4.2 Article

Prevalence, Patterns, and Clinical Relevance of Hypoxic-Ischemic Injuries in Children Exposed to Abusive Head Trauma

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROIMAGING
卷 28, 期 6, 页码 608-614

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jon.12555

关键词

Hypoxia-ischemia; hypoxic-ischemic; abusive; trauma; pediatric

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Hypoxic-ischemic injuries (HIIs) are a scarcely investigated but important cause of morbidity and mortality in children who suffered abusive head trauma (AHT). The purpose of this study is to determine: (a) prevalence, types, and clinical relevance of cytotoxic edema compatible with HII in nonpenetrating AHT, (b) their relationship to other classic neuroimaging findings of AHT, and (c) their correlation with clinical outcomes. METHODS RESULTS Diffusion-weighted imaging sequences of magnetic resonance imagings performed on children under 5 years diagnosed with AHT were reviewed to detect the most common patterns of acute parenchymal damage. Patterns of cytotoxic edema were described, and HII-compatible ones divided in subtypes. Correlation between HII, fractures, and subdural hemorrhages (SDHs) and with clinical outcomes was determined using imaging and available follow-up data. Out of 57 patients, 36.8% showed lesions compatible with HII. A predominantly asymmetric cortical distribution was observed in 66.7% of cases, while 33.3% had diffused both cortical and deep gray/white matter distribution injury. Traumatic axonal injuries and focal contusions were less common. There was no significant correlation between the presence of SDH (P = .6) or skull fractures (P = .53) and HII. HII was the most severe form of parenchymal damage in terms of in-hospital mortality and morbidity at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS HII is the most common type of parenchymal damage in children victim of AHT, being present in 1/3 of patients with this condition, and correlates with more severe outcomes. Its presence is independent from other classic traumatic findings such as SDH and fractures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据