Predictive value of skull radiography for intracranial injury in children with blunt head injury

The Lancet ◽  
1997 ◽  
Vol 349 (9055) ◽  
pp. 821-824 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A Lloyd ◽  
Helen Carty ◽  
Mal Patterson ◽  
Clifford K Butcher ◽  
David Roe
2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (12) ◽  
pp. 853-854
Author(s):  
Patrick Aldridge ◽  
Heather Castle ◽  
Emma Russell ◽  
Clare Phillips ◽  
Richard Guerrero-Luduena ◽  
...  

Aims/Objectives/BackgroundObjectivesTo assess if application of a nurse-led paediatric head injury clinical decision tool would be safe compared to current practice.Background>700,000 children attend UK hospitals’ each year with a head injury. Research indicates <1% undergo neurosurgical intervention. No published evidence for nurse-led discharge of paediatric head injuries exists.Methods/DesignMethods – All paediatric (<17 years) patients with head injuries presenting to our Emergency department (ED) 1st May to 31st October 2018 were prospectively screened by a nurse using a mandated electronic ‘Head Injury Discharge At Triage’ questionnaire (HIDATq). We determined which patients underwent computed tomography (CT) brain and whether there was a clinically important intracranial injury or re-presentation to ED. The negative predictive value of the screening tool was assessed. We determined what proportion of patients could have been sent home from triage using HIDATq.Results/ConclusionsResults - Of 1739 patients screened; 61 had CTs performed due to head injury (6 abnormal) with a CT rate of 3.5% and 2% re-presentations. Of the entire cohort, 1052 screened negative. 1 CT occurred in this group showing no abnormalities. Of those screened negative: 349/1052 (33%) had ‘no other injuries’ and 543/1052 (52%) had ‘abrasions or lacerations’. HIDATq’s negative predictive value for CT was 99.9% (95% Confidence interval (CI) 99.4–99.9%) and 100% (CI 99.0–100%) for intracranial injury. The positive predictive value of the tool was low. Five patients screened negative and re-presented within 72hrs but did not require CT imaging.Conclusion - A negative HIDATq appears safe in our ED. Potentially 20% (349/1739) of all patients with head injuries presenting to our department could be discharged by nurses at triage with adequate safety netting advice. This increases to 50% (543/1739) if patients with lacerations or abrasions were treated and discharged at triage. A large multi-centre study is required to validate the tool.


2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (11) ◽  
pp. 680-685
Author(s):  
Patrick Aldridge ◽  
Heather Castle ◽  
Clare Phillips ◽  
Emma Russell ◽  
Richard Guerrero-Luduena ◽  
...  

ObjectivesTo assess if a nurse-led application of a paediatric head injury clinical decision tool would be safe compared with current practice.MethodsAll paediatric (<17 years) patients with head injuries presenting to Frimley Park Emergency Department (ED), England from 1 May to 31 October 2018 were prospectively screened by a nurse using a mandated electronic 'Head Injury Discharge At Triage' questionnaire (HIDATq). We determined which patients underwent CT of brain and whether there was a clinically important intracranial injury or re-presentation to the ED. The negative predictive value of the screening tool was assessed. We determined what proportion of patients could have been sent home from triage using this tool.ResultsOf the 1739 patients screened, 61 had CTs performed due to head injury (six abnormal) with a CT rate of 3.5% and 2% re-presentations. Of the entire cohort, 1052 screened negative. 1 CT occurred in this group showing no abnormalities. Of those screened negative, 349 (33%)/1052 had ‘no other injuries’ and 543 (52%)/1052 had ‘abrasions or lacerations’. HIDATq's negative predictive value for CT was 99.9% (95% CI 99.4% to 99.9%) and 100% (95% CI 99.0% to 100%) for intracranial injury. The positive predictive value of the tool was low. Five patients screened negative and re-presented within 72 hours but did not require CT imaging.ConclusionA negative HIDATq appears safe in our ED. Potentially 20% (349/1739) of all patients with head injuries presenting to our department could be discharged by nurses at triage with adequate safety netting advice. This increases to 50% (543/1739), if patients with lacerations or abrasions were given advice and discharged at triage. A large multicentre study is required to validate the tool.


2003 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 14-16
Author(s):  
S. L. Benade ◽  
A. T. Scher

The decision as to whether to perform a CT examination of the brain in patients with a Glasgow coma score of 15 after injury is often difficult, given the limited CT scanning facilities available in state hospitals. A retrospective evaluation of 100 consecutive head-injury patients presenting with a Glasgow coma score of 15 at Tygerberg Hospital was therefore carried out. In a surprisingly high number of patients (50%) abnormal findings due to the injury were detected. Analysis of the clinical history parameters did not demonstrate a significant association with abnormal CT findings. It is therefore concluded that brain CT examination in patients with a Glasgow coma score of 15 is justified and that the Glasgow coma scale is a poor predictor of intracranial injury.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Herbert Ariaka ◽  
Joel Kiryabwire ◽  
Ssenyonjo Hussein ◽  
Alfred Ogwal ◽  
Emmanuel Nkonge ◽  
...  

Introduction. The prevalence rates of head injury have been shown to be as high as 25% among trauma patients with severe head injury contributing to about 31% of all trauma deaths. Triage utilizes numerical cutoff points along the scores continuum to predict the greatest number of people who would have a poor outcome, “severe” patients, when scoring below the threshold and a good outcome “non severe” patients, when scoring above the cutoff or numerical threshold. This study aimed to compare the predictive value of the Glasgow Coma Scale and the Kampala Trauma Score for mortality and length of hospital stay at a tertiary hospital in Uganda. Methods. A diagnostic prospective study was conducted from January 12, 2018 to March 16, 2018. We recruited patients with head injury admitted to the accidents and emergency department who met the inclusion criteria for the study. Data on patient’s demographic characteristics, mechanisms of injury, category of road use, and classification of injury according to the GCS and KTS at initial contact and at 24 hours were collected. The receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis and logistic regression analysis were used for comparison. Results. The GCS predicted mortality and length of hospital stay with the GCS at admission with AUC of 0.9048 and 0.7972, respectively (KTS at admission time, AUC 0.8178 and 0.7243). The GCS predicted mortality and length of hospital stay with the GCS at 24 hours with AUC of 0.9567 and 0.8203, respectively (KTS at 24 hours, AUC 0.8531 and 0.7276). At admission, the GCS at a cutoff of 11 had a sensitivity of 83.23% and specificity of 82.61% while the KTS had 88.02% and 73.91%, respectively, at a cutoff of 13 for predicting mortality. At admission, the GCS at a cutoff of 13 had sensitivity of 70.48% and specificity of 66.67% while the KTS had 68.07% and 62.50%, respectively, at a cutoff of 14 for predicting length of hospital stay. Conclusion. Comparatively, the GCS performed better than the KTS in predicting mortality and length of hospital stay. The GCS was also more accurate at labelling the head injury patients who died as severely injured as opposed to the KTS that categorized most of them as moderately injured. In general, the two scores were sensitive at detection of mortality and length of hospital stay among the study population.


2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (10) ◽  
pp. 704
Author(s):  
Joana Matias ◽  
Sofia Almeida ◽  
Sofia Ferrito ◽  
Ana Margarida Queiroz ◽  
Ana Dias Alves ◽  
...  

Introduction: Head injury is common in children, with mostly being minor and not resulting in intracranial injury. Computerized tomography head scan is the preferred exam, but implies exposure to radiation; the indications for computerized tomography head scan in minor injuries are not consensual. An expectant approach is a good option in most cases. The aim was to compare the patients hospitalized and subjected to computerized tomography head scan with patients hospitalized but not subjected to computerized tomography head scan in order to assess the safety of our institution’s practice protocol.Material and Methods: Analytical longitudinal retrospective study, during three years, including patients younger than 15 years of age with minor head injury, admitted for in hospital surveillance through a paediatric emergency room. We defined two study groups: group A (hospitalized with computerized tomography head scan) and group B (hospitalized without computerized tomography head scan).Results: Study sample consisting of 206 patients: 81 (39%) group A and 125 (61%) group B. Symptoms, including vomiting, were more frequent in group B (91% and 61% vs 75% and 35%, p < 0.05); large scalp hematoma and palpable fracture in group A (11% and 12% vs 0%, p < 0.05). We performed computerized tomography head scan in 39% of the study patients (children with red flags in the physical examination or unfavourable course during hospitalization); 43% had traumatic brain injury (29 patients had fracture, 18 patients had intracranial injury). Three patients underwent neurosurgery. We did not register deaths, readmissions or neurologic sequelae.Discussion: Significant intracranial injury was infrequent. The hospitalization and surveillance of children and adolescents with symptomatic minor head injury, without red flags in the physical examination, did not seem to result in additional risks.Conclusion: The careful selection of patients for computerized tomography head scan enabled a decrease in the number of these exams and the exposure to ionizing radiation.


Neurosurgery ◽  
1988 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 449-453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tony Feuerman ◽  
Phillip Ashley Wackym ◽  
George F. Gade ◽  
Donald P. Becker

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document