Comparison of abdominal focused ultrasonographic (AFAST) and radiographic diagnostic methods in traumatized and non-traumatized cats

Radiography and ultrasonography devices are widely used today. In this study, abdominal focused ultrasonography (AFAST) and radiographic imaging techniques were used in traumatic situations such as falls from heights, motor vehicle accidents, blunt and penetrating injuries, and in non-traumatic situations outside the normal function of the abdominal region, such as tumors, sepsis, anaphylactic reactions, acute abdominal and fever of unknown origin. It is aimed to compare the advantages and disadvantages of these two methods compared to each other. In this study, ultrasonographic and radiological imaging of 10 traumatized and non-traumatized cats of various ages, breeds and genders were recorded and their results were compared. For both imaging techniques, patients were waited until they were partially stable. The patient was prepared for the AFAST scan and recorded by ultrasonographic imaging at 5 different specific AFAST points in the right or left lateral, sternal or standing positions, usually without shaving and without anesthesia. Afterwards, abdominal lateral and V/D radiographic images of the same animal were taken. Abnormalities in the abdominal cavity, whether there is fluid, the score of the fluid if any, whether there is any damage to the abdominal organs, the presence of air accumulation, the presence of any mass, the integrity of the diaphragm, the integrity of the gallbladder and urinary bladder, the capsule and integrity of organs such as spleen-kidney-liver. Both imaging methods are comparatively comparable in terms of their ability to diagnose, answer clinical questions, and guide the next step in patient care in terms of whether there is a rupture, its boundaries, the flow and integrity of the urethra, vessels, urine formation monitoring, and perforation of digestive organs such as the gastrointestinal tract and infectious diseases. was evaluated.