Strategy of Early Diagnosis in Blunt Diaphragm Rupture.
- Author:
Yong Jeong KIM
1
;
Jong Kwan KIM
;
In Sik PARK
;
Hee Soo SHIM
;
Hoon Sang CHI
;
Doo Yun LEE
Author Information
1. Department of Surgery, Dong In General Hospital.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Diaphragm rupture;
Diagnosis
- MeSH:
Delayed Diagnosis;
Diagnosis;
Diaphragm*;
Early Diagnosis*;
Fluoroscopy;
Hospital Records;
Humans;
Laparoscopy;
Mortality;
Radiography;
Retrospective Studies;
Rupture*;
Thoracoscopy;
Thoracotomy;
Thorax;
Tomography, X-Ray Computed
- From:Journal of the Korean Surgical Society
1998;55(2):214-219
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
Diaphragm rupture often challenges the surgeon by it's subtle presentation in the face of more obvious injuries, equivocal chest roentgenography, and no obvious indication of celiotomy or thoracotomy. Delayed diagnosis is one variable implicated in increased morbidity and mortality. This retrospective study was performed to determine the diagnostic value of diaphragm rupture on initial evaluation and to present an algorithm for initial evaluation. We reviewed the hospital records and the radiographs of 37 patients with a blunt diaphragmatic rupture who were treated at Yongdong Severance Hospital during a period of 5 years. The blunt diaphragmatic ruptures in 14 (38.9%) of the thirty-seven patients were missed on initial admission. At admission, initial physical findings were diagnostic in 3 cases (8.1%), suspicious in 24 cases (64.9%) and normal in 10 cases (27%). On chest roentgenogram, findings were diagnostic in 6 cases (16.2%), suspicious in 28 cases (75.7%) and normal in 3 cases (8.1%). Chest CT scans were performed on 20 patients. Findings were diagnostic in 6 (30%) of these, suspicious in 11 (55%) and normal in 3 (15%). On the chest roentgenograms of the 15 cases with suspicious physical findings, which were diagnosed early, the findings were diagnostic in 4 cases (26.7%) and suspicious in 11 cases (73.3%). Chest CT scans were performed in 10 out of 15 cases with suspicious physical findings which were diagnosed early, and the findings were diagnostic in 3 cases (30%), suspicious in 6 cases (60%), normal in 1 case (10%). In 23 patients (61.1%), diagnosis was established within 48 hours. In 4 (17.4%) of these patients, the diaphragm rupture was detected at the time of the celiotomy performed for other injuries. In conclusion, a blunt diaphragm rupture can easily be missed in the absence of obvious indications for a celiotomy or a thoracotomy, because radiologic abnormalities are often interpreted as other injuries. In such cases, a high index of suspicion coupled with selective use of a CT scan, fluoroscopy, thoracoscopy, or laparoscopy may be necessary for early detection of the diaphragm rupture.
