BACKGROUND: The value of 3-D skull models in evaluation of young children with suspected child abuse is not known. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the value of 3-D skull models as a problem-solving tool in children younger than 2 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study on 73 children (ages 0-24 months) seen by a child protection team (CPT) who were undergoing head CT between August 2007 and July 2009. RESULTS: Of the 73 children, volume-rendered 3-D models were obtained in 26 (35.6%). Three-dimensional models changed initial CT interpretation in nine instances (34.6%). Findings thought to be fractures were confirmed as normal variants in four children. Depressed fractures were correctly shown to be ping-pong fractures in two cases. In one case, an uncertain finding was confirmed as a fracture, and an additional contralateral fracture was identified in one child. A fracture seen on skull radiographs but not seen on axial CT images was identified on the 3-D model in one case. Changes in interpretation led to modification in management in five children. CONCLUSION: Use of 3-D skull models can be a problem-solving tool when there is discordance among the CT reading, subsequent radiographic investigations and clinical evaluation.
BACKGROUND: The value of 3-D skull models in evaluation of young children with suspected child abuse is not known. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the value of 3-D skull models as a problem-solving tool in children younger than 2 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study on 73 children (ages 0-24 months) seen by a child protection team (CPT) who were undergoing head CT between August 2007 and July 2009. RESULTS: Of the 73 children, volume-rendered 3-D models were obtained in 26 (35.6%). Three-dimensional models changed initial CT interpretation in nine instances (34.6%). Findings thought to be fractures were confirmed as normal variants in four children. Depressed fractures were correctly shown to be ping-pong fractures in two cases. In one case, an uncertain finding was confirmed as a fracture, and an additional contralateral fracture was identified in one child. A fracture seen on skull radiographs but not seen on axial CT images was identified on the 3-D model in one case. Changes in interpretation led to modification in management in five children. CONCLUSION: Use of 3-D skull models can be a problem-solving tool when there is discordance among the CT reading, subsequent radiographic investigations and clinical evaluation.
Authors: N Abdeen; S Chakraborty; T Nguyen; M P dos Santos; M Donaldson; G Heddon; B A Schwarz Journal: Clin Radiol Date: 2010-08-06 Impact factor: 2.350
Authors: Bradley R Foerster; Myria Petrou; Doris Lin; Majda M Thurnher; Martha D Carlson; Peter J Strouse; Pia C Sundgren Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2008-11-22 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Paige A Culotta; James E Crowe; Quynh-Anh Tran; Jeremy Y Jones; Amy R Mehollin-Ray; H Brandon Tran; Marcella Donaruma-Kwoh; Cristina T Dodge; Elizabeth A Camp; Andrea T Cruz Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2016-10-15
Authors: Christian A Barrera; Elizabeth Silvestro; Juan S Calle-Toro; Philip V Scribano; Joanne N Wood; M Katherine Henry; Savvas Andronikou Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2019-03-15