The incidence of vascular injuries has been increased worldwide during the past few decades. Motor vehicle accidents are the most common causes of injury in urban and suburban areas (
8). Among different types of vascular injuries, extremity vascular injuries are one of the most critical types of limb injuries that could be life or limb threatening (
6).
Arteriography as the gold standard to diagnose arterial injuries has a sensitivity of 95% to 100% and specificity of 90% to 98%. Nonetheless, due to its invasive nature, it is associated with some complications in 2.6% of patients and even higher risk in patients with trauma and other coexistent injuries. Transferring a critically-ill patient to angiography ward and injecting contrast media might make the situation even worse and cause serious problems (
9).
Therefore, considering these special conditions, performing angiography in any multiple trauma case with findings suggestive of arterial limb injury is questionable. A recent systematic review of 51 articles showed that computed tomography angiography (CTA) is the main replacement of angiography (
10). Nonetheless, color Doppler USG is nonaggressive and less expensive as a bedside method for saving patient’s time and minimizing potential risks of other diagnostic interventions (
7).
Bynoe et al. reported sensitivity and specificity of 95% and 99% for Doppler USG in detection of limb vascular injuries, respectively (
11). Johansen et al. and Kuzniec et al. reported similar results and according to the literature review, both sensitivity and specificity of Doppler USG to diagnose traumatic limb vascular injury are higher than 95%, which seems acceptable for a screening and diagnostic method (
12,
13). In our study, Doppler USG had a sensitivity of 94.8% and specificity of 91.6% to detect vascular injuries with positive and negative predictive values of 92.5% and 94.2%, respectively. Considering Doppler cutoff point, sensitivity and specificity of Doppler USG were 66.6% and 100%, respectively, and its positive and negative predictive values were 73% and 100%, respectively.
There were only three cases with abnormal findings in Doppler and normal findings in angiograms, two of which were due to an arterial spasm (one in posterior tibial artery and another in the radial artery). The third one was due to hematoma on the fractured forearm, which pushed the artery away from its normal position and therefore, the normal path of artery could not be detected well by Doppler USG, while angiography showed all the artery length and its shifting to the medial side.
There were two cases with normal findings in Doppler USG and abnormal findings in angiograms. One case had pseudo aneurysm of the distal superficial femoral artery (due to knee dislocation), which was not detected by Doppler USG because of its thick dressings. Another one was a case of cutting of proximal portion of the posterior tibial artery on angiograms, while normal wave pattern was recorded on Doppler USG because of collateral arteries. Doppler USG was not quite accurate to detect the lesion in such instances as limb splints, in situ hematoma, or patient’s pain leading to lack of cooperation for optimal evaluations.
Color Doppler USG fulfilled required criteria of a screening test with a high sensitivity, acceptable specificity, availability, and being inexpensive and noninvasive; therefore, it might be considered as a suitable screening test for those with suspicious vascular injury. Nevertheless, it seems that positive results still necessitate performing an angiography. This diagnostic approach might minimize the risks of angiography in these critically ill patients.
Although Doppler USG has some diagnostic limitations in locating the exact point of artery cut-off point and the traumatized area, it would be recommended as a suitable screening test in patients with limb trauma suspicious for vascular injuries because of its high sensitivity and specificity as well as availability, inexpensiveness and noninvasiveness.