Citation

Sieswerda-Hoogendoorn T, Boos SC, Spivack B, Bilo RAC, van Rijn RR. Eur. J. Pediatr. 2012; 171(4): 617-623.

Affiliation

Section Forensic Paediatrics, Department of Forensic Medicine, Netherlands Forensic Institute, The Hague, The Netherlands, T.Sieswerda@amc.uva.nl.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2012, Holtzbrinck Springer Nature Publishing Group)

DOI

10.1007/s00431-011-1611-6

PMID

22080958

PMCID

PMC3306566

Abstract

Abusive head trauma (AHT) is a relatively common cause of neurotrauma in young children. Radiology plays an important role in establishing a diagnosis and assessing a prognosis. Computed tomography (CT), followed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), is the best tool for neuroimaging. There is no evidence-based approach for the follow-up of AHT; both repeat CT and MRI are currently used but literature is not conclusive. A full skeletal survey according to international guidelines should always be performed to obtain information on possible underlying bone diseases or injuries suspicious for child abuse. Cranial ultrasonography is not indicated as a diagnostic modality for the evaluation of AHT. If there is a suspicion of AHT, this should be communicated with the clinicians immediately in order to arrange protective measures as long as AHT is part of the differential diagnosis. Conclusion: The final diagnosis of AHT can never be based on radiological findings only; this should always be made in a multidisciplinary team assessment where all clinical and psychosocial information is combined and judged by a group of experts in the field.

Language: en