Abstract
Background: Physical examination and computed tomography angiography (CTA) are used for diagnosing arterial injury in extremity trauma. In recent years, CTA has been overused to obtain more objective data. Our study aimed to investigate the effect of using CTA for the management of patients with extremity penetrating injuries, specifically in cases where vascular injury was not detected during initial examination. Methods: This retrospective study included patients with penetrating trauma who underwent CTA of the extremities. The demographic data, mechanism of injury, the side of injury, initial vascular exam (normal, soft signs, and hard signs), radiological results, and any orthopedic and vascular intervention performed were recorded. The χ (2) test was used for independent variables. A significance level of p < 0.05 was used. We compared the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) for physical exam and CTA for identifying arterial injury requiring intervention. Results: Of the 252 patients included in the study, 29 (21.5%) had abnormal vascular physical examination while 26 (10.3%) had an abnormal CTA. The NPV of the hard sign for identifying vascular injury was 95.4%, while the sensitivity was 57.7%, specificity was 100%, and PPV was 100%. The NPV of routine physical examination to determine the requirement for vascular intervention was 100%. The sensitivity and PPV of the soft sign in determining the need for vascular intervention were 65.4% and 77.3%, respectively. Conclusion: Vascular injury was present in all cases that had positive hard signs. CTA imaging and vascular intervention are not necessary in patients who exhibit no hard and/or soft indicators during a thorough physical examination.