ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Abdominal trauma imaging in a Nigerian tertiary hospital—Our experience with 87 adult patients

Adedire Timilehin Adenuga¹, Ademola Adeyeye²

¹ 1 Department of Surgery, Cedarcrest Hospitals, Abuja, Nigeria
²Department of Surgery, University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital, Ilorin, Kwara, Nigeria

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Adedire Timilehin Adenuga
Department of Surgery, Cedarcrest Hospitals, Abuja Nigeria

Source of Support: None
Conflict of Interest: None

Introduction: Abdominal trauma is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in low- and medium-income countries (LMICs). Abdominal trauma imaging is important in determining the location and severity of organ injury, the need for surgery, and the identification of complications. The choice of imaging in abdominal trauma in LMICs is influenced by peculiar problems, which include the availability of imaging modality, expertise, and cost. There are few reports on options of trauma imaging in LMICs, and this study aimed to identify and characterise the type of imaging done for patients presenting with abdominal trauma at the University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital.

Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective observational study of patients with abdominal trauma who presented at the University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital from 2013 to 2019. Records were identified, and data were extracted and analysed.

Results: Results: A total of 87 patients were included in the study. There were 73 males and 14 females. The abdominal ultrasound was the commonest modality done in 36 (41%) patients, whereas abdominal computed tomography was done in five (6%) patients. Eleven patients (13%) had no imaging done, and 10 of these patients proceeded to having surgery. In patients with intraoperative finding of perforated viscus, the sensitivity of radiography was 85% and specificity was 100%, whereas that of the ultrasound was 86.7% and 50% for sensitivity and specificity, respectively. The ultrasound scan was the commonest imaging done for patients who presented with features of haemorrhage (P = 0.04), odds ratio (OR) = 1.29 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.08–1.6), and patients with severe injury, P = 0.03, OR = 2.07 (95% CI = 1.06–4.06). Gender (P = 0.64), shock at presentation (P = 0.19), and mechanism of injury (P = 0.11) did not influence the choice of imaging.

Conclusion: Abdominal trauma imaging in this setting was majorly via ultrasound and abdominal radiographs. Factors suggested to influence the pattern of abdominal trauma imaging in LMICs include the availability of specific imaging modality, cost, lack of standardisation and definite abdominal trauma protocols.