Kralik S F, Yasrebi M, Supakul N, Lin C, Netter L G, Hicks R A, Hibbard R A, Ackerman L L, Harris M L, Ho C Y
From the Department of Radiology and Imaging Sciences (S.F.K., M.Y., N.S., C.L., L.G.N., C.Y.H.).
Child Protective Program (R.A. Hicks, R.A. Hibbard).
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2017 Apr;38(4):807-813. doi: 10.3174/ajnr.A5093. Epub 2017 Feb 9.
MR imaging with sedation is commonly used to detect intracranial traumatic pathology in the pediatric population. Our purpose was to compare nonsedated ultrafast MR imaging, noncontrast head CT, and standard MR imaging for the detection of intracranial trauma in patients with potential abusive head trauma.
A prospective study was performed in 24 pediatric patients who were evaluated for potential abusive head trauma. All patients received noncontrast head CT, ultrafast brain MR imaging without sedation, and standard MR imaging with general anesthesia or an immobilizer, sequentially. Two pediatric neuroradiologists independently reviewed each technique blinded to other modalities for intracranial trauma. We performed interreader agreement and consensus interpretation for standard MR imaging as the criterion standard. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated for ultrafast MR imaging, noncontrast head CT, and combined ultrafast MR imaging and noncontrast head CT.
Interreader agreement was moderate for ultrafast MR imaging (κ = 0.42), substantial for noncontrast head CT (κ = 0.63), and nearly perfect for standard MR imaging (κ = 0.86). Forty-two percent of patients had discrepancies between ultrafast MR imaging and standard MR imaging, which included detection of subarachnoid hemorrhage and subdural hemorrhage. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were obtained for any traumatic pathology for each examination: ultrafast MR imaging (50%, 100%, 100%, 31%), noncontrast head CT (25%, 100%, 100%, 21%), and a combination of ultrafast MR imaging and noncontrast head CT (60%, 100%, 100%, 33%). Ultrafast MR imaging was more sensitive than noncontrast head CT for the detection of intraparenchymal hemorrhage ( = .03), and the combination of ultrafast MR imaging and noncontrast head CT was more sensitive than noncontrast head CT alone for intracranial trauma ( = .02).
In abusive head trauma, ultrafast MR imaging, even combined with noncontrast head CT, demonstrated low sensitivity compared with standard MR imaging for intracranial traumatic pathology, which may limit its utility in this patient population.
使用镇静剂的磁共振成像常用于检测儿科人群的颅内创伤性病变。我们的目的是比较非镇静超快磁共振成像、非增强头部CT和标准磁共振成像在检测疑似虐待性头部创伤患者颅内创伤方面的效果。
对24例接受疑似虐待性头部创伤评估的儿科患者进行了一项前瞻性研究。所有患者依次接受非增强头部CT、无镇静的超快脑磁共振成像以及使用全身麻醉或固定器的标准磁共振成像。两位儿科神经放射科医生在对其他检查方式不知情的情况下,独立对每种技术进行颅内创伤评估。我们以标准磁共振成像作为标准对照,进行了阅片者间一致性分析和共识解读。计算了超快磁共振成像、非增强头部CT以及超快磁共振成像与非增强头部CT联合检查的诊断准确性。
超快磁共振成像的阅片者间一致性为中等(κ = 0.42),非增强头部CT为实质性一致(κ = 0.63),标准磁共振成像接近完美(κ = 0.86)。42%的患者在超快磁共振成像和标准磁共振成像之间存在差异,包括蛛网膜下腔出血和硬膜下出血的检测。计算了每项检查对任何创伤性病变的敏感性、特异性、阳性和阴性预测值:超快磁共振成像(50%,100%,100%,31%),非增强头部CT(25%,100%,100%,21%),以及超快磁共振成像与非增强头部CT联合检查(60%,100%,100%,33%)。超快磁共振成像在检测脑实质内出血方面比非增强头部CT更敏感(P = 0.03),超快磁共振成像与非增强头部CT联合检查在检测颅内创伤方面比单独使用非增强头部CT更敏感(P = 0.02)。
在虐待性头部创伤中,超快磁共振成像,即使与非增强头部CT联合使用,与标准磁共振成像相比,对颅内创伤性病变的敏感性较低,这可能限制了其在该患者群体中的应用。