Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Pediatric minor head injury imaging practices: results from an ESPR survey

  • Paediatric Neuroradiology
  • Published:
Neuroradiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Computed tomography (CT) for minor head injury exposes a large number of children to ionizing radiation, with an associated increased lifetime risk of malignancy. To study imaging practices for children with minor head injury and the level of awareness of radiologists of the current clinical decision rules for minor traumatic brain injury (TBI).

Methods

A questionnaire consisting of 17 questions was distributed electronically to 472 ESPR members. The questionnaire covered demographic information, employment status, years of experience and the current practice setting of the participants, the number of CTs performed for pediatric head trauma, awareness of clinical decision rules and use of shielding, pediatric CT protocol and MRI.

Results

The response rate was 18.4%. The majority of participants was aged over 50 years and was full-time consultants. Regarding decision rules, 73.8% of respondents cited the NICE head injury guidelines, and 79% reported that the decision to perform CT was agreed between specialists. Shielding was used by 58.3% and 67.4% applied a specific pediatric protocol. MRI was not used for pediatric head trauma by 70.6% of respondents, although always available in 68.6% of cases. The reported obstacles to MRI use were machine availability (42.7%), the long acquisition time (39%) and patients’ intolerance (18.3%), and less frequently the cost and the need for sedation.

Conclusion

There is room for decreasing the use of CT for pediatric minor TBI. The use of shielding and application of pediatric CT protocols constitute areas for improvement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Osmond MH, Klassen TP, Wells GA, Correll R, Jarvis A, Joubert G, Bailey B, Chauvin-Kimoff L, Pusic M, McConnell D, Nijssen-Jordan C, Silver N, Taylor B, Stiell IG, Pediatric Emergency Research Canada Head Injury Study G (2010) CATCH: a clinical decision rule for the use of computed tomography in children with minor head injury. CMAJ 182:341–348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pearce MS, Salotti JA, Little MP, McHugh K, Lee C, Kim KP, Howe NL, Ronckers CM, Rajaraman P, Sir Craft AW, Parker L, Berrington de Gonzalez A (2012) Radiation exposure from CT scans in childhood and subsequent risk of leukaemia and brain tumours: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet 380:499–505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mathews JD, Forsythe AV, Brady Z, Butler MW, Goergen SK, Byrnes GB, Giles GG, Wallace AB, Anderson PR, Guiver TA, McGale P, Cain TM, Dowty JG, Bickerstaffe AC, Darby SC (2013) Cancer risk in 680,000 people exposed to computed tomography scans in childhood or adolescence: data linkage study of 11 million Australians. Bmj 346:f2360

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Babl FE, Borland ML, Phillips N, Kochar A, Dalton S, McCaskill M, Cheek JA, Gilhotra Y, Furyk J, Neutze J, Lyttle MD, Bressan S, Donath S, Molesworth C, Jachno K, Ward B, Williams A, Baylis A, Crowe L, Oakley E, Dalziel SR, Paediatric Research in Emergency Departments International C (2017) Accuracy of PECARN, CATCH, and CHALICE head injury decision rules in children: a prospective cohort study. Lancet 389:2393–2402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Langlois JA, Rutland-Brown W, Wald MM (2006) The epidemiology and impact of traumatic brain injury: a brief overview. J Head Trauma Rehabil 21(5):375–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Choudhary AK, Servaes S, Slovis TL, Palusci VJ, Hedlund GL, Narang SK, Moreno JA, Dias MS, Christian CW, Nelson MD Jr, Silvera VM, Palasis S, Raissaki M, Rossi A, Offiah AC (2018) Consensus statement on abusive head trauma in infants and young children. Pediatr Radiol 48:1048–1065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Rogers AJ, Maher CO, Schunk JE, Quayle K, Jacobs E, Lichenstein R, Powell E, Miskin M, Dayan P, Holmes JF, Kuppermann N, Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research N (2013) Incidental findings in children with blunt head trauma evaluated with cranial CT scans. Pediatrics 132:e356–e363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Atabaki SM, Jacobs BR, Brown KM, Shahzeidi S, Heard-Garris NJ, Chamberlain MB, Grell RM, Chamberlain JM (2017) Quality improvement in pediatric head trauma with PECARN rules implementation as computerized decision support. Pediatr Qual Saf 2:e019

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Atabaki SM, Hoyle JD Jr, Schunk JE, Monroe DJ, Alpern ER, Quayle KS, Glass TF, Badawy MK, Miskin M, Schalick WO, Dayan PS, Holmes JF, Kuppermann N (2016) Comparison of prediction rules and clinician suspicion for identifying children with clinically important brain injuries after blunt head trauma. Acad Emerg Med Off J Soc Acad Emerg Med 23:566–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Eagles D, Stiell IG, Clement CM, Brehaut J, Taljaard M, Kelly AM, Mason S, Kellermann A, Perry JJ (2008) International survey of emergency physicians' awareness and use of the Canadian cervical-spine rule and the Canadian computed tomography head rule. Acad Emerg Med Off J Soc Acad Emerg Med 15:1256–1261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Graves JM, Kanal KM, Rivara FP, Jarvik JG, Vavilala MS (2014) Dose reduction efforts for pediatric head CT imaging in Washington state trauma centers: follow-up survey results. J Am Coll Radiol 11(161–168):e163

    Google Scholar 

  12. Célier D, Roch P, Etard C, Ducou Le Pointe H, Brisse HJ (2019, 2019) Multicentre survey on patient dose in paediatric imaging and proposal for updated diagnostic reference levels for France. Part 1: computed tomography. Eur Radiol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06405-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shrimpton PC, Hillier MC, Lewis MA, Dunn M (2006) National survey of doses from CT in the UK: 2003. Br J Radiol 79:968–980

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Verdun FR, Gutierrez D, Vader JP, Aroua A, Alamo-Maestre LT, Bochud F, Gudinchet F (2008) CT radiation dose in children: a survey to establish age-based diagnostic reference levels in Switzerland. Eur Radiol 18:1980–1986

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Brisse HJ, Aubert B (2009) CT exposure from pediatric MDCT: results from the 2007–2008 SFIPP/ISRN survey. J Radiol 90:207–215

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Yakoumakis E, Karlatira M, Gialousis G, Dimitriadis A, Makri T, Georgiou E (2009) Effective dose variation in pediatric computed tomography: dose reference levels in Greece. Health Phys 97:595–603

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Granata C, Origgi D, Palorini F, Matranga D, Salerno S (2015) Radiation dose from multidetector CT studies in children: results from the first Italian nationwide survey. Pediatr Radiol 45:695–705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Smith AB, Dillon WP, Lau BC, Gould R, Verdun FR, Lopez EB, Wintermark M (2008) Radiation dose reduction strategy for CT protocols: successful implementation in neuroradiology section. Radiology 247:499–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Curtis JR (2010) Computed tomography shielding methods: a literature review. Radiol Technol 81:428–436

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. McCollough CH, Wang J, Berland LL (2011) Bismuth shields for CT dose reduction: do they help or hurt? J Am Coll Radiol 8:878–879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Raissaki M, Perisinakis K, Damilakis J, Gourtsoyiannis N (2010) Eye-lens bismuth shielding in paediatric head CT: artefact evaluation and reduction. Pediatr Radiol 40:1748–1754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Cohen AR, Caruso P, Duhaime AC, Klig JE (2015) Feasibility of “rapid” magnetic resonance imaging in pediatric acute head injury. Am J Emerg Med 33:887–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Roguski M, Morel B, Sweeney M, Talan J, Rideout L, Riesenburger RI, Madan N, Hwang S (2015) Magnetic resonance imaging as an alternative to computed tomography in select patients with traumatic brain injury: a retrospective comparison. J Neurosurg Pediatr 15:529–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to George A. Alexiou.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in the studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Argyropoulou, M.I., Alexiou, G.A., Xydis, V.G. et al. Pediatric minor head injury imaging practices: results from an ESPR survey. Neuroradiology 62, 251–255 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-019-02326-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00234-019-02326-6

Keywords

Navigation