Advertisement

Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery

, Volume 402, Issue 1, pp 159–165 | Cite as

Radiological findings and radiation exposure during trauma workup in a cohort of 1124 level 1 trauma patients

  • G. F. GiannakopoulosEmail author
  • T. P. Saltzherr
  • L. F. M. Beenen
  • G. J. Streekstra
  • J. B. Reitsma
  • F. W. Bloemers
  • J. C. Goslings
  • F. C. Bakker
  • on behalf of the REACT study group
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Abstract

Background

During the initial assessment of patients with potential severe injuries, radiological examinations are performed in order to rapidly diagnose clinically relevant injuries. Previous studies have shown that performing these examinations routinely is not always necessary and that trauma patients are exposed to substantial radiation doses. The aim of this study was to assess the amount and findings of radiological examinations during the initial assessment of trauma patients and to determine the radiation doses to which these patients are exposed to.

Methods

We analyzed the 1124 patients included in a randomized trial. All radiological examinations during the initial assessment (i.e., primary and secondary survey) were assessed. The examination results were categorized as positive findings (i.e., (suspicion for) traumatic injury) and normal findings. The effective radiation doses for the examinations were calculated separately for each patient.

Results

Eight hundred and three patients were male (71 %), median age was 38 years, and 1079 patients sustained blunt trauma (96 %). During initial assessment, almost 3900 X-rays were performed, of which 25.4 % showed positive findings. FAST of the abdomen was performed in 989 patients (88 %), with positive findings in 10.6 %. Additional CT scanning of specific body regions was performed 1890 times in 813 patients (72.1 %), of which approximately 43.4 % revealed positive findings. Hemodynamically stable patients showed more normal findings on the radiographic studies than unstable patients. The mean radiation doses for the total population was 8.46 mSv (±7.7) and for polytraumatized patients (ISS ≥ 16) 14.3 mSv (±9.5).

Conclusion

Radiological diagnostics during initial assessment of trauma patients show a high rate of normal findings in our trauma system. The radiation doses to which trauma patients are exposed are considerable. Considering that the majority of the injured patients are hemodynamically stable, we suggest more selective use of X-ray and CT scanning.

Keywords

Radiology Trauma Diagnosis Overuse 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

This study was conducted as part of the prospective REACT trial, which was funded by an unrestricted grant from ZonMw, the Netherlands organization for health research and development (grant number 3920.0005).

References

  1. 1.
    Hoff WS, Tinkoff GH, Lucke JF et al (1992) Impact of minimal injuries on a level I trauma centre. J Trauma 33:408–412CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cook CH, Muscarella P, Praba AC et al (2001) Reducing overtriage without compromising outcomes in trauma patients. Arch Surg 136:752–756CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Tien HC, Tremblay LN, Rizoli SB et al (2007) Radiation exposure from diagnostic imaging in severely injured trauma patients. J Trauma 62:151–156CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ott M, McAlister J, VanderKolk WE et al (2006) Radiation exposure in trauma patients. J Trauma 61:607–609CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Korley FK, Pham JC, Kirsch TD (2010) Use of advanced radiology during visits to US emergency departments for injury-related conditions, 1998–2007. JAMA 304:1465–1471CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hui CM, MacGregor JH, Tien HC et al (2009) Radiation dose from initial trauma assessment and resuscitation: review of the literature. Can J Surg 52:147–152PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Inaba K, Branco BC, Lim G et al (2011) The increasing burden of radiation exposure in the management of trauma patients. J Trauma 70:1366–1370CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tasse JL, Janzen ML, Ahmed NA et al (2008) Screening laboratory and radiology panels for trauma patients have low utility and are not cost effective. J Trauma 65:1114–1116CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Saltzherr TP, Bakker FC, Beenen LF et al (2012) Randomized clinical trial comparing the effect of computed tomography in the trauma room versus the radiology department on injury outcomes. Br J Surg 99(Suppl 1):105–113CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rady MY, Smithline HA, Blake H, Nowak R, Rivers E (1994) A comparison of the shock index and conventional vital signs to identify acute, critical illness in the emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 24:685–690CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mettler FA Jr, Huda W, Yoshizumi TT et al (2008) Effective doses in radiology and diagnostic nuclear medicine: a catalog. Radiology 248:254–263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giannakopoulos GF, Unal Y, Bloemers FW et al (2009) Overtriage, a problem in handling the triage guideline in the trauma region North-West Netherlands. Dutch J Traumatol 17:3–7Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Plurad D, Green D, Demetriades D et al (2007) The increasing use of chest computed tomography for trauma: is it being overutilized? J Trauma 62:631–635CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Salottolo K, Bar-Or R, Fleishman M et al (2009) Current utilization and radiation dose from computed tomography in patients with trauma. Crit Care Med 37:1336–1340CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (1994) Initial assessment and management. In: Advanced trauma life support reference manual. American College of Surgeons, Chicago 17–37Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sauerland S, Bouillon B, Rixen D et al (2004) The reliability of clinical examination in detecting pelvic fractures in blunt trauma patients: a meta-analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 124:123–128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Salvino CK, Esposito TJ, Smith D et al (1992) Routine pelvic X-ray studies in awake blunt trauma patients: a sensible policy? J Trauma 33:413–416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gonzalez RP, Fried PQ, Bukhalo M (2002) The utility of clinical examination in screening for pelvic fractures in blunt trauma. J Am Coll Surg 194:121–125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wisbach GG, Sise MJ, Sack DI et al (2007) What is the role of chest X-ray in the initial assessment of stable trauma patients? J Trauma 62:74–78CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Broder J, Warshauer DM (2006) Increasing utilization of computed tomography in the adult emergency department, 2000–2005. Emerg Radiol 13:25–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hoffman JR, Mower WR, Wolfson AB et al (2000) Validity of a set of clinical criteria to rule out injury to the cervical spine in patients with blunt trauma. National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study Group. N Engl J Med 343:94–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen KL et al (2001) The Canadian C-spine rule for radiography in alert and stable trauma patients. JAMA 286:1841–1848CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Saltzherr TP, Beenen LF, Reitsma JB et al (2010) Frequent computed tomography scanning due to incomplete three-view X-ray imaging of the cervical spine. J Trauma 68:1213–1217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Natarajan B, Gupta PK, Cemaj S et al (2010) FAST scan: is it worth doing in hemodynamically stable blunt trauma patients? Surgery 148:695–700CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim PK, Gracias VH, Maidment AD et al (2004) Cumulative radiation dose caused by radiologic studies in critically ill trauma patients. J Trauma 57:510–514CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sierink JC, Saltzherr TP, Beenen LF, Russchen MJ, Luitse JS, Dijkgraaf MG, Goslings JC (2014) A case-matched series of immediate total-body CT scanning versus the standard radiological work-up in trauma patients. World J Surg 38:795–802CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Huber-Wagner S, Biberthaler P, Häberle S, Wierer M, Dobritz M, Rummeny E, van Griensven M, Kanz KG, Lefering R, TraumaRegister DGU (2013) Whole-body CT in haemodynamically unstable severely injured patients—a retrospective, multicentre study. PLoS One 8(7):e68880CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Brink M, Deunk J, Dekker HM et al (2010) Criteria for the selective use of chest computed tomography in blunt trauma patients. Eur Radiol 20:818–828CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Huber-Wagner S, Stegmaier J, Mathonia P, Paffrath T, Euler E, Mutschler W, Kanz KG, Lefering R, Working Group on Polytrauma (NIS) of the German Trauma Society (DGU) (2010) The sequential trauma score—a new instrument for the sequential mortality prediction in major trauma. Eur J Med Res 15:185–195CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. F. Giannakopoulos
    • 1
    Email author
  • T. P. Saltzherr
    • 2
  • L. F. M. Beenen
    • 3
  • G. J. Streekstra
    • 3
    • 4
  • J. B. Reitsma
    • 5
  • F. W. Bloemers
    • 1
  • J. C. Goslings
    • 2
  • F. C. Bakker
    • 1
  • on behalf of the REACT study group
  1. 1.Department of Trauma SurgeryVU University Medical Centre, Room 7F-002AmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Trauma Unit, Department of SurgeryAcademic Medical CentreAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyAcademic Medical CentreAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Department of Biomedical Engineering and PhysicsAcademic Medical CentreAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of Epidemiology and BiostatisticsAcademic Medical CentreAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations