Showing papers by "Robert F. Lavery published in 2003"

Angiographic embolization for liver injuries: low mortality, high morbidity.

Abstract: Objective Angiographic embolization (AE) is a safe and effective method for controlling hemorrhage in both blunt and penetrating liver injuries. Improved survival after hepatic injuries has been documented using a multimodality approach; however, patients still have significant long-term morbidity.

Prospective Validation of Computed Tomographic Screening of the Thoracolumbar Spine in Trauma

Abstract: Objective: Concern for thoracolumbar spine (TLS) injuries after major trauma mandates immobilization pending radiographic evaluation. Current protocols use standard posteroanterior and lateral radiographs of the thoracolumbar spine (XR/TLS), but many patients also undergo abdominal or thoracic computed tomographic (CT) scanning. We sought to evaluate whether helical truncal CT scanning performed to evaluate visceral trauma images the spine as well as dedicated XR/TLS. Methods: We prospectively studied 222 consecutive patients sustaining high-risk trauma requiring TLS screening because of clinical findings or altered mentation. The chest, abdomen, and pelvis were imaged with one intravenous contrast infusion. All patients had CT scan of the chest, abdomen, and pelvis (CT/CAP) and XR/TLS. Initial radiologic diagnoses were compared with the discharge diagnosis of acute fractures confirmed by thin-cut CT scan and/or clinical examination of the patient when alert. Results: Of 222 patients studied, 215 were fully evaluated. Thirty-six (17%) had acute TLS fractures. The accuracy of CT/CAP for TLS fractures was 99% (95% confidence interval [CI], 96-100%). The accuracy of XR/TLS was 87% (95% CI, 82-92%). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were better for CT/CAP than for XR/ TLS. CT/CAP found acute fractures XR/ TLS missed, and correctly classified old fractures XR/TLS read as "possibly" acute. The total XR/TLS misclassification rate was 12.6% (95% Cl, 8.4-19%); for CT/CAP it was 1.4% (95% CI, 0.3-3.3%). No fractures were missed by CT/CAP. No unstable fracture was missed by either technique. Conclusion: CT/CAP diagnoses TLS fractures more accurately than XR/TLS. Neither misses unstable fractures, but CT scanning finds small fractures that benefit by treatment and identifies chronic disease better. CT screening is far faster and shortens time to removal of spine precautions. CT scan-based diagnosis does not result in greater radiation exposure and improves resource use. Screening the TLS on truncal helical CT scanning performed for the evaluation of visceral injuries is more accurate than TLS imaging by standard radiography. CT/CAP should replace plain radiographs in high-risk trauma patients who require screening.

Can patients accurately read a visual analog pain scale

Abstract: The objective of this study was too determine if patients can accurately read a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. A 100-mm visual analog pain scale designed for patient use was printed on the top page of carbonless copy paper with a perfectly aligned hatched scale on the second (bottom) page. Patients over the age of 18 in acute pain were enrolled in this prospective, descriptive study. Patients were asked demographic questions and to indicate their pain severity with a single mark through the 100-mm scale. Once scored, patients were asked to read the number from the hatched bottom scale. Two physician-raters, blinded to patients’ and each other’s readings, then scored the VAS. Analysis of physician interrater reliability and correlation of patient and physician readings was performed. One hundred forty-five patients were enrolled. Seventy-nine patients (54.5%) read the VAS exactly as physician-readers. One hundred thirty-eight (95.2%) read their VAS within ±2 mm of physician readings. Ninety-five percent of patients are able to read a VAS within ±2 mm of physician readings. The data suggests this instrument could be used by discharged patients in longitudinal pain studies or with help in management of chronic pain.

A randomized, clinical trial comparing oral celecoxib 200 mg, celecoxib 400 mg, and ibuprofen 600 mg for acute pain

Abstract: Objective: Celecoxib is a selective cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor used to treat pain. The objective of this study was to compare the efficacies of celecoxib and ibuprofen for the treatment of acute pain. The null hypothesis was that no difference between celecoxib and ibuprofen exists. Methods: The study was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial. After consent, patients rated their pain on a 100-mm visual analog scale (VAS) and categorical intensity pain scale. Patients were then randomized to receive 200-mg or 400-mg celecoxib or 600-mg ibuprofen (all orally). Patients were contacted 5 hours after receiving study medication when a second VAS score was recorded, along with categorical pain intensity, pain relief score, side effects, and number of rescue medications taken. The main outcome measures were change in visual analog pain and categorical pain intensity scores, and pain relief scores, at five hours. Results: One hundred ten patients were evaluated and 105 were enrolled. Thirty-four received celecoxib 200 mg, 32 received celecoxib 400 mg, and 39 received ibuprofen 600 mg. Ninety-one were available for the five-hour VAS and 88 for the five-hour categorical pain intensity and pain relief analysis: The two patients who were unable to read a VAS were excluded, and two enrolled patients withdrew prior to medication. One patient was excluded because his injury was a fracture, and therefore did not meet the inclusion criteria. There was no statistical difference among the treatment groups in age, time from injury to medication, initial VAS score, percent lost to follow-up, or treatment with adjunctive therapy. There was no statistical difference in change of VAS among the groups at five hours: ibuprofen 600 mg (-23.8 mm [95% CI = -31.56 mm to -16.1 mm] [n = 32]), celecoxib 200 mg (-16.1 mm [95% CI = -24.3 mm to -7.98 mm] [n = 31]), and celecoxib 400 mg (-12.4 mm [95% CI = -23.1 mm to -1.8 mm] [n = 30]) (p = 0.16). There was no significant difference between the groups, at five hours, in change of categorical pain intensity (p = 0.11) or pain relief scores (p = 0.059), though the pain relief scale approached significance favoring ibuprofen. Conclusions: No significant difference exists among emergency department (ED) patients treated for acute pain, at five hours, with celecoxib 200 mg, celecoxib 400 mg, or ibuprofen 600 mg, though the power of the study to detect a change was low, 36%. However, the magnitude of pain relief for celecoxib, coupled with the cost of the medication, questions its use in the immediate ED setting.