Matthew K T Seah1, Colin G Murphy2, Scott McDonald3, Andrew Carrothers2. 1. Orthopaedic Trauma Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, United Kingdom. Electronic address: matt.seah@doctors.org.uk. 2. Orthopaedic Trauma Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, United Kingdom. 3. Addenbrooke's Hospital, United Kingdom.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The use of total-body computed tomography (CT) scanning in the evaluation of multiply injured patients is increasing, and their liberal use has stirred debate as to the added benefit relative to the risk of radiation exposure and inappropriate use of limited healthcare resources. Findings unrelated to the clinician's reasons for requesting the radiological examination are often uncovered due to the comprehensive nature of the evaluation at a trauma centre. However, some of these findings are outside the expertise of the trauma team who initially organised the scan and this may lead to uncertainty over who is best qualified to follow-up the incidental finding. We aim to evaluate the frequency of incidental findings on whole body trauma CT scans in a consecutive series of trauma admissions to our unit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 104 consecutive major trauma patients who received a whole-body trauma CT (head, cervical spine, chest, abdomen and pelvis) from Jan 2013 to Dec 2013 in our unit (out of a total of 976 trauma admissions in the same year). Patient-specific information was extracted from computerised hospital databases containing admission and progress notes, radiological reports, operation notes and pathology reports. RESULTS: 57 patients (54.8%) had incidental findings identified on the radiologist report, with a total of 114 individual incidental findings. 6 (5.8%) patients had potentially severe findings that required further diagnostic work up; 65 (62.5%) patients had diagnostic workup dependant on their symptoms, and 43 (41.3%) patients had incidental findings of minor concern which required no follow up. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reflect the literature noting that incidental findings are increasingly common due to the central diagnostic role of CT imaging in trauma care, but also due to advances in imaging techniques and quality. In keeping with published literature, we note that increased age is associated with an increased incidence of "incidental findings" and this will continue to rise with the ageing population and the mandatory nature of trauma CTs.
INTRODUCTION: The use of total-body computed tomography (CT) scanning in the evaluation of multiply injured patients is increasing, and their liberal use has stirred debate as to the added benefit relative to the risk of radiation exposure and inappropriate use of limited healthcare resources. Findings unrelated to the clinician's reasons for requesting the radiological examination are often uncovered due to the comprehensive nature of the evaluation at a trauma centre. However, some of these findings are outside the expertise of the trauma team who initially organised the scan and this may lead to uncertainty over who is best qualified to follow-up the incidental finding. We aim to evaluate the frequency of incidental findings on whole body trauma CT scans in a consecutive series of trauma admissions to our unit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified 104 consecutive major traumapatients who received a whole-body trauma CT (head, cervical spine, chest, abdomen and pelvis) from Jan 2013 to Dec 2013 in our unit (out of a total of 976 trauma admissions in the same year). Patient-specific information was extracted from computerised hospital databases containing admission and progress notes, radiological reports, operation notes and pathology reports. RESULTS: 57 patients (54.8%) had incidental findings identified on the radiologist report, with a total of 114 individual incidental findings. 6 (5.8%) patients had potentially severe findings that required further diagnostic work up; 65 (62.5%) patients had diagnostic workup dependant on their symptoms, and 43 (41.3%) patients had incidental findings of minor concern which required no follow up. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reflect the literature noting that incidental findings are increasingly common due to the central diagnostic role of CT imaging in trauma care, but also due to advances in imaging techniques and quality. In keeping with published literature, we note that increased age is associated with an increased incidence of "incidental findings" and this will continue to rise with the ageing population and the mandatory nature of trauma CTs.
Authors: Sandra Niedermeier; Rebecca Wania; Alina Lampart; Robert Stahl; Christoph Trumm; Christian Kammerlander; Wolfgang Böcker; Christian H Nickel; Roland Bingisser; Marco Armbruster; Vera Pedersen Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-01-30
Authors: Peter Andrawes; Antonio I Picon; Masood A Shariff; Basem Azab; Wolf von Waagner; Seleshi Demissie; Charles Fasanya Journal: Trauma Surg Acute Care Open Date: 2017-09-14
Authors: Robert M Rodriguez; Noah Hawthorne; Shelby P Murphy; Marcus Theus; David Haase; Chika Chuku; Jason Wen Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2018-07-26