Cargando…

Clinical manifestations that predict abnormal brain computed tomography (CT) in children with minor head injury

BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) used in pediatric pediatrics brain injury (TBI) to ascertain neurological manifestations. Nevertheless, this practice is associated with adverse effects. Reports in the literature suggest incidents of morbidity and mortality in children due to exposure to radiati...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alharthy, Nesrin, Al Queflie, Sulaiman, Alyousef, Khalid, Yunus, Faisel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4411583/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25949038
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0974-2700.155504
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Computed tomography (CT) used in pediatric pediatrics brain injury (TBI) to ascertain neurological manifestations. Nevertheless, this practice is associated with adverse effects. Reports in the literature suggest incidents of morbidity and mortality in children due to exposure to radiation. Hence, it is found imperative to search for a reliable alternative. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to find a reliable clinical alternative to detect an intracranial injury without resorting to the CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective cross-sectional study was undertaken in patients (1-14 years) with blunt head injury and having a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 13-15 who had CT performed on them. Using statistical analysis, the correlation between clinical examination and positive CT manifestation is analyzed for different age-groups and various mechanisms of injury. RESULTS: No statistically significant association between parameteres such as Loss of Consciousness, ‘fall’ as mechanism of injury, motor vehicle accidents (MVA), more than two discrete episodes of vomiting and the CT finding of intracranial injury could be noted. Analyzed data have led to believe that GCS of 13 at presentation is the only important clinical predictor of intracranial injury. CONCLUSION: Retrospective data, small sample size and limited number of factors for assessing clinical manifestation might present constraints on the predictive rule that was derived from this review. Such limitations notwithstanding, the decision to determine which patients should undergo neuroimaging is encouraged to be based on clinical judgments. Further analysis with higher sample sizes may be required to authenticate and validate findings.