Objective To evaluate the number, localisation and importance of non-traumatic incidental findings (IFs) in patients with suspected or obvious multiple trauma undergoing whole-body CT (WBCT) in a level-1 trauma centre.
Methods Between January 2009 and December 2013, a total of 2440 patients with trauma undergoing WBCT at admission to a level-1 trauma centre of a university hospital were retrospectively analysed, through imaging IFs unrelated to trauma with the radiological reports. All IFs were grouped into four categories according to their clinical relevance. Category 1: urgent treatment or further clarification needed; category 2: further examination and follow-up within 3–6 months required; category 3: findings with no immediate consequences for the treatment of the patient but of potential relevance in the future; category 4: harmless findings.
Results Altogether, 5440 IFs in 2440 patients (1735 male, 705 female; mean age 45.1 years) were documented. In 204 patients (8.4%) urgent category 1 findings were reported, 766 patients (31.4%) had category 2 findings, 1236 patients (50.7%) had category 3 findings and 1173 patients (48.1%) had category 4 findings. Most IFs were detected in the abdomen/pelvis (42.5%). 602 (24.7%) of the patients had no IFs.
Conclusions WBCT scans of unrelated trauma patients demonstrate a high rate of IF. A substantial percentage (8.4%) of patients had urgent category 1IFs and a high percentage (31.4%) had category 2 IFs requiring a follow-up. This high number of patients with polytrauma undergoing WBCT, having IFs of high relevance, poses a major challenge for the level-1 trauma centre in the acute and postacute management of these patients.
- non-traumatic problems
- emergency department management
- major incidents
- major trauma management
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors EKK: planned the study, data collection, statistical analysis, wrote main part of the manuscript. GW: planned the study, data analysis, helped writing the manuscript. IS: statistics expert, planned and controlled the statistics. TS: planned the study, data analysis, helped writing the manuscript. FS: helped with data acquisition. BH: provided the infrastructure for the study. MHM: planned the study, data collection, statistical analysis and wrote part of the manuscript.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.