Keywords:
Interventional non-vascular, CT, Ultrasound, Drainage, Haemorrhage
Authors:
S. Findakly, P. Marovic, H. Kavnoudias, J. Seah; Melbourne, VIC/AU
DOI:
10.26044/ranzcr2021/R-0382
Methods and materials
The retrospective audit included patients who fit the inclusion criteria who had a radiologically drained haematoma over the past 10 years at our tertiary center. Inclusion criteria included patients over the age of 18 years old, the description of the drained collection mentioning blood products, and the method of drainage using either ultrasound or computed tomography (CT).
Patients were identified through a retrospective search of the Alfred Health REASON Cohort Discovery Platform, searching for radiology report text indicating ‘haematoma’ as well as ‘ultrasound or computed tomography guided drainage or aspiration’.
Data was collected from the picture archiving and communications system (PACS) and the electronic medical record (EMR). Documented data including location, size and cause of the haematoma, patient’s symptoms and reason for drainage, method of drainage, and the anticoagulation profile of the patient. The method of drainage included both the modality and the equipment utilised.
For patients who subsequently had a follow up scan, the volume of the residual haematoma was recorded, and it was decided that a volume of greater than or equal to 80% of the original haematoma volume was considered to be a re-accumulation of the haematoma.