Ritu Bordia1, Carl Freeman2, Henry H Kou2, John Culhane3. 1. Department of Radiology, Saint Louis , University, 1008 Spring Ave, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA. 2. Department of Surgery, Saint Louis University, 1008 Spring Ave, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA. 3. Department of Surgery, Saint Louis University, 1008 Spring Ave, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA. john.culhane@health.slu.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Our study analyzes imaging results in near-hanging to determine what neuroimaging workup is necessary. We evaluate GCS as a clinical predictor to help guide imaging choice. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of patients from a level one trauma center and from the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB). We classified injuries into categories based on the likelihood that CT played an important role in their diagnosis and management. We assessed whether a normal Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) could exclude clinically important injuries. Chi square was used to test for significance for categorical variables. Multivariate logistic regression was used for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: CT showed structural brain findings in 0% of patients from our facility (local patients) and 11.7% of NTDB patients. Of local patients and NTDB patients, 1.4% and 6.6% had blunt cerebral vascular injury (BCVI) respectively. Of local patients and NTDB patients, 1.4% and 3.3% had a cervical spine fracture or dislocation, respectively. Mortality for patients with GCS 15 versus GCS < 15 was 0 versus 26.9% for local patients (p = 0.004) and 0 versus 43.8% for NTDB (p < 0.001). Structural brain injury for patients with GCS 15 versus GCS < 15 for isolated hanging was 0 versus 14.9% for NTDB (p < 0.001). GCS 15 was an independent predictor of survival and freedom from brain injury (p < 0.001), but not neck injury. CONCLUSION: GCS 15 is a significant independent predictor of survival and freedom from brain injury in near-hanging. GCS 15 rules out intracranial injury likely to require intervention with negative predictive value of 100%. GCS of 15 does not rule out critical neck injury.
PURPOSE: Our study analyzes imaging results in near-hanging to determine what neuroimaging workup is necessary. We evaluate GCS as a clinical predictor to help guide imaging choice. METHODS: This is a retrospective study of patients from a level one trauma center and from the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB). We classified injuries into categories based on the likelihood that CT played an important role in their diagnosis and management. We assessed whether a normal Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) could exclude clinically important injuries. Chi square was used to test for significance for categorical variables. Multivariate logistic regression was used for multivariate analysis. RESULTS: CT showed structural brain findings in 0% of patients from our facility (local patients) and 11.7% of NTDB patients. Of local patients and NTDB patients, 1.4% and 6.6% had blunt cerebral vascular injury (BCVI) respectively. Of local patients and NTDB patients, 1.4% and 3.3% had a cervical spine fracture or dislocation, respectively. Mortality for patients with GCS 15 versus GCS < 15 was 0 versus 26.9% for local patients (p = 0.004) and 0 versus 43.8% for NTDB (p < 0.001). Structural brain injury for patients with GCS 15 versus GCS < 15 for isolated hanging was 0 versus 14.9% for NTDB (p < 0.001). GCS 15 was an independent predictor of survival and freedom from brain injury (p < 0.001), but not neck injury. CONCLUSION: GCS 15 is a significant independent predictor of survival and freedom from brain injury in near-hanging. GCS 15 rules out intracranial injury likely to require intervention with negative predictive value of 100%. GCS of 15 does not rule out critical neck injury.
Authors: Ali Salim; Matthew Martin; Burapat Sangthong; Carlos Brown; Peter Rhee; Demetrios Demetriades Journal: Injury Date: 2006-02-28 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: R J Boots; C Joyce; D V Mullany; C Anstey; N Blackwell; P M Garrett; S Gillis; N Alexander Journal: Anaesth Intensive Care Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 1.669
Authors: Stefan W Leichtle; Debolina Banerjee; Robin Schrader; Beth Torres; Sudha Jayaraman; Edgar Rodas; Beth Broering; Michel B Aboutanos Journal: J Trauma Acute Care Surg Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 3.313
Authors: William R Hendee; Gary J Becker; James P Borgstede; Jennifer Bosma; William J Casarella; Beth A Erickson; C Douglas Maynard; James H Thrall; Paul E Wallner Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-08-24 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Andrea E Geddes; Clay Cothren Burlew; Amy E Wagenaar; Walter L Biffl; Jeffrey L Johnson; Fredric M Pieracci; Eric M Campion; Ernest E Moore Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2016-09-29 Impact factor: 2.565