الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 117 |  |  |
| | | from | 117 | | |
Abstract
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
C
linical examination fails to accurately diagnose many intraabdominal injuries in blunt abdomen and hence there is a well a need for a good imaging technique.US and CT satisfy this to a great extent. With minimum technical limitations and a short time for examination US and CT become extremely useful in guiding the trauma surgeon. CECT is a highly useful imaging modality for diagnosis of blunt abdominal trauma. However US can be used as a useful initial modality. US and CT grading were of not much impact in the management of liver trauma, however extremely useful in the decision making of renal trauma and to a lesser extent in splenic injuries. CT is excellent in picking up clinically unsuspected trauma especially involving liver, kidney and bowel.
Retroperitoneal hemorrhage and hemoperitoneum are two situations where CT is better than US. US along with CT has a very vital role in accurate diagnosis, source localization, quantification and management decision making in hemoperitoneum. Compared with US, CT is more accurate and valuable in predicting occult bowel injuries in the form of traumatic perforations even without the use of contrast opacification of bowel. Compared to US, CT has a better potential to diagnosis other hollow viscous injuries like urinary bladder trauma. CT is excellent in diagnosis of associated injuries of spine, pelvis, skeleton and hence a single sitting complete examination technique for trauma patient.
To Conclude CT is a superior diagnositic modality in the diagnosis of abdominal trauma