Smith Justin S, Chang Edward F, Rosenthal Guy, Meeker Michele, von Koch Cornelia, Manley Geoffrey T, Holland Martin C
Department of Neurological Surgery, UCSF Brain and Spinal Injury Center, San Francisco General Hospital and University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, California 94143-0112, USA.
J Trauma. 2007 Jul;63(1):75-82. doi: 10.1097/01.ta.0000245991.42871.87.
The purpose of this study was to investigate whether routine follow-up computed tomography (CT) for patients with head injury, in the absence of clinical indications, alters patient management.
Nonpenetrating head injury patients admitted to San Francisco General Hospital during an 18-month period were reviewed. Patients not surgically treated at presentation and with a routine follow-up head CT within 24 hours were included. Surgical and nonsurgical interventions after repeat CT were assessed. Clinical and imaging parameters were correlated with progressive hemorrhagic injury (PHI) and with delayed development of surgical lesions.
PHI was identified in 49 (42%) of 116 patients. None of these patients required a nonoperative intervention in response to the PHI. Six of these patients developed a neurologic change concurrent with routine follow-up imaging and required operative intervention. Thus, no patient underwent an intervention in response to a worsening head CT in the absence of clinical findings. Of the six patients who developed a surgical lesion, two had increased intracranial pressure, one had a change in pupillary examination, three had worsening mental status, and one had change in the motor examination. Univariate risk factors for development of a delayed surgical lesion included 5 to 10 mm of midline shift (p = 0.001), basal cistern effacement (p = 0.01), and higher Marshall score (p = 0.01) on initial CT imaging.
Although PHI is common with head injury, delayed interventions in the absence of clinical indicators are uncommon. Our data suggest that early follow-up CT imaging in the setting of head trauma is not routinely indicated. We suggest that assessment, based on the severity of findings on initial brain imaging and serial clinical examinations, should guide the need for follow-up imaging in the setting of head trauma.
本研究的目的是调查在没有临床指征的情况下,对头部受伤患者进行常规随访计算机断层扫描(CT)是否会改变患者的治疗方案。
回顾了在18个月期间入住旧金山总医院的非穿透性头部受伤患者。纳入了就诊时未接受手术治疗且在24小时内进行了常规随访头部CT的患者。评估了重复CT检查后的手术和非手术干预措施。将临床和影像学参数与进行性出血性损伤(PHI)以及手术病变的延迟发展进行关联分析。
116例患者中有49例(42%)被诊断为PHI。这些患者中没有一例因PHI而需要进行非手术干预。其中6例患者在常规随访成像时出现神经功能改变,需要进行手术干预。因此,在没有临床发现的情况下,没有患者因头部CT恶化而接受干预。在6例出现手术病变的患者中,2例颅内压升高,1例瞳孔检查有变化,3例精神状态恶化,1例运动检查有变化。延迟手术病变发生的单因素风险因素包括初始CT成像时中线移位5至10毫米(p = 0.001)、基底池消失(p = 0.01)和较高的Marshall评分(p = 0.01)。
虽然PHI在头部受伤中很常见,但在没有临床指标的情况下延迟干预并不常见。我们的数据表明,在头部创伤情况下,早期随访CT成像并非常规必要。我们建议,基于初始脑成像检查结果的严重程度和系列临床检查进行评估,应指导头部创伤情况下随访成像的必要性。