scholarly journals CT Scanning in Minor Head Injury

Author(s):  
Saeed Shoar ◽  
Soheil Saadat
2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Keys ◽  
Louise Venter ◽  
Garry Nixon

ABSTRACT AIM This study retrospectively reviewed the management of head injury at Lakes District Hospital in Queenstown, New Zealand. The aim is to describe the management of minor head injury with particular reference to the current Traumatic Brain Injury guidelines of the New Zealand Guidelines Group. METHODS We identified all patients with head injury as a primary diagnosis who were seen in the Emergency Department at Lakes District Hospital during 2013–2015. We recorded clinical criteria indicating need for computed tomography (CT) scanning according to current guidelines for management of minor head injury. RESULTS A total of 883 patients were seen with head injury as their primary diagnosis: 280 patients aged >15 years had a minor head injury that met current criteria for immediate CT scanning. Of these, 66 (23.6%) actually had a CT head scan. CONCLUSION The rate of CT head scanning for minor head injury in Queenstown does not comply with current New Zealand guidelines.


Neurosurgery ◽  
1982 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 344-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca W. Rimel ◽  
Bruno Giordani ◽  
Jeffrey T. Barth ◽  
John A. Jane

Abstract We have divided head injury into three categories based on the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) (severe, 3–8; moderate, 9–12; and minor, 13–15). In a previous report, we described significant disability after minor head injury. The present report describes 199 patients with moderate head injury, 159 of whom underwent follow–up examinations at 3 months. In contrast to patients with minor head injury, half as many were students (17%) and twice as many were intoxicated (53%). Seventy–five patients were studied with computed tomographic (CT) scanning; 30% of the scans were negative and 31% showed a space–occupying mass. As reported by Gennarelli et al. in patients with severe head injuries, those with moderate head injury and subdural hematoma had a very poor outcome: 65% died or were severely disabled and none made a good recovery as measured by the Glasgow Outcome Scale. At 3 months, 38% of the moderate head injury patients had made a good recovery compared with 75% of the minor head injury patients. Within the good recovery category, however, there was much disability (headache, 93%; memory difficulties, 90% difficulties with activities of daily living, 87%), and only 7% of the patients were asymptomatic. The Halstead–Reitan Neuropsychological Battery in an unselected subset (n = 32) showed significant deficits on all test measures. Sixty–six per cent of the patients previously employed had not returned to work, compared to 33% of the minor head injury patients. The major predictors of unemployment after minor head injury were premorbid characteristics (age, education, and socio–economic status). In contrast, all predictors in moderate head injury were measures of the severity of injury (length of coma, CT diagnosis. GCS on discharge). We conclude that: (a) moderate head injury, not described previously in the literature, results in mortality and substantial morbidity intermediate between those of severe and minor head injury; (b) unlike minor head injury, the principal predictors of outcome after moderate head injury are measures of the severity of injury; and (c) more attention should be directed to patients with moderate head injury than to those with the most severe injuries, in whom brain damage is probably irreversible and all forms of management have demonstrated little success.


BMJ ◽  
2018 ◽  
pp. k3527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly A Foks ◽  
Crispijn L van den Brand ◽  
Hester F Lingsma ◽  
Joukje van der Naalt ◽  
Bram Jacobs ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective To externally validate four commonly used rules in computed tomography (CT) for minor head injury. Design Prospective, multicentre cohort study. Setting Three university and six non-university hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants Consecutive adult patients aged 16 years and over who presented with minor head injury at the emergency department with a Glasgow coma scale score of 13-15 between March 2015 and December 2016. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was any intracranial traumatic finding on CT; the secondary outcome was a potential neurosurgical lesion on CT, which was defined as an intracranial traumatic finding on CT that could lead to a neurosurgical intervention or death. The sensitivity, specificity, and clinical usefulness (defined as net proportional benefit, a weighted sum of true positive classifications) of the four CT decision rules. The rules included the CT in head injury patients (CHIP) rule, New Orleans criteria (NOC), Canadian CT head rule (CCHR), and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline for head injury. Results For the primary analysis, only six centres that included patients with and without CT were selected. Of 4557 eligible patients who presented with minor head injury, 3742 (82%) received a CT scan; 384 (8%) had a intracranial traumatic finding on CT, and 74 (2%) had a potential neurosurgical lesion. The sensitivity for any intracranial traumatic finding on CT ranged from 73% (NICE) to 99% (NOC); specificity ranged from 4% (NOC) to 61% (NICE). Sensitivity for a potential neurosurgical lesion ranged between 85% (NICE) and 100% (NOC); specificity from 4% (NOC) to 59% (NICE). Clinical usefulness depended on thresholds for performing CT scanning: the NOC rule was preferable at a low threshold, the NICE rule was preferable at a higher threshold, whereas the CHIP rule was preferable for an intermediate threshold. Conclusions Application of the CHIP, NOC, CCHR, or NICE decision rules can lead to a wide variation in CT scanning among patients with minor head injury, resulting in many unnecessary CT scans and some missed intracranial traumatic findings. Until an existing decision rule has been updated, any of the four rules can be used for patients presenting minor head injuries at the emergency department. Use of the CHIP rule is recommended because it leads to a substantial reduction in CT scans while missing few potential neurosurgical lesions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document