STUDY PURPOSE: To analyse the management of minor traumatic brain injury (MTBI) in paediatric hospitals in Germany. METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to 72 children hospitals. RESULTS: All participating (45/72; 62.5 %) hospitals had facilities to perform an electroencephalogram (EEG), 98 % cranial ultrasonography, 94 % MRI studies, and 87 % a CT scan. The initial Glasgow Coma Scale, the clinical presentation/neurological deficits, the intensity of the trauma and external/visible injuries were most important for initial assessment. The main reason for in-patient monitoring was initial clinical neurologic presentation (44 %). X-ray scans were used routinely in only 2.2 %, cMRI scans in 6.7 % and cCT scans in 13.3 %; approximately one third employed ultrasonography. In 22.2 % was an EEG part of the routine diagnostic work-up. Inpatient monitoring for 24-48 h was done in 80 %. CONCLUSIONS: Children with MTBI are often monitored clinically without resorting to potentially harmful and expensive diagnostic procedures (cCT scans).
STUDY PURPOSE: To analyse the management of minor traumatic brain injury (MTBI) in paediatric hospitals in Germany. METHODS: An electronic survey was sent to 72 children hospitals. RESULTS: All participating (45/72; 62.5 %) hospitals had facilities to perform an electroencephalogram (EEG), 98 % cranial ultrasonography, 94 % MRI studies, and 87 % a CT scan. The initial Glasgow Coma Scale, the clinical presentation/neurological deficits, the intensity of the trauma and external/visible injuries were most important for initial assessment. The main reason for in-patient monitoring was initial clinical neurologic presentation (44 %). X-ray scans were used routinely in only 2.2 %, cMRI scans in 6.7 % and cCT scans in 13.3 %; approximately one third employed ultrasonography. In 22.2 % was an EEG part of the routine diagnostic work-up. Inpatient monitoring for 24-48 h was done in 80 %. CONCLUSIONS:Children with MTBI are often monitored clinically without resorting to potentially harmful and expensive diagnostic procedures (cCT scans).
Authors: Talin Babikian; Paul Satz; Ken Zaucha; Roger Light; Richard S Lewis; Robert F Asarnow Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2011-08-04 Impact factor: 2.892
Authors: I G Stiell; H Lesiuk; G A Wells; R D McKnight; R Brison; C Clement; M A Eisenhauer; G H Greenberg; I MacPhail; M Reardon; J Worthington; R Verbeek; B Rowe; D Cass; J Dreyer; B Holroyd; L Morrison; M Schull; A Laupacis Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Keith Owen Yeates; H Gerry Taylor; Jerome Rusin; Barbara Bangert; Ann Dietrich; Kathryn Nuss; Martha Wright Journal: Int J Dev Neurosci Date: 2011-05-27 Impact factor: 2.457
Authors: P E Vos; L Battistin; G Birbamer; F Gerstenbrand; A Potapov; T Prevec; Ch A Stepan; P Traubner; A Twijnstra; L Vecsei; K von Wild Journal: Eur J Neurol Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 6.089
Authors: Michael J Palchak; James F Holmes; Cheryl W Vance; Rebecca E Gelber; Bobbie A Schauer; Mathew J Harrison; Jason Willis-Shore; Sandra L Wootton-Gorges; Robert W Derlet; Nathan Kuppermann Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2003-10 Impact factor: 5.721