higher efficacy against resistant organisms. It acts by arresting bacterial cell wall synthesis by binding to one
or more penicillin-binding proteins, which, in turn, inhibits bacterial growth. Cefotaxime is used for septicemia and treatment
of gynecologic infections caused by susceptible organisms, but it has a lower efficacy against gram-positive organisms.

Ceftazidime (Fortaz, Tazicef)

Ceftazidime is a third-generation cephalosporin with broad-spectrum, gram-negative activity, including against
Pseudomonas; it has low efficacy against gram-positive organisms and high efficacy against resistant organisms. This agent
arrests bacterial growth by binding to one or more penicillin-binding proteins, which, in turn, inhibits the final transpeptidation
step of peptidoglycan synthesis in bacterial cell wall synthesis, thus inhibiting cell wall biosynthesis.

The condition of the patient, severity of infection, and susceptibility of the microorganism should determine the proper dose
and route of administration.

Ceftriaxone (Rocephin)
Ceftriaxone is a third-generation cephalosporin with broad-spectrum gram-negative activity, low efficacy against gram-
positive organisms, and high efficacy against resistant organisms. It is considered the drug of choice for parenteral agents in
community-acquired pneumonia. Bactericidal activity results from the inhibition of cell wall synthesis by binding to one or
more penicillin-binding proteins. This agent exerts its antimicrobial effect by interfering with the synthesis of peptidoglycan, a
major structural component of the bacterial cell wall. Bacteria eventually lyse due to ongoing activity of cell wall autolytic
enzymes, while the cell wall assembly is arrested.

Ceftriaxone is highly stable in the presence of beta-lactamases, both penicillinase and cephalosporinase, and of gram-
negative and gram-positive bacteria. Approximately 33-67% of the dose is excreted unchanged in urine, and the remainder
is secreted in bile and, ultimately, in feces as microbiologically inactive compounds. This agent reversibly binds to human
plasma proteins, and binding has been reported to decrease from 95% bound at plasma concentrations of less than 25
mcg/mL to 85% bound at 300 mcg/mL.

Erythromycin (E.E.S., Ery-Tab, Erythrocin, PCE, EryPed)

Erythromycin covers most potential etiologic agents, including Mycoplasma species. The oral regimen may be insufficient to
adequately treat Legionella species, and this agent is less active against H influenzae. Although the standard course of
treatment is 10 days, treatment until the patient has been afebrile for 3-5 days seems a more rational approach.
Erythromycin therapy may result in GI upset, causing some clinicians to prescribe an alternative macrolide or change to a
thrice-daily dosing.

Erythromycin is a macrolide that inhibits bacterial growth possibly by blocking dissociation of peptidyl t-RNA from ribosomes,
causing RNA-dependent protein synthesis to arrest.

Amoxicillin and clavulanate (Augmentin, Augmentin XR, Amoclan)

Amoxicillin inhibits bacterial cell wall synthesis by binding to penicillin-binding proteins. The addition of clavulanate inhibits
beta-lactamase producing bacteria.

It is a good alternative antibiotic for patients allergic to or intolerant of the macrolide class. It is usually is well tolerated and
provides good coverage to most infectious agents. It is not effective against Mycoplasma and Legionella species. The half-
life of the oral dosage form is 1-1.3 hours. It has good tissue penetration but does not enter cerebrospinal fluid.

For children older than 3 months, base the dosing protocol on the amoxicillin content. Due to different amoxicillin/clavulanic
acid ratios in the 250-mg tablet (250/125) versus the 250-mg chewable tablet (250/62.5), do not use the 250-mg tablet until
child weighs more than 40 kg.

Ampicillin and sulbactam (Unasyn)

This is a drug combination of a beta-lactamase inhibitor with ampicillin. It interferes with bacterial cell wall synthesis during
active replication, causing bactericidal activity against susceptible organisms. It is an alternative to amoxicillin when the
patient is unable to take medication orally.

It covers skin, enteric flora, and anaerobes. It is not ideal for nosocomial pathogens.

Piperacillin and tazobactam sodium (Zosyn)

This is an antipseudomonal penicillin plus a beta-lactamase inhibitor. It inhibits the biosynthesis of cell wall mucopeptide and
is effective during the stage of active multiplication.

Ticarcillin and clavulanate (Timentin)

It inhibits the biosynthesis of cell wall mucopeptide and is effective during the stage of active growth.
It is an antipseudomonal penicillin plus a beta-lactamase inhibitor that provides coverage against most gram-positives, most
gram negatives, and most anaerobes.

Ciprofloxacin (Cipro)
Ciprofloxacin is a fluoroquinolone that inhibits bacterial DNA synthesis and, consequently, growth, by inhibiting DNA gyrase
and topoisomerases, which are required for replication, transcription, and translation of genetic material. Quinolones have
broad activity against gram-positive and gram-negative aerobic organisms. It is has no activity against anaerobes. Continue
treatment for at least 2 days (7-14 d typical) after signs and symptoms have disappeared.

Levofloxacin (Levaquin)
Levofloxacin is rapidly becoming a popular choice in pneumonia; this agent is a fluoroquinolone used to treat community-
acquired pneumonia caused by S aureus, S pneumoniae (including penicillin-resistant strains), H influenzae, H
parainfluenzae, Klebsiella pneumoniae, M catarrhalis, C pneumoniae, Legionella pneumophila, or M pneumoniae.
Fluoroquinolones should be used empirically in patients likely to develop exacerbation due to resistant organisms to other
antibiotics.

Levofloxacin is the L stereoisomer of the D/L parent compound ofloxacin, the D form being inactive. It is good monotherapy
with extended coverage against Pseudomonas species and excellent activity against pneumococci. Levofloxacin acts by
inhibition of DNA gyrase activity. The oral form has a bioavailability that is reportedly 99%.

The 750-mg dose is as well tolerated as the 500-mg dose, and it is more effective. Other fluoroquinolones with activity
against S pneumoniae may be useful and include moxifloxacin, gatifloxacin, and gemifloxacin.

Clindamycin (Cleocin, Cleocin Pediatric)

Clindamycin is a lincosamide semisynthetic antibiotic produced by 7(S)-chloro-substitution of 7(R)-hydroxyl group of the
parent compound lincomycin. It inhibits bacterial growth, possibly by blocking dissociation of peptidyl tRNA from ribosomes,
causing RNA-dependent protein synthesis to arrest. It widely distributes in the body, without penetration of the CNS. It is
protein bound and is excreted by the liver and kidneys.

It is available in a parenteral form (ie, clindamycin phosphate) and oral form (ie, clindamycin hydrochloride). Oral clindamycin
is absorbed rapidly and almost completely and is not appreciably altered by the presence of food in the stomach.
Appropriate serum levels are reached and sustained for at least 6 hours following an oral dose. No significant levels are
attained in cerebrospinal fluid. It is also effective against aerobic and anaerobic streptococci (except enterococci).

Questions & Answers

Overview

What are the challenges to correctly diagnosing blunt abdominal trauma?

What are the advantages of CT scanning in the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma?

What are the signs and symptom of blunt abdominal trauma in an alert patient?

Which injury patterns suggest an intra-abdominal trauma?

What is included in the evaluation of a patient with blunt abdominal trauma?

When is diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) indicated in the workup of blunt abdominal trauma?

What is focused assessment with sonography for trauma (FAST) in patients with blunt abdominal trauma?

How is blunt abdominal trauma treated?

When is laparotomy indicated in the treatment of blunt abdominal injury?

Which nonoperative therapies are used in the treatment of blunt abdominal trauma?

What is the pathophysiology of blunt abdominal trauma?

What causes blunt abdominal trauma?

What is blunt abdominal trauma?

What is the anatomy of the abdomen relevant to blunt abdominal trauma?

What is the US prevalence of blunt abdominal trauma?

What is the global prevalence of blunt abdominal trauma?

Which age groups have the highest incidence of blunt abdominal trauma?

What are the sexual predilections of blunt abdominal trauma?

What is the prognosis of blunt abdominal trauma?

What is included in patient education for the prevention of blunt abdominal trauma?

Presentation

Who may provide initial history in a blunt abdominal trauma?

What is the focus of clinical history in motor vehicle accident-caused blunt abdominal trauma?

What are the elements of the clinical history for blunt abdominal trauma?

How is the mnemonic AMPLE used to gather history in blunt abdominal trauma?

What does out-of-hospital hypotension suggest in blunt abdominal trauma?

When is Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS) protocol performed in the treatment of blunt abdominal trauma?

What precautions should be taken by all staff caring for a patient with blunt abdominal trauma?

What is included in the in the abdominal exam of patients with blunt trauma?

How does the physical exam for blunt abdominal trauma differ between pediatric and adult patients?

Why is a tertiary physical exam performed in patients with blunt abdominal trauma?

What are the possible complications of blunt abdominal trauma?

DDX

What are the common pitfalls in the diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma?

What are the differential diagnoses for Blunt Abdominal Trauma?

Workup

What is the role of lab tests in the workup of blunt abdominal trauma?

What is the role of CBC in the workup of blunt abdominal trauma?

What is the role of serum electrolyte measurements in the workup of blunt abdominal trauma?

What is the role of serum glucose and carbon dioxide measurements in the workup of blunt abdominal trauma?

What is the role of liver function tests in the workup of blunt abdominal trauma?

What is the role of serum amylase or lipase measurements in the workup of blunt abdominal trauma?

What is the role of a coagulation profile in the workup of blunt abdominal trauma?

Why is blood typing, screening, and cross-matching performed in the workup of blunt abdominal trauma?

What is the role of arterial blood gas measurements in the workup of blunt abdominal trauma?

What is the role of drug and alcohol screening in the workup of blunt abdominal trauma?

What is the role of urine studies in the workup of blunt abdominal trauma?

What is the role of plain radiography in the workup of blunt abdominal trauma?

What is the role of ultrasonography in the workup of blunt abdominal trauma?

What is the role of CT in the workup of blunt abdominal trauma?

What is the prediction rule of CT scanning for pediatric blunt abdominal trauma?
What is the role of diagnostic laparoscopy in the workup of blunt abdominal trauma?

What is the role of diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) in the workup of blunt abdominal trauma?

How is diagnostic peritoneal lavage (DPL) performed in the workup of blunt abdominal trauma?

Treatment

When does the treatment of blunt abdominal trauma begin?

When are surgical interventions indicated in the treatment of blunt abdominal injury?

What is included in the prehospital care of blunt abdominal trauma?

How is blunt abdominal trauma treated in the emergency department (ED)?

What is the role of nonoperative treatment (NOM) in the treatment of blunt abdominal trauma?

What is the role of resuscitative thoracotomy in the treatment of blunt abdominal trauma?

What is the role of laparotomy in the treatment of blunt abdominal trauma?

Which specialist consultations are beneficial to patients with blunt abdominal trauma?

Which physical findings should trigger surgical evaluation for the treatment of blunt abdominal trauma?

Which findings on diagnostic studies should trigger surgical evaluation for the treatment of blunt abdominal trauma?

When is patient transfer considered for the treatment of blunt abdominal trauma?

What are the signs and symptoms of undiagnosed blunt abdominal trauma?

Medications

What is the role of medication for treatment of blunt abdominal trauma?

Which medications in the drug class Antibiotics are used in the treatment of Blunt Abdominal Trauma?

Which medications in the drug class Analgesics are used in the treatment of Blunt Abdominal Trauma?

Contributor Information and Disclosures

Author

Eric L Legome, MD Professor and Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine, Mount Sinai St Lukes and Mount Sinai West;
Vice Chair of Academic Affairs, Department of Emergency Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

Eric L Legome, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Emergency Physicians, Eastern
Association for the Surgery of Trauma, New York American College of Emergency Physicians, Society for Academic
Emergency Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Coauthor(s)

Samuel M Keim, MD, MS Professor and Chair, Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Arizona College of
Medicine

Samuel M Keim, MD, MS is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Emergency Medicine,
American College of Emergency Physicians, American Medical Association, American Public Health Association, Society for
Academic Emergency Medicine

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Jeffrey P Salomone, MD, FACS, NREMT-P Associate Professor of Surgery, Emory University School of Medicine; Deputy
Chief of Surgery, Grady Memorial Hospital

Jeffrey P Salomone, MD, FACS, NREMT-P is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons,
American Medical Association, Medical Association of Georgia, National Association of EMS Physicians, Society of Critical
Care Medicine
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

John Udeani, MD, FAAEM Assistant Professor, Department of Emergency Medicine, Charles Drew University of Medicine
and Science, University of California, Los Angeles, David Geffen School of Medicine

John Udeani, MD, FAAEM is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Emergency Medicine,
American College of Emergency Physicians

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Specialty Editor Board

Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of
Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference

Disclosure: Received salary from Medscape for employment. for: Medscape.

Robert L Sheridan, MD Assistant Chief of Staff, Chief of Burn Surgery, Shriners Burns Hospital; Associate Professor of
Surgery, Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma and Burns, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical
School

Robert L Sheridan, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Academy of Pediatrics, American
Association for the Surgery of Trauma, American Burn Association, American College of Surgeons

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Chief Editor

John Geibel, MD, MSc, DSc, AGAF Vice Chair and Professor, Department of Surgery, Section of Gastrointestinal Medicine,
Professor, Department of Cellular and Molecular Physiology, Yale University School of Medicine; Director of Surgical
Research, Department of Surgery, Yale-New Haven Hospital; American Gastroenterological Association Fellow; Fellow of
the Royal Society of Medicine

John Geibel, MD, MSc, DSc, AGAF is a member of the following medical societies: American Gastroenterological
Association, American Physiological Society, American Society of Nephrology, Association for Academic Surgery,
International Society of Nephrology, New York Academy of Sciences, Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Additional Contributors

Ernest Dunn, MD Program Director, Surgery Residency, Department of Surgery, Methodist Health System, Dallas

Ernest Dunn, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Surgeons, American Medical
Association, Association for Academic Surgery, Society of Critical Care Medicine, Texas Medical Association

Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.

Acknowledgements

The authors and editors of Medscape Reference gratefully acknowledge the contributions of previous author Sidney R
Steinberg, MD, FACS, to the development and writing of a source article.

References

1. Brasel KJ, Olson CJ, Stafford RE, Johnson TJ. Incidence and significance of free fluid on abdominal computed tomographic
scan in blunt trauma. J Trauma. 1998 May. 44(5):889-92. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

2. Holmes JF, Offerman SR, Chang CH, Randel BE, Hahn DD, Frankovsky MJ, et al. Performance of helical computed tomography
without oral contrast for the detection of gastrointestinal injuries. Ann Emerg Med. 2004 Jan. 43(1):120-8. [QxMD MEDLINE
Link].

3. Christiano JG, Tummers M, Kennedy A. Clinical significance of isolated intraperitoneal fluid on computed tomography in pediatric
blunt abdominal trauma. J Pediatr Surg. 2009 Jun. 44(6):1242-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

4. Shanmuganathan K. Multi-detector row CT imaging of blunt abdominal trauma. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2004 Apr. 25(2):180-
204. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

5. American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. Abdominal Trauma. In: ATLS Student Course Manual. 8th. American
College of Surgeons; 2008.
 6. Jansen JO, Yule SR, Loudon MA. Investigation of blunt abdominal trauma. BMJ. 2008 Apr 26. 336(7650):938-42. [QxMD
MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].

7. Cooper A, Barlow B, DiScala C, String D. Mortality and truncal injury: the pediatric perspective. J Pediatr Surg. 1994 Jan.
29(1):33-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

8. Ong CL, Png DJ, Chan ST. Abdominal trauma--a review. Singapore Med J. 1994 Jun. 35(3):269-70. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

9. Powell DC, Bivins BA, Bell RM. Diagnostic peritoneal lavage. Surg Gynecol Obstet. 1982 Aug. 155(2):257-64. [QxMD MEDLINE
Link].

10. Hankin AD, Baren JM. Should the digital rectal examination be a part of the trauma secondary survey?. Ann Emerg Med. 2009
Feb. 53(2):208-12. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

11. Enderson BL, Reath DB, Meadors J, Dallas W, DeBoo JM, Maull KI. The tertiary trauma survey: a prospective study of missed
injury. J Trauma. 1990 Jun. 30(6):666-9; discussion 669-70. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

12. Janjua KJ, Sugrue M, Deane SA. Prospective evaluation of early missed injuries and the role of tertiary trauma survey. J
Trauma. 1998 Jun. 44(6):1000-6; discussion 1006-7. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

13. Lewis R. Pelvic Radiography Unnecessary in Children if CT Is Planned. Medscape Medical News. Aug 12 2014. [Full Text].

14. Kwok MY, Yen K, Atabaki S, et al. Sensitivity of Plain Pelvis Radiography in Children With Blunt Torso Trauma. Ann Emerg Med.
2014 Jul 29. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

15. Schnüriger B, Inaba K, Barmparas G, Eberle BM, Lustenberger T, Lam L, et al. Serial white blood cell counts in trauma: do they
predict a hollow viscus injury?. J Trauma. 2010 Aug. 69(2):302-7. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

16. Ritchie AH, Williscroft DM. Elevated liver enzymes as a predictor of liver injury in stable blunt abdominal trauma patients: case
report and systematic review of the literature. Can J Rural Med. 2006 Fall. 11(4):283-7. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

17. Akhrass R, Yaffe MB, Brandt CP, Reigle M, Fallon WF Jr, Malangoni MA. Pancreatic trauma: a ten-year multi-institutional
experience. Am Surg. 1997 Jul. 63(7):598-604. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

18. Knudson MM, McAninch JW, Gomez R, Lee P, Stubbs HA. Hematuria as a predictor of abdominal injury after blunt trauma. Am J
Surg. 1992 Nov. 164(5):482-5; discussion 485-6. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

19. Tso P, Rodriguez A, Cooper C, Militello P, Mirvis S, Badellino MM, et al. Sonography in blunt abdominal trauma: a preliminary
progress report. J Trauma. 1992 Jul. 33(1):39-43; discussion 43-4. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

20. Kawaguchi S, Toyonaga J, Ikeda K. Five point method: An ultrasonographic quantification formula of intra-abdominal fluid
collection. Jpn J Acute Med. 1987;7:993-7.

21. Tiling T, Boulion B, Schmid A, et al. Ultrasound in blunt abdominothoracic trauma. In: Border JR, ed. Blunt Multiple Trauma:
Comprehensive Pathophysiology and Care. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1990:415-33.

22. Blaivas M, Brannam L, Hawkins M, Lyon M, Sriram K. Bedside emergency ultrasonographic diagnosis of diaphragmatic rupture
in blunt abdominal trauma. Am J Emerg Med. 2004 Nov. 22(7):601-4. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

23. Branney SW, Moore EE, Cantrill SV, Burch JM, Terry SJ. Ultrasound based key clinical pathway reduces the use of hospital
resources for the evaluation of blunt abdominal trauma. J Trauma. 1997 Jun. 42(6):1086-90. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

24. Kornezos I, Chatziioannou A, Kokkonouzis I, Nebotakis P, Moschouris H, Yiarmenitis S, et al. Findings and limitations of focused
ultrasound as a possible screening test in stable adult patients with blunt abdominal trauma: a Greek study. Eur Radiol. 2010
Jan. 20(1):234-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

25. Kendall JL, Faragher J, Hewitt GJ, Burcham G, Haukoos JS. Emergency Department Ultrasound Is not a Sensitive Detector of
Solid Organ Injury. West J Emerg Med. 2009 Feb. 10(1):1-5. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].

26. Rozycki GS, Ochsner MG, Schmidt JA, Frankel HL, Davis TP, Wang D, et al. A prospective study of surgeon-performed
ultrasound as the primary adjuvant modality for injured patient assessment. J Trauma. 1995 Sep. 39(3):492-8; discussion 498-
500. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

27. Chiu WC, Cushing BM, Rodriguez A, Ho SM, Mirvis SE, Shanmuganathan K, et al. Abdominal injuries without hemoperitoneum:
a potential limitation of focused abdominal sonography for trauma (FAST). J Trauma. 1997 Apr. 42(4):617-23; discussion 623-5.
[QxMD MEDLINE Link].

28. Holmes JF, Kelley KM, Wootton-Gorges SL, Utter GH, Abramson LP, Rose JS, et al. Effect of Abdominal Ultrasound on Clinical
Care, Outcomes, and Resource Use Among Children With Blunt Torso Trauma: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017 Jun
13. 317 (22):2290-2296. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

29. Stengel D, Leisterer J, Ferrada P, Ekkernkamp A, Mutze S, Hoenning A. Point-of-care ultrasonography for diagnosing
thoracoabdominal injuries in patients with blunt trauma. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Dec 12. 12:CD012669. [QxMD
MEDLINE Link].

30. Matsumoto S, Sekine K, Yamazaki M, Sasao K, Funabiki T, Shimizu M, et al. Predictive value of a flat inferior vena cava on initial
computed tomography for hemodynamic deterioration in patients with blunt torso trauma. J Trauma. 2010 Dec. 69(6):1398-402.
[QxMD MEDLINE Link].
31. Holmes JF, Lillis K, Monroe D, et al. Identifying children at very low risk of clinically important blunt abdominal injuries. Ann
Emerg Med. 2013 Aug. 62 (2):107-16.e2. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

32. Mahajan P, Kuppermann N, Tunik M, Yen K, Atabaki SM, Lee LK, et al. Comparison of Clinician Suspicion Versus a Clinical
Prediction Rule in Identifying Children at Risk for Intra-abdominal Injuries After Blunt Torso Trauma. Acad Emerg Med. 2015 Sep.
22 (9):1034-41. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

33. Benjamin E, Cho J, Recinos G, et al. Negative computed tomography can safely rule out clinically significant intra-abdominal
injury in the asymptomatic patient after blunt trauma: Prospective evaluation of 1193 patients. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2018
Jan. 84 (1):128-32. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

34. Benjamin ER, Siboni S, Haltmeier T, Lofthus A, Inaba K, Demetriades D. Negative Finding From Computed Tomography of the
Abdomen After Blunt Trauma. JAMA Surg. 2015 Dec 1. 150 (12):1194-5. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

35. Fabian TC, Croce MA, Stewart RM, Pritchard FE, Minard G, Kudsk KA. A prospective analysis of diagnostic laparoscopy in
trauma. Ann Surg. 1993 May. 217(5):557-64; discussion 564-5. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].

36. Ivatury RR, Simon RJ, Weksler B, Bayard V, Stahl WM. Laparoscopy in the evaluation of the intrathoracic abdomen after
penetrating injury. J Trauma. 1992 Jul. 33(1):101-8; discussion 109. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

37. Ortega AE, Tang E, Froes ET, Asensio JA, Katkhouda N, Demetriades D. Laparoscopic evaluation of penetrating
thoracoabdominal traumatic injuries. Surg Endosc. 1996 Jan. 10(1):19-22. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

38. Neuhof H, Cohen I. ABDOMINAL PUNCTURE IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF ACUTE INTRAPERITONEAL DISEASE. Ann Surg. 1926
Apr. 83(4):454-62. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].

39. ROOT HD, HAUSER CW, MCKINLEY CR, LAFAVE JW, MENDIOLA RP Jr. DIAGNOSTIC PERITONEAL LAVAGE. Surgery.
1965 May. 57:633-7. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

40. Liu M, Lee CH, P'eng FK. Prospective comparison of diagnostic peritoneal lavage, computed tomographic scanning, and
ultrasonography for the diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma. J Trauma. 1993 Aug. 35(2):267-70. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

41. Cryer HG, Larmon B. Patient care phase: prehospital and resuscitation care. In: Greenfield LJ, Mulholland MW, Oldham KT,
Zelenock GB, Lillemoe KD, eds. Surgery: Scientific Principles and Practice. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven;. 1997:280-4.

42. Pryor JP, Pryor RJ, Stafford PW. Initial phase of trauma management and fluid resuscitation. Trauma Reports. 2002;3(3):1-12.

43. Nirula R, Maier R, Moore E, Sperry J, Gentilello L. Scoop and run to the trauma center or stay and play at the local hospital:
hospital transfer's effect on mortality. J Trauma. 2010 Sep. 69(3):595-9; discussion 599-601. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

44. Perel P, Roberts I. Colloids versus crystalloids for fluid resuscitation in critically ill patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007
Oct 17. CD000567. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

45. Bunn F, Trivedi D, Ashraf S. Colloid solutions for fluid resuscitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Jan 23. CD001319.
[QxMD MEDLINE Link].

46. Hauser CJ, Boffard K, Dutton R, Bernard GR, Croce MA, Holcomb JB, et al. Results of the CONTROL trial: efficacy and safety of
recombinant activated Factor VII in the management of refractory traumatic hemorrhage. J Trauma. 2010 Sep. 69(3):489-500.
[QxMD MEDLINE Link].

47. Requarth JA, D'agostino RB Jr, Miller PR. Nonoperative Management of Adult Blunt Splenic Injury With and Without Splenic
Artery Embolotherapy: A Meta-Analysis. J Trauma. 2011 Oct. 71(4):898-903. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

48. Mora MC, Wong KE, Friderici J, et al. Operative vs Nonoperative Management of Pediatric Blunt Pancreatic Trauma: Evaluation
of the National Trauma Data Bank. J Am Coll Surg. 2016 Jun. 222 (6):977-82. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

49. Crookes BA, Shackford SR, Gratton J, Khaleel M, Ratliff J, Osler T. "Never be wrong": the morbidity of negative and delayed
laparotomies after blunt trauma. J Trauma. 2010 Dec. 69(6):1386-91; discussion 1391-2. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

50. Mayglothling JA, Haan JM, Scalea TM. Blunt splenic injuries in the adolescent trauma population: the role of angiography and
embolization. J Emerg Med. 2011 Jul. 41(1):21-8. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].

51. Pommerening MJ, DuBose JJ, Zielinski MD, Phelan HA, Scalea TM, Inaba K, et al. Time to first take-back operation predicts
successful primary fascial closure in patients undergoing damage control laparotomy. Surgery. 2014 Aug. 156 (2):431-8. [QxMD
MEDLINE Link].

52. Barone JE. Minimize Time Between Damage Control Laparotomy and Take-Back Operation. Reuters Health Information.
Available at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/827634. July 02, 2014; Accessed: June 26, 2015.

53. [Guideline] Smyth L, Bendinelli C, Lee N, et al. WSES guidelines on blunt and penetrating bowel injury: diagnosis, investigations,
and treatment. World J Emerg Surg. 2022 Mar 4. 17 (1):13. [QxMD MEDLINE Link]. [Full Text].

54. Boggs W. Routine Urinalysis Not Helpful After Blunt Abdominal Trauma. Medscape Medical News. Available at
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/812180. Accessed: October 15, 2013.

55. Olthof DC, Joosse P, van der Vlies CH, de Reijke TM, Goslings JC. Routine urinalysis in patients with a blunt abdominal trauma
mechanism is not valuable to detect urogenital injury. Emerg Med J. 2015 Feb. 32 (2):119-23. [QxMD MEDLINE Link].