Jordan Roger Wayne, Breland David M, Zhang Xu, Friedman Elliott
From the Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging, McGovern Medical School, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX.
Vulcan Imaging Associates, PC, Birmingham, AL.
J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2020 Nov/Dec;44(6):941-946. doi: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000001098.
Blunt cerebrovascular injuries (BCVI) of the neck are a common cause for concern after blunt trauma. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate whether patients with a cervical seat belt sign in the absence of associated high-risk injuries or neurological symptoms are at an increased risk for developing a clinically significant vascular injury and therefore require a screening neck computed tomographic angiography (CTA).
A retrospective review was performed of patients who presented after motor vehicle collision and received a neck CTA for an indication of "seat belt sign." Imaging was reviewed to determine the vascular injury grade, associated injuries, and, if available, follow-up imaging was reviewed to assess for interval change or resolution. The patients were split into 2 groups. Group 1 included patients without high-risk injuries, and group 2 included patients with high-risk injuries.
In group 1, 6 (2.9%) of 208 patients had BCVI. In group 2, 7 (18.9%) of 37 patients had BCVI. Patients in group 2 were 6.5 times more likely to suffer BCVI compared with group 1 (P < 0.001). No patient in group 1 was ever symptomatic, and only 1 (0.5%) patient underwent interventional treatment.
Patients presenting after blunt trauma with a seat belt sign and no other high-risk injuries as laid out by screening criteria demonstrate a low probability of BCVI and an even lower likelihood of adverse outcome.
颈部钝性脑血管损伤(BCVI)是钝性创伤后常见的令人担忧的原因。本文的目的是证明在没有相关高危损伤或神经症状的情况下出现颈部安全带征的患者发生具有临床意义的血管损伤的风险是否增加,因此是否需要进行颈部计算机断层血管造影(CTA)筛查。
对机动车碰撞后因“安全带征”指征接受颈部CTA检查的患者进行回顾性研究。对影像进行评估以确定血管损伤分级、相关损伤情况,如有随访影像,也进行评估以判断有无间隔期变化或损伤是否消退。患者分为两组。第1组包括无高危损伤的患者,第2组包括有高危损伤的患者。
在第1组的208例患者中,6例(2.9%)发生BCVI。在第2组的37例患者中,7例(18.9%)发生BCVI。第2组患者发生BCVI的可能性是第1组的6.5倍(P < 0.001)。第1组患者均无症状,仅有1例(0.5%)患者接受了介入治疗。
钝性创伤后出现安全带征且无筛查标准所列出的其他高危损伤的患者发生BCVI的概率较低,不良后果的可能性更低。