↓ Skip to main content

Double Jeopardy in Penetrating Trauma: Get FAST, Get It Right

Overview of attention for article published in World Journal of Surgery, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Double Jeopardy in Penetrating Trauma: Get FAST, Get It Right
Published in
World Journal of Surgery, August 2017
DOI 10.1007/s00268-017-4162-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kazuhide Matsushima, Desmond Khor, Kristin Berona, Derek Antoku, Ryan Dollbaum, Moazzam Khan, Demetrios Demetriades

Abstract

In hypotensive patients with thoracoabdominal penetrating injuries, trauma surgeons often face a considerable dilemma, which cavities and when to explore. We hypothesized that the Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) would be accurate enough to determine the need and sequence of cavity exploration. We conducted a 4-year retrospective study at a level 1 trauma center with high penetrating trauma volume. Patients with potential multi-cavity thoracoabdominal injuries were selected based on the location and number of external wounds. Findings in the operation or on computed tomography were used as references to evaluate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of pericardial and abdominal FAST. A total of 2851 patients with penetrating injury were admitted from 2012 to 2015. Of those, 103 patients (3.6%) met our inclusion criteria (stab wounds 56.3%, gunshot wounds 43.7%). Median age: 32, male gender: 89.3%, median injury severity score: 17, in-hospital mortality rate: 11.7%. Thirty-seven patients (35.9%) required surgical exploration of more than one cavity. Although the pericardial FAST was falsely negative in only one case with large left hemothorax, all cardiac injuries were treated without delay (12/13, 92.3% sensitivity). Sensitivity and specificity of the abdominal FAST was 68.5 and 93.9%, respectively. In hypotensive patients following penetrating thoracoabdominal injuries, the pericardial FAST was highly sensitive and could reliably determine the need to explore the pericardium. While positive findings of abdominal FAST warrant an exploratory laparotomy, negative abdominal FAST does not exclude the abdominal cavity as a bleeding source.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Researcher 6 13%
Student > Postgraduate 6 13%
Other 5 11%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 13 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Unknown 16 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 July 2020.
All research outputs
#13,578,269
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from World Journal of Surgery
#2,604
of 4,262 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,765
of 317,463 outputs
Outputs of similar age from World Journal of Surgery
#45
of 82 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,262 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 317,463 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 82 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.