To determine whether focused abdominal sonogram for trauma (FAST) in a rural hospital provides information that prompts immediate transfer to a tertiary care facility for patients with blunt abdominal trauma who would otherwise be discharged or held for observation.

Prior to the study, participating emergency physicians underwent a minimum of 30 hours of ultrasound training. All patients who presented with blunt abdominal trauma to our rural hospital between Mar. 1, 2002, and Apr. 30, 2003, were eligible for study. Following a history and physical examination, the emergency physician documented his or her disposition decision. A FAST was then performed, and the disposition reconsidered in light of the FAST results.

Sixty-seven FAST exams were performed on 65 patients. Three examinations (4.5%) were true-positive (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.9%–12.5%); 60 (89.6%) were true-negative (95% CI 79.7%–95.7%), 4 (6%) were false-negative (95% CI 1.7%–14.6%) and none (0%) were false-positive (95% CI 0%–5.4%). These values reflect sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and positive predictive values of 43%, 100%, 94% and 100% respectively. FAST results did not alter the decision to transfer any patient (0%: 95% CI 0.0%–5.4%), although one positive FAST may have led to an expedited transfer. One of 38 patients who was discharged after a negative FAST study returned 24 hours later because of worsening symptoms, and was ultimately found to have splenic and pancreatic injuries.

This study failed to demonstrate that FAST improves disposition decisions for patients with blunt abdominal trauma who are evaluated in a hospital without advanced imaging or on-site surgical capability. However, the study is not sufficiently powered to rule out a role for FAST in these circumstances, and our data suggest that up to 5.4% of transfer decisions could be influenced by FAST. Rural emergency physicians should not allow a negative FAST study to override a clinical indication for transfer to a trauma centre; however, positive FAST studies can be used to accelerate transfer for definitive treatment.

In war, abdominal injuries constitute a significant proportion of the total injuries. These injuries are associated with high mortality and their treatment poses dianostic, surgical, and therapeutic dilemmas. This article presents the epidemiology of abdominal war injuries during the siege of Sarajevo, and briefly describes the surgical techniques and therapeutic practices used in their treatment.

A retrospective medical record review was performed of 273 war casualties with trauma to visceral and vascular structures in the abdomen inflicted during a 7.5 month period in 1992.

Most patients underwent exploratory laparotomy. Six percent had negative laparotomies, and there were no deaths in this group. In 18.3%, injuries were limited to one organ system, while 81.7% sustained combined injuries to multiple-organ systems. The crude mortality rate was 26.0%. Mortality rate excluding deaths within 24 hours of injury was 10.3%. Injuries were caused by metal fragments from artillery shrapnel, mortar and contact mines, or hand grenades. Because of a shortage of colostomy bags, resections of the colon with primary end-to-end anastomoses rather than colostomy were performed in 72% of the cases.

Mortality was highest in those victims with four or more injured organ systems (81.3%) or with major vascular injuries (64.7%). The primary cause of death within the first 24 hours was prolonged hemorrhagic shock.