nach oben

Erschienen in:

Open Access 01.12.2020 | Guideline

European Society of Emergency Radiology: guideline on radiological polytrauma imaging and service (short version)

verfasst von: Stefan Wirth, Julian Hebebrand, Raffaella Basilico, Ferco H. Berger, Ana Blanco, Cem Calli, Maureen Dumba, Ulrich Linsenmaier, Fabian Mück, Konraad H. Nieboer, Mariano Scaglione, Marc-André Weber, Elizabeth Dick

Erschienen in: Insights into Imaging | Ausgabe 1/2020

Abstract

Background

Although some national recommendations for the role of radiology in a polytrauma service exist, there are no European guidelines to date. Additionally, for many interdisciplinary guidelines, radiology tends to be under-represented. These factors motivated the European Society of Emergency Radiology (ESER) to develop radiologically-centred polytrauma guidelines.

Results

Evidence-based decisions were made on 68 individual aspects of polytrauma imaging at two ESER consensus conferences. For severely injured patients, whole-body CT (WBCT) has been shown to significantly reduce mortality when compared to targeted, selective CT. However, this advantage must be balanced against the radiation risk of performing more WBCTs, especially in less severely injured patients. For this reason, we recommend a second lower dose WBCT protocol as an alternative in certain clinical scenarios. The ESER Guideline on Radiological Polytrauma Imaging and Service is published in two versions: a full version (download from the ESER homepage, https://www.eser-society.org) and a short version also covering all recommendations (this article).

Conclusions

Once a patient has been accurately classified as polytrauma, each institution should be able to choose from at least two WBCT protocols. One protocol should be optimised regarding time and precision, and is already used by most institutions (variant A). The second protocol should be dose reduced and used for clinically stable and oriented patients who nonetheless require a CT because the history suggests possible serious injury (variant B). Reading, interpretation and communication of the report should be structured clinically following the ABCDE format, i.e. diagnose first what kills first.

Stefan Wirth and Julian Hebebrand contributed equally, shared first authorship

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

AWMF

Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany

Confidence interval

CIRSE

Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe

Computed tomography

CTA

Computed tomography angiography

DBIS

Database information system

ECR

European Society of Radiology

EDiR

European diploma in radiology

eFAST

Extended focused assessment with sonography for trauma

ESER

European Society of Emergency Radiology

ESNR

European Society of Neuroradiology

GoR

Grade of recommendation

GPP

Good clinical practice points

MDCT

Multi-detector computed tomography

MeSH

Medical subject headings

MPR

Multiplanar reformation

NCBI

National Center for Biotechnology Information

NICE

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence

NOS

Newcastle–Ottawa Scale

PACS

Picture archiving and communication system

PICO

Population, intervention, comparator group and outcome

WBCT

Whole-body computed tomography

Key points

If indicated, whole-body-CT (WBCT) saves lives in severely injured patients.
However, WBCT radiation dose risk versus benefit depends on severity of injury.
Two WBCT protocols should be established (A: time/precision optimised, B: dose reduced).
Protocol A should be used for clinically unstable patients/life-threatening conditions.
For all other patients, protocol B should be selected.

Background

The European Society of Emergency Radiology (ESER) is an apolitical, non-profit organisation, exclusively and directly dedicated to promoting and coordinating the scientific, philanthropic, intellectual and professional activities of Emergency Radiology. The Society’s mission at all times is to serve the health care needs of the general public through the support of science, teaching, research and the quality of service in the field of Emergency Radiology [1]. One particular aim of ESER is to advance and improve the radiological aspects of emergent patient care and to advance the quality of diagnosis and treatment of acutely ill or injured patients using imaging.

Emergency Radiology encompasses medical and surgical subspecialties including polytrauma services. Concerning the latter, past and present ESER board members had taken part in several interdisciplinary guideline processes. However, the ESER board has observed the lack of dedicated separate independent radiological recommendations for a radiological polytrauma service. The ESER has therefore created such recommendations with the hope that this will start to bring corresponding diverse national and international radiological societies together in order to refine the statements, gain visibility for national societies and in particular, strengthen the role of radiology in upcoming interdisciplinary polytrauma guideline development.

As ESER also wants to be a promotor of future scientific work, we hope to give advice on specific questions as well as for a more general principal direction. To update this guideline, ESER will refine the statements at appropriate time intervals, (currently estimated to be two years).

The Guideline on Radiological Polytrauma Imaging and Service is published simultaneously in a comprehensive short version (this article) and a full version (download of the full version from the ESER homepage [1]). This causes text overlap between the two versions. We mention this to avoid a potential conflict with respect to self-plagiarism.

Methods

The ESER Board instructed the former ESER President (S.W.) to divide the entire field of radiological polytrauma care into individual sections. S.W. assigned parts of the project to J.H. as part of his doctoral thesis at the Ludwig-Maximilian-University, Munich, Germany. Each section was processed and prepared according to a fixed schedule: determination of key issue(s), literature research, selection of literature, classification of literature, rating of literature, determining a level of evidence, suggesting a grade of recommendation, suggesting a statement for each key issue as a basis for the consensus conferences.

Key issues

Each section was related to at least one key issue/question. The consensus conference members had to discuss and vote on one (or more) answer(s) to each key question, but were also allowed to delete or change answers.

Literature research

For each key issue, a literature search was conducted with subjectively fitting keywords from the MeSH terms (Medical Subject Headings, [2]) including subjectively fitting synonymous keywords. The MeSH term search itself was performed using NCBI (National Center for Biotechnology Information) [2]. These keywords were used for searching through several databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed [3]), Cochrane Library [4] and Embase (via Ovid [5]). These databases were accessed via the Database Information System (DBIS) [6] of the University Library of the LMU Munich, where full text access was available for almost all journals. If there was only access to the abstract but not to the full text, the literature was excluded. Depending on the key issue the rate of such exclusion ranged between two and ten percent. Search terms and their connection were adapted to the individual databases. For guidelines, the databases of the NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [7]) and AWMF (Association of the Scientific Medical Societies in Germany [8]) were scanned. The AWMF database in German was included because S.W. and J.H. were able to understand it and, if necessary, translate it for the consensus conferences. The NICE search for guidelines was performed with the additional filter ‘Secondary Evidence’. The literature found was selected in a fixed order. The first step was to evaluate the relevance by title, then by abstract and, if necessary, by keyword search in the full text. Any literature not excluded in this first step was then subject to a more detailed second step examination of the inclusion and exclusion criteria on the basis of the full text. For more (very detailed) information about the literature search please refer to the guideline in full text [1].

Inclusion/exclusion criteria for literature selection

The literature was selected on the basis of a catalogue of inclusion criteria. The search key words were determined together by S.W. and J.H. according to ‘sections’ and related ‘key issue(s)’. Data were excluded if at least one of the inclusion criteria listed below was not fulfilled.

Publication period from January, 1 2010 to February, 15 2019

Study population: n ≥ 50, adults (an age limit was not applied as children develop at different rates and therefore, from a radiological point of view, there may be a smooth transition to the body of an adult.)

Language of publication: English or German (German because S.W. and J.H. were able to understand it and, if necessary, translate it for the consensus conferences)

Full text accessible, free of charge via the university portal used

Clinical relevance of the literature included with regard to the key issue (subjective evaluation)

Additional criteria for guidelines:

It is published as a guideline, i.e. using the word ‘guideline’ in the title
The guideline is described as being current or no updated version is available

Additional criteria for studies:

Allowed study types: meta-analyses, systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case–control studies, cross-sectional studies, before—after studies
Outcome: p-value < 0.05 and/or confidence interval (CI) > 95%

Classification, rating, and evidence level of studies

Classification In case of studies, the algorithm according to Hartling et al. [9] was used to classify the study type for included publications (e.g. prospective cohort study, case–control study, randomised controlled trial).

Rating Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were rated using AMSTAR 2 [10], randomised controlled trials using the Cochrane method [11], and cohort or case control studies using the Newcastle—Ottawa Scale (NOS) [11]. The Cochrane method and NOS have been performed according to the description in the Manual of Cochrane Germany and Association of Scientific Medical Societies in Germany (AWMF) [11] (e.g. were the items of PICO (population, intervention, comparator group and outcome) applied for a randomised controlled study? Were the sources of funding of the study published? [10]).

Evidence Level For every study, the level of evidence of was assigned using the scheme of the Oxford Centre for Evidence—Based Medicine in the 2011 version [12] (e.g. level 1 corresponds to systematic review of randomised trials or level 3 corresponds to a cohort study [12]).

Grade of recommendation (GoR)

Using the evidence levels according to the AWMF Guidance Manual [13] one out of three possible Grades of Recommendation (GoR) was issued on each answer to a key question: A = ‘should/ should not’ with the meaning of ‘certainly should/ should not’; B = ‘ought/ ought not’ with the meaning of ‘probably/preferably should/should not’; 0 = ‘may be considered’ or ‘consider’. The GoR was based on the evidence level of the included studies: evidence level 1 led to a recommendation level ‘A’ (strong recommendation), evidence level 2 led to a recommendation level ‘B’ (recommendation) and evidence levels 3, 4, 5 lead to a recommendation ‘0’ (open recommendation). For statements from guidelines, the specific degree of recommendation was adopted from the guideline. Following the AWMF principle [14] and in case the used scale allowed us to do so, the consensus conference was able to increase or decrease the GoR by one degree of recommendation [14].

Good clinical practice points (GPP)

If there was insufficient evidence in the literature included, the degree of recommendation—GPP (Good Clinical Practice Points, [15]-p. 27) was used. In contrast to GoR, GPP is based purely on the consensus of the experts. The GPP degrees of recommendation are identical to those for GoR: ‘A’ = strong recommendation, ‘B’ = recommendation and ‘0′ = open recommendation. For differentiation purposes, the degree of recommendation was therefore marked with GPP instead of GoR.

Consensus development at the conferences

For each key issue, S.W. and J.H. proposed a statement with a corresponding level of recommendation (GoR or GPP) to the consensus conference. This served as a basis for the discussion during the consensus conference. If present in person, each member of the last and the current ESER Board (from 2017 until now) had exactly one equal vote. As the consensus conferences were during congress meetings, not all consensus members were able to present for the entire consensus conferences. According to our constitution, attendance by 2/3 of members was considered quorate for each vote on each statement. All members reviewed each statement during the publication process. The suggested statements and grades of recommendation as well as the corresponding literature were sent to the participants in advance by email.

The procedure for each key question is as follows (see also Table 1): For each section, the suggested statement(s) and GoR/GPP were presented by S.W. and a discussion was opened with the possibility of further questions, amendments, additions and objections. This stopped when there seemed to be a majority on the wording and the final suggested or amended statement was then voted on (with % consensus recorded). This was followed by a second vote on the GoR/GPP for this statement (again, the % consensus was recorded). If necessary, a new proposal for GoR/GPP was formed by discussion considering the rules for GoR/GPP (AWMF principle as described earlier) until at least simple majority was reached. Each voting was performed anonymously by holding a laser pointer within a given area, which was interpreted as ‘yes’, outside this area as ‘no’, and missing pointer signals as abstention (did not occur). All voting results were recorded (Tables 2, 3, 4, 5).

Table 1

Section 1: Polytrauma classification*

Key question: Which patients can be classed as polytrauma (and should therefore receive a whole-body computed tomography)?
No	Statement(s)	Consensus (positive votes on the statement, strength)	Grade (recommendation type, level)	Consensus (positive votes on the grade, strength)
1.1	The assessment should be undertaken by the medical team in the Emergency Trauma Room** with regard to a potential life threatening situation and continuously reassessed with special regard to: Abnormalties of vital signs Injury mechanism Multiple body regions injuries and injury location Cofactors such as age, comorbidity, anticoagulant medication, pregnancy	100% strong	GPP A	100% strong
Literature: abstracts detected = 1697, excluded = 1662, full-text: rated = 35, excluded = 31, included = 4 (evidence level of included literature = guideline: [15]; level 2: [16‐18])
Comments: ESER does not assign a GoR because no evidence-based clear prospective definition was found in the literature. As a comment, ESER wants to recommend that the decision whether a patient is classed as polytrauma or not, should be taken by the trauma team leader in charge (a named person for each shift or patient). The trauma team leader has to decide in consultation with the rest of the trauma team, mainly the leading team members of Trauma Surgery, Anesthesiology and Radiology

*In contrast to the following tables, Table 1 holds additional information for explanation in italics

**As there are several wordings for the room where polytrauma service is performed, ESER chose one of those terms and we decided to use ‘Emergency Trauma Room’ as wording in this Guideline. Common similar wordings are: Resuscitation Room or Shock Room

Table 2

Section 2: Structural points, key issue 1: CT location

Key question: Where should the CT-scanner be located with regard to a short service time and the lowest possible mortality rate of polytrauma patients?
No	Statement(s)	Cons	Grade	Cons
2.1.1	The computer tomograph ought to be located in or directly next to the Emergency Trauma Room	71% weak	GoR B	100% strong
2.1.2	If this is not possible, the distance should not exceed 50 m	100% strong	GoR A	100% strong
2.1.3	The transportation route to further therapy (Interventional Radiology, Operating Room, Intensive Care/Therapy Unit, and in rare cases Coronary Unit) ought to be short	86% normal	GoR B	100% strong
Literature: detected = 367, excluded = 343, full-text: rated = 24, excluded = 18, included = 6 (guideline: [15, 19]; level 2: [20, 21]; level 3: [22, 23])
Comments: A dual-room/ sliding gantry-CT may be considered in case of localisation in the Emergency Trauma Room

Table 3

Section 2: Structural points, key issue 2: CT type

Key question: Which computer tomography technology is needed for a polytrauma service?
No	Statement(s)	Cons	Grade	Cons
2.2.1	Trauma Centres of the highest level of medical care should be equipped with a Multi-detector CT (MDCT) offering at least 64 simultaneous slices	100% strong	GoR A	86% normal
2.2.2	As isotropic scanning offers the advantages of high quality MPR (multiplanar reformations), a CT scanner ought to be preferred with at least 16 detector rows	86% normal	GPP B	86% normal
2.2.3	The computer tomographs ought to be equipped with current techniques for the reduction of radiation exposure, but this should not delay image reconstructions	100% strong	GoR B	86% normal
2.2.4	Dual-Energy/ Spectral imaging/ substraction imaging scanner may be considered	86% normal	GPP 0	71% weak
2.2.5	Trauma centres of the highest level of medical care should be technically equipped to a standard that will allow a perfusion CT of the brain	100% strong	GPP A	100% strong
2.2.6	Trauma centres of the highest level of medical care should be technically equipped to a standard that will allow a cardiac CT, if needed	14% none	-	-
Literature: detected = 615, excluded = 579, full-text: rated = 36, excluded = 28, included = 8 (guideline: [15, 24]; level 2: [25]; level 3: [26‐30])
Comments: As the technological development was fast in the last decade (the interval for literature inclusion), literature included reports on four row CT-scanners for polytrauma service. The consensus conference states them as obsolete

Table 4

Section 2: Structural points, key issue 3: Diagnostic Environment and Communication

Key question: Which work organization is recommended for polytrauma management with regard to workstation, data processing, image display and communication?
No	Statement(s)	Cons	Grade	Cons
2.3.1	Depending on the individual framework conditions, each facility should enable the fastest possible initial image evaluation	100% strong	GoR A	100% strong
2.3.2	For this initial evaluation, an optimised workstation connected directly to the CT control console ought to be used	86% normal	GoR B	100% strong
2.3.3	These initial images should not exceed a maximum slice thickness of 5 mm	100% strong	GoR A	100% strong
2.3.4	Depending on the individual framework conditions, each institution should define a suitable infrastructure for the immediate oral as well as the further written exchange of information	100% strong	GoR A	100% strong
2.3.5	The transmission of findings may be considered to be supported with a selection of relevant images	86% normal	GoR 0	86% normal
2.3.6	There should be a way between hospitals to exchange CT images safely and timely	100% strong	GoR A	100% strong
Literature: detected = 850, excluded = 784, full-text: rated = 40, excluded = 31, included = 9 (guideline: [15, 19, 31‐33]; level 3: [22, 34‐36])
Comments: Mobile devices may be useful in distributing relevant information

Table 5

Section 2: Structural points, key issue 4: Quality Management

Key question: What does suitable quality management entail for the radiological care of polytrauma patients?
No	Statement(s)	Cons	Grade	Cons
2.4.1	Every radiological facility should establish targeted, individual quality management for the treatment of polytrauma	100% strong	GPP A	100% strong
2.4.2	Such quality management ought to define, monitor and continuously improve defined meaningful indicators	100% strong	GPP B	100% strong
2.4.3	Such a quality management ought to be integrated into and coordinated with a radiological as well as a clinical overall quality management	86% normal	GPP B	86% normal
Literature: No literature search was conducted
Comments: Quality management has long been established in industry and is increasingly proving itself in medical applications. Quality management is desirable, but so far little suitable reliable information is available. More precise recommendation on quality management should be the subject of future research and also of radiological or clinical consensus conferences. As a first choice useful parameters may be: time-to CT-service; time of CT-service; time-to therapy; total dose; image quality; errors in first, second and third readings; number and frequency of morbidity and mortality conferences

An agreement of voting was achieved by a consensus strength of more than 50% of the present votes.

The consensus strength was graduated according to the AWMF rules ([14]-p.40) as follows: Strong (strong agreement): > 95% of votes; Normal (normal agreement): > 75–95%; Weak (majority agreement): > 50–75% and None (no agreement): < 50% (Tables 6, 7, 8, 9, 10).

Table 6

Section 3: Extended Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (eFAST)

Key question: What significance does the eFAST examination have in the Emergency Trauma Room treatment of polytrauma patients?
No	Statement(s)	Cons	Grade	Cons
3.1	eFAST should be used as part of the Primary Survey	100% strong	GoR A	100% strong
3.2	eFAST should be implemented simultaneously with other measures, i.e. without additional expenditure of time for the overall care. If this is not possible, eFAST should not delay CT	100% strong	GoR A	100% strong
Literature: detected = 699, excluded = 681, full-text: rated = 18, excluded = 6, included = 12 (guideline: [15, 19, 37‐39]; level 1: [40]; level 2: [41, 42]; level 3: [43, 44]; level 4: [45]; level 5: [46])
Comments: eFAST ought to be a screening for diagnostic findings requiring immediate treatment. With this meaning eFAST is a filter to (maybe temporarily) exclude (very few) patients from CT-scanning because of reasons where the time effort of CT is expected to lead to higher mortality. Such findings in unstable patients may be tension pneumothorax, pericardial tamponade, massive bleeding in the pleural or peritoneal spaces

Table 7

Section 4: Conventional Radiography

Key question: What is the significance of conventional X-rays and under what conditions are conventional X-rays preferred to computer tomography in the Emergency Trauma Room treatment of polytrauma patients?
No	Statement(s)	Cons	Grade	Cons
4.1	For the clarification of polytrauma, CT should be preferred to X-ray	100% strong	GoR A	100% strong
4.2	In addition to an eFAST, conventional X-ray should also be immediately available	100% strong	GoR A	100% strong
Literature: detected = 893, excluded = 845, full-text: rated = 18, excluded = 7, included = 11 (guideline: [15, 19, 24, 47, 48]; level 2: [49, 50]; level 3: [51‐53]; level 5: [46])
Comments: None

Table 8

Section 5: Whole Body CT – Positioning, key issue 1: patient orientation

Key question: How does head- or feet-first positioning affect a polytrauma – WBCT scan?
No	Statement(s)	Cons	Grade	Cons
5.1.1	If it is logistically possible, the patient ought to be positioned on the examination table with her/his feet in front of the gantry	86% normal	GPP B	86% normal
5.1.2	Otherwise, the scan ought to be done head first	100% strong	GPP B	86% normal
Literature: detected = 328, excluded = 323, full-text: rated = 5, excluded = 5, included = 0
Comments: Although without any evidence, the advantages of feet-first positioning appear to be clear in terms of reduced radiation exposure of personnel, reduced artifacts due to cable routing, reduced cable routing problems, easier accessibility to the head

Table 9

Section 5: Whole Body CT – Positioning, key issue 2: Arm position

Key question: How do different arm positions of patients with polytrauma impact computed tomography scans with respect to radiation exposure, image quality and scan duration?
No	Statement(s)	Cons	Grade	Cons
5.2.1	Depending on the patient or their clinical condition, the arms should be positioned down (time-optimised) or up (dose-optimised)	86% normal	GoR A	100% strong
5.2.2	For a time-optimised protocol (e.g. in haemodynamically unstable patients), arms ought to be crossed over the trunk in such a way that the hardening artifacts are distributed to best effect over the z-axis (time-optimised procedure equals quick)	100% strong	GoR B	100% strong
5.2.3	For a dose-optimised protocol (prerequisite: haemodynamically stable patients), arms for the CT scan of the trunk ought to be positioned above the head unless there is evidence of a significant injury to the corresponding local shoulder region (dose-optimised procedure equals lower radiation)	86% normal	GoR B	100% strong
Literature: detected = 695, excluded = 673, full-text: rated = 22, excluded = 16, included = 6 (guideline: [15]; level 2: [54‐56]; level 3: [57, 58])
Comments: The positioning of the arms above the head costs time as well as coming with further drawbacks, however it does reduce the dose for the trunk. The positioning with crossed forearms over the abdomen distributes the hardening artifacts over the abdomen, is very fast and risk-free, easy to fix and favours the outflow of the given intravenous contrast media. In addition, the entire upper limb, which is often injured, is often imaged in this way

Table 10

Section 6: Whole Body CT – Protocol, key issue 1: CT scout

Key question: What diagnostic value does the scout of a whole-body CT scan have in the case of a polytrauma patient and how should it be prepared?
No	Statement(s)	Cons	Grade	Cons
6.1.1	The scout(s) ought to represent the entire body	100% strong	GoR B	100% strong
6.1.2	For a dose-optimised protocol, separate topograms should be prepared for the cranial CT (at least lateral projection) and the rest of the body (at least anterior—posterior projection). If the arms are raised, this should be done before the body topogram is prepared	100% strong	GPP A	86% normal
Literature: detected = 1195, excluded = 1168, full-text: rated = 27, excluded = 16, included = 11 (guideline: [19, 37, 59, 60]; level 2: [55]; level 3: [27, 29, 57, 61‐63])
Comments: The CT scout does not only hold information of important findings, it also is the basis to calculate the dose modulation during the CT scan. For protocols with elevated arms, a dose reduction only affects cases where the arms were raised before the CT scout was performed

Results

The results of the consensus conferences are presented here and structured into ten sections. Each section may be subdivided into several key issues that were presented as tables in the following. Each table also holds a collection of ‘key literature’ that corresponds to the literature included. The tables also include a path through the literature classification as well as the evidence levels of the included literature (Tables 11, 12, 13, 14, 15).

Table 11

Section 6: Whole Body CT – Protocol, key issue 2: Cranial CT

Is an unenhanced cranial scan preferred to a cranial scan with contrast medium as first imaging option in the whole-body tomography scan of the polytrauma patient?
No	Statement(s)	Cons	Grade	Cons
6.2.1	The full body tomography scan of the polytrauma patient should begin with an unenhanced cranial CT scan	100% strong	GoR A		100% strong
6.2.2	Depending on the findings and symptoms, an additional cranial CTA (computed tomography angiography) may be considered as useful	86% normal	GoR 0	86% normal
Literature: detected = 2266, excluded = 2228, full-text: rated = 38, excluded = 13, included = 25 (guideline: [15, 19, 64]; level 2: [25, 28, 55, 56, 65]; level 3: [16, 26, 27, 29, 51, 58, 61, 66‐75])
Comments: Virtual unenhanced CT imaging with Dual Energy techniques should undergo more scientific evaluation. Maybe this method will allow single enhanced cranial CT scanning with sufficient detection rates of intracranial bleedings by virtual unenhanced imaging. If so, this may have the potential for both speeding up service and reducing the dose

Table 12

Section 6: Whole Body CT – Protocol, key issue 3: Cervical Neck/Spine

How should the head/neck region in the standard whole-body tomography protocol be performed in a polytrauma patient with regard to contrast agent administration and image calculation?
No	Statement(s)	Cons	Grade	Cons
6.3.1	With a protocol that is not dose-optimised, the neck region should be included in the whole body tomography scan with intravenous contrast medium in such a way that the neck arteries and brain base arteries are well opacified	100% strong	GoR A	100% strong
6.3.2	If only a bony injury is suspected in the cervical spine, the scan may be considered without the administration of contrast medium within the framework of a dose-optimised protocol	71% weak	GoR 0	71% weak
6.3.3	For dose reasons, the cranial scan ought not to be extended to the cervical spine	86% normal	GPP B	86% normal
6.3.4	Axial image reconstruction should be performed in thin slices with both a soft tissue and a bone kernel	100% strong	GoR A	100% strong
6.3.5	Image reformation should take place at all three orthogonal standard planes	100% strong	GoR A	86% normal
6.3.6	The neck may be considered as part of the body scan as long as a second image reconstruction with a Field-of-View adapted to the neck is performed	100% strong	GoR 0	100% strong
Literature: detected = 3557, excluded = 3507, full-text: rated = 50, excluded = 16, included = 34 (guideline: [15, 19, 47, 76‐84]; level 1: [85] level 2: [25, 28, 55, 56, 65, 75, 86]; level 3: [16, 27, 29, 51, 61, 66, 68, 70, 72‐74, 87‐89])
Comments: None

Table 13

Section 6: Whole Body CT – Protocol, key issue 4: contrast phase

Key question: What is the optimal phase for contrast enhanced emergency polytrauma imaging?
No	Statement(s)	Cons	Grade	Cons
6.4.1	The choice of the injection protocol should be individually adapted to the patient and their clinical condition, in particular with regard to dose aspects and required diagnostic significance	86% normal	GPP A	86% normal
6.4.2	An unenhanced phase may be considered to be performed in case of question of blood components outside a vascular lumen	57% weak	GoR 0	57% weak
6.4.3	For a given indication, it may be considered to calculate an unenhanced phase using the dual-energy technique	100% strong	GoR 0	100% strong
6.4.4	Purely unenhanced CT imaging should not be performed on the trunk of the body	100% strong	GoR A	86% normal
6.4.5	A split bolus protocol ought to be part of a dose-optimised protocol	71% weak	GPP B	57% weak
6.4.6	Where a split bolus protocol identifies questionable relevant findings, the region in question ought to be supplemented with an additional appropriate further phase	100% strong	GPP B	100% strong
6.4.7	For a protocol with a focus on highest diagnostic precision, at least the upper abdomen should be depicted in both the arterial and venous phases	86% normal	GoR A	100% strong
6.4.8	For image findings suspicious of active bleeding, at least two temporally separated contrast phases ought to be present to estimate the activity	100% strong	GoR B	86% normal
Literature: detected = 2518, excluded = 2450, full-text: rated = 68, excluded = 22, included = 46 (guideline: [15, 19, 24, 48, 79, 90‐98]; level 1: [99]; level 2: [25, 26, 28, 55, 56, 65, 89, 100‐103]; level 3: [16, 27, 29, 51, 52, 54, 57, 58, 61‐63, 70, 72, 74, 75, 104‐108])
Comments: The section deals with intravenous contrast media. Mainly for time reasons oral or rectal filling is inappropriate / obsolete

Table 14

Section 6: Whole Body CT – Protocol, key issue 5: Injection of Contrast Media

Key question: What do the WBCT protocol parameters manifest itself in case of a polytrauma patient regarding the application of contrast medium?
No	Statement(s)	Cons	Grade	Cons
6.5.1	For a split bolus, the larger component ought to be used for the first injection (portal-venous phase part)	100% strong	GoR B	100% strong
6.5.2	A saline flush should be used at the end of each contrast medium injection	100% strong	GoR A	100% strong
6.5.3	Each facility ought to maintain multiple standard injection protocols and consider individual patient characteristics for injection	86% normal	GPP B	86% normal
6.5.4	Each institution should critically and regularly check the resulting image quality, inspect the protocols regarding this and a possible reduction of the contrast medium quantity	100% strong	GPP A	86% normal
Literature: detected = 3111, excluded = 3059, full-text: rated = 52, excluded = 25, included = 27 (guideline: [19, 79, 109, 110]; level 2: [28, 55, 56, 111]; level 3: [26, 27, 29, 51, 54, 58, 61, 63, 70, 72, 74, 75, 89, 101‐103, 105, 108, 112])
Comments: The contrast medium injection protocols are quite inconsistent. The Sections 6.4 and 6.5 overlap and should be merged in upcoming guideline updates

Table 15

Section 7: Whole Body CT – Special protocols, key issue 1: CT—urography

Key question: What are the indications for extended imaging of the urinary tract?
No	Statement(s)	Cons	Grade	Cons
7.1.1	The indications should be taken in conjunction with the guideline from the European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR)	100% strong	GPP A	86% normal
7.1.2	A urographic phase should not delay other immediately necessary life-sustaining therapy	100% strong	GPP A	100% strong
7.1.3	If necessary, a urographic phase may be considered up to a few hours after the initial CT without further injection of contrast media	100% strong	GPP 0	100% strong
7.1.4	If in situ, a bladder catheter should be clamped first before performing the urographic phase	100% strong	GPP A	100% strong
7.1.5	In case of unclear findings of the bladder and urethra, an additional retrograde filling may be considered	100% strong	GoR 0	100% strong
Literature: detected = 2639, excluded = 2615, full-text: rated = 24, excluded = 15, included = 9 (guideline: [15, 19, 113‐118]; level 3: [100])
Comments: None

Discussion and conclusions

For a detailed literature discussion of more than 50 print pages we have to refer to the guideline in full length (access via ESER homepage [1]).

As a relatively young society, ESER overcame challenges during the guideline development, consensus and publication process. The members of the consensus group were distributed throughout diverse nations, making the necessary distribution of information and communication time consuming. Financial limitations restrict the whole group from coming together face to face to only once or twice a year, during the European congresses of radiology in Vienna and the ESER congress meetings. This huge project required two sittings of the consensus group to adequately provide time for discussion, this, in addition to restrictions of the SARS-Cov-2 situation and cancellation of the European Congress of Radiology (ECR) 2020 caused unexpected delay in manuscript production (Tables 16, 17, 18, 19).

Table 16

Section 7: Whole Body CT – Special protocols, key issue 2: CT—angiography

Key question: Under which conditions should the standard WBCT protocol of the polytrauma patient be adapted with regard to CT-angiography of the extremities, aorta or intestinal/mesenteric?
No	Statement(s)	Cons	Grade	Cons
7.2.1	CTA of the extremities ought not to be a standard part of the whole body CT polytrauma protocols	100% strong	GPP B	100% strong
7.2.2	In the case of an extension of the whole body CT scan, identified prior to the examination, the guidelines of the respective radiological -subspeciality societies should be taken into account, e.g. cardiovascular, abdominal	100% strong	GPP A	86% normal
Literature: detected = 3464, excluded = 3408, full-text: rated = 56, excluded = 20 included = 36 (guideline: [15, 19, 79, 91, 92, 94, 96‐98, 119‐132]; level 1: [99, 133]; level 3: [16, 52, 63, 72, 103‐105, 134‐137])
Comments: None

Table 17

Section 8: Whole Body CT – Reading/ Reporting

Key question: What is the procedure for the assessment and evaluation of the whole body tomography scan in the case of a polytrauma patient to be as quick and accurate as possible?
No	Statement(s)	Cons	Grade	Cons
8.1	The entire initial WBCT should be evaluated three times (primary, secondary, tertiary) for a very high level of diagnostic safety	100% strong	GoR A	100% strong
8.2	In total, reading should be carried out by at least two different radiologists, at least one of whom should be board certified. In each case, the assessment should be based on the ABCDE scheme	100% strong	GPP A	100% strong
8.3	Scout assessment: The scout should be interpreted immediately in order to triage the patient and/or adapt the scan protocols as required	57% weak	GPP A	57% weak
8.4	Primary assessment: As soon as the first CT series are available they should be evaluated immediately with the focus on acutely relevant findings (ABCDE scheme)	100% strong	GPP A	86% normal
8.5	Primary documentation and communication: should happen immediately verbally and be handled adequately according to the institutional setting and should be documented	100% strong	GPP A	86% normal
8.6	Secondary assessment: should also be carried out as quickly as possible, but at least within one hour after the primary assessment and based on the final images. Any relevant changes to the primary assessment should be communicated immediately and be documented	100% strong	GPP A	100% strong
8.7	Tertiary assessment: Should take place within 24 h at latest. In case of relevant changes in findings, these should also be communicated immediately and any changes in findings should be documented. In cases where the second report was authorised by a Board certified Radiologist, this should be done as an addendum	100% strong	GPP A	100% strong
Literature: detected = 2241, excluded = 2193, full-text: rated = 48, excluded = 31, included = 17 (guideline: [15, 19, 31, 138‐140]; level 2: [18]; level 3: [62, 66, 141‐146]; level 4: [147, 148])
Comments: Reading polytrauma CT three times may seem time-consuming. The consensus group interpreted the first reading as the reading of the very first images (e.g. 1 mm axial slices in soft tissue kernel with MPR views from these data as provided automatically with first, often oral report. This includes reading of the scout but is not limited to the scout). The second reading means the reading of the final reconstructed images as stored in PACS (picture archiving and communication system) with written report. In most cases, the first and second reading will be performed by the same radiologist. Finally, the third reading should be done by a different radiologist. For CT scans during regular working hours this may be the reading performed by an attending radiologist (maybe in parallel with the second reading together with the radiologist who did the first reading). For CT scans during on call periods, the third reading may be performed in the morning of the next day. This may be the Radiologist on the next routine in-hours shift or next on-call Radiologist. As some European countries offer Emergency Radiology as a certified radiological subspecialty and some do not, ESER offers a European Diploma in Emergency Radiology as an international qualification. Although desirable, ESER does not mandate such a formal national or international Emergency Radiology qualification. Instead, ESER emphasises that in each case at least the second or the third reading has to be performed by a board certified radiologist with fundamental experience in Emergency Radiology

Table 18

Section 9: Interventional Radiology

Key question: In which cases should interventional radiology be consulted?
No	Statement(s)	Cons	Grade	Cons
9.1	The indications should be taken in conjunction with the guideline from the relevant radiological subspecialty societies CIRSE (Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiological Society of Europe) and ESNR (European Society of Neuroradiology)	100% strong	GPP A	75% weak
9.2	Interventional (neuro-) radiology should be available 24/7 for consultation and treatment within a locally agreed timely manner	100% strong	GPP A	100% strong
Literature: None
Comments: None

Table 19

Section 10: Summary: A proposal for two WBCT—Protocols in the Trauma Care

Key question: Is one standard CT protocol sufficient?
No	Statement(s)	Cons	Grade	Cons
10.1	Within the framework of radiological polytrauma management, at least two different WBCT protocols should be maintained as institutional standards. One should be optimised with regard to radiation dose yielding high diagnostic validity but prioritising lower radiation burden (Dose Protocol). The other one is a compromise, prioritising rapid diagnosis and very high diagnostic validity over the potential risks of increased radiation burden (Time/Precision Protocol)	100% strong	GPP A	100% strong
10.2	The Time/Precision Protocol should be preferred for polytrauma patients with life-threatening injuries or haemodynamically unstable conditions	88% normal	GPP A	100% strong
10.3	The Dose Protocol should be preferred for polytrauma patients provided they do not have obvious life-threatening injuries or are haemodynamically unstable	100% strong	GPP A	100% strong
Literature: No literature search was conducted
Comments: It has been proven that the maintenance of a protocol standard for whole-body CT after polytrauma increases the probability of survival [149]. As a possible consequence of this fact, the experts at the conference observed an increase in Emergency Trauma Room admissions who subsequently receive a WBCT. In parallel, the ESER experts share the impression that the number of patients with minor injuries who undergo WBCT has also increased. The consensus group concluded that a single standard protocol can rarely do justice to this varied situation. A more refined but nevertheless simple differentiation would be desirable with regard to the essential influencing parameters: Injury severity, patient condition, patient age including the probability of relevant comorbidities and/or medication, dose aspects especially with regard to patient age. The other previous recommendations remain unaffected

Limitations

Only one person was involved in suggesting key issues (S.W.)
Literature search was limited to two persons (S.W., J.H.)
Literature preparation (exclusion, inclusion, grading) was also limited to S.W., J.H.
The preparation of the consensus conference(s) including suggested statements and respective grading of them was limited to S.W., J.H.
Literature inclusion was limited to free full access via the Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich, Germany. However, this quote was about 95 percent in mean and always above 90 percent.
German was the only non-English language that could be included in the literature search (because S.W. and J.H. were able to understand and translate it for the consensus conference members).
The guideline does not cover special topics like paediatric patients or interventional radiology; these are an aspiration for future editions

Conclusions

By developing this guideline, the ESER aimed to redress the lack of dedicated separate independent radiological recommendations for radiological polytrauma service. ESER recommends that a patient should first be assessed as ‘polytrauma’, who will therefore receive whole-body CT (WBCT) or ‘non-polytrauma’ (assess patient as a ‘normal’ emergency patient in the Emergency Trauma Room: do not automatically perform a WBCT). For a polytrauma service, the CT distance to the Emergency Trauma Room should not exceed 50 m—the closer, the better [15, 19, 20]. The CT used should offer 64 rows and modern technology (cardiac capability is welcome but not essential) [15, 24, 26‐29]. Radiology departments as part of Trauma centres should optimise communication and drive quality assurance/ management [15, 31, 32, 34, 150, 151]. eFAST should be part of the primary survey and Radiography should be immediately available [15, 37‐41, 43, 46]. ESER prefers to position patients ‘feet first’. In case of stable patients and if possible, arms should be elevated for dose reduction (only if this is done prior to the body scout) [15, 54, 56, 57]. CT scouts preferably should present the whole patient (but may consist of different parts) [37, 63], may replace chest radiographs [15, 51] and sometimes also provide justification for deviating from the standard protocol by choosing different contrast phases or extend scanning to other suspicious body regions. The unenhanced cranial CT scan certainly should be done first [19]. At least when using the ‘dose’ protocol (WBCT variant B), the cranial CT scan should only cover the brain. For unstable patients, the midface/neck/cervical spine should be scanned together with the chest using arterial contrast including the arteries of the skull base [70] (for stable patients a separate low-dose scan with or without contrast enhancement may be an alternative before lifting the arms). A split bolus protocol should probably be used with a dose-optimised protocol [74, 101, 108]. Otherwise, ESER recommends overlapping scans of the neck/chest/upper abdomen in arterial phase and the abdomen/pelvis in portal-venous phase [26, 98, 99]. For specific questions related to the urogenital, interventional, (cardio)vascular or paediatric specialties, ESER recommends using existing guidelines from the respective (sub)societies [117, 118, 129‐131]. First images should be available, read and communicated as fast as possible using the ABCDE approach [19, 66, 143]. In the second step ‘perfect’ images should be calculated (in both soft and enhancing kernels) and be interpreted (and archived) at least in the three standard planes, respectively [19, 65, 66, 144]. Interpretation should occur three times (immediately using first images, immediately reassessed using the final images and reassessed again by a different radiologist within 24 h) [141, 144, 146].

ESER endorses abandoning a ‘one-size-fits-all-concept’ ([63]-p.1142). Instead, ESER recommends introducing a double-track whole-body tomography protocol concept with a ‘Dose Protocol’ and a ‘Time/Precision Protocol’. Obviously, the choice between the two variants should be based on the individual clinical presentation and vital parameters of the polytrauma patient. The ‘Dose protocol’ should be designed in such a way that the patient is exposed to the lowest possible radiation exposure despite sufficient image quality in order to ensure a reliable diagnosis of injuries (often young and stable patients with dramatic injury history and a Glasgow Coma Scale = 15). A dose far below 20 mSv should be aimed for. A good potential ‘Dose protocol’ may consist of an unenhanced head scan, low dose CT of the midface/ neck/ cervical spine (with or without contrast enhancement), elevation of the arms, scout of the trunk, and a single pass scan of chest/ abdomen and pelvis using a split bolus injection protocol with a resulting arterial/venous mixed contrast of all vessels and organs. In (few) cases where a ‘Dose protocol’ scan leaves potentially important findings unclear, another CT scan should be performed accordingly.

In contrast, the ‘Time/Precision protocol’ is optimised for very fast, very high diagnostic accuracy and will more or less correspond to the institutional protocol used so far. The key advantage is the more sensitive detection of active bleeding [15, 19, 107, 108]. The assignment of the polytrauma patient to one of the two protocols is shown in Fig. 1.

The ESER hopes that this guideline motivates diverse national and international radiological societies to come together in order to refine the statements over time. The ESER acknowledges that these guidelines do not focus on the radiological polytrauma service for children and Interventional Radiology. Rather the ESER invites the corresponding national and international radiological (sub)societies to contribute in the future. Where the guidelines do overlap with other radiological communities on topics such as Musculoskeletal, Abdominal & Urogenital imaging, the ESER anticipates arriving at a consensus in the future.

ESER sees this as way to gain visibility for national societies in the field and in particular to strengthen the role of Radiology in upcoming interdisciplinary polytrauma guideline processes. As ESER is active in the whole field of emergency radiology, we also aim to expand the guideline to non-traumatic Emergency Imaging in upcoming versions.

Acknowledgements

The Guideline on Radiological Polytrauma Imaging and Service is published simultaneously in a short version (this article) and a full version (free download of the full version from the ESER homepage [1]). This causes text overlap between the two versions (download of the full version from the ESER homepage [1]). We mention this to avoid a potential conflict with respect to self-plagiarism. ESER wants to thank Ricarda Posch and Wolfgang Duchek (both ESER office) as well as Sabine Grab (former secretary of S.W.) for their organisational support. ESER also wants to thank Maureen Dumba for her encouragement on behalf of ESER in social media.

Not applicable.

Competing interests

S.W. is past president of the European Society of Emergency Radiology (ESER). RB is ESER president elect. CC is ESER vice president, treasurer of the European Society of Neuroradiology, chief financial officer of the European Board of Neuroradiology, general secretary of the Turkish Society of Radiology. AB is ESER Secretary, core committee member for the European Diploma in Radiology, board member of the Spanish Society of Emergency Radiology. FB is ESER member at large, member of the Executive Committees of the American Society of Emergency Radiology (ASER) and the Canadian Emergency, Trauma and Acute Care Radiology Society (CETARS). MD is ESER member at large and digital lead. KN is ESER Treasurer. MW is ESER member at large, chairman of the working group ultrasonography of the German Radiological Society (DRG) and will be congress president ESSR (European Society of Musculoskeletal Radiology) Annual Meeting 2022. ED is current ESER president. In 2019 ED was hosted by Everlight Radiology Ltd for 3 months in Sydney doing remote reporting for Imperial College, in return for which ED delivered 2 webinars. In 2019 Guerbet donated Euro 750 to the Kenyan Association of Radiologists/ESER after ED delivered lectures for Guerbet at ECR 2019. Otherwise, the authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

European Society of Emergency Radiology. 2011. https://www.eser-society.org/. Accessed 26 Aug 2020

National Center for Biotechnology Information. 1988. https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.emedien.ub.uni-muenchen.de/mesh/. Accessed 12 Feb 2019

PubMed. 1996. https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.emedien.ub.uni-muenchen.de/pubmed/advanced. Accessed 12 Feb 2019

Cochrane Library. 1994. https://www-cochranelibrary-com.emedien.ub.uni-muenchen.de/advanced-search. Accessed 12 Feb 2019

Ovid. 1988. https://ovidsp.ovid.com/. Accessed 12 Feb 2019

Datenbank-Infosystem (DBIS). 2002. https://dbis-uni-regensburg-de.emedien.ub.uni-muenchen.de/dbinfo/fachliste.php?bib_id=ub_m&lett=l&colors=&ocolors=. Accessed 12 Feb 2019

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 1999. https://www.evidence.nhs.uk/. Accessed 12 Feb 2019

Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften e.V.; 1962. https://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/leitlinien-suche.html. Accessed 12 Feb 2019

Hartling L, Bond K, Santaguida PL, Viswanathan M, Dryden DM (2011) Testing a tool for the classification of study designs in systematic reviews of interventions and exposures showed moderate reliability and low accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol 64(8):861–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.010CrossRefPubMed

10.

Shea B, Reeves B, Wells G et al (2017) AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 358:j4008CrossRef

11.

Cochrane Deutschland, Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften - Institut für Medizinisches Wissensmanagement „Bewertung des Biasrisikos (Risiko systematischer Fehler) in klinischen Studien: ein Manual für die Leitlinienerstellung“. Cochrane Deutschland: http://www.cochrane.de/de/rob-manual; AWMF: http://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/awmf-regelwerk/ll-entwicklung.html.

12.

OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group, Howick J, Chalmers IJLL et al "The Oxford 2011 Levels of Evidence". Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653.

13.

German Association of the Scientific Medical Societies (AWMF) - Standing Guidelines Commission. AWMF Guidance Manual and Rules for Guideline Development. http://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/awmf-regelwerk.html. Accessed 08 Feb 2019

14.

Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF) - Ständige Kommission Leitlinien. AWMF - Regelwerk "Leitlinien"; 2012. http://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/awmf-regelwerk.html. Accessed 17 May 2018

15.

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie e.V. (DGU), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin e.V. (DGAI), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gefäßchirurgie und Gefäßmedizin et al. S3 - Leitlinie Polytrauma/ Schwerverletzten-Behandlung (AWMF-Registernr.: 012/019). Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF); 2016. https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/012-019l_S3_Polytrauma_Schwerverletzten-Behandlung_2017-08.pdf. Accessed 29 Jan 2019

16.

Dinh MM, Hsiao KH, Bein KJ et al (2013) Use of computed tomography in the setting of a tiered trauma team activation system in Australia. Emerg Radiol 20(5):393–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-013-1124-xCrossRefPubMed

17.

Hsiao KH, Dinh MM, McNamara KP et al (2013) Whole-body computed tomography in the initial assessment of trauma patients: Is there optimal criteria for patient selection? Emerg Med Aust 25(2):182–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/1742-6723.12041CrossRef

18.

Treskes K, Saltzherr TP, Luitse JS, Beenen LF, Goslings JC (2017) Indications for total-body computed tomography in blunt trauma patients: a systematic review. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 43(1):35–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-016-0711-4CrossRefPubMed

19.

The Royal College of Radiologists. Standards of practice and guidance for trauma radiology in severely injured patients. Available via NICE, National Instiutue for Health and Care Excellence; 2015. https://www.rcr.ac.uk/system/files/publication/field_publication_files/bfcr155_traumaradiol.pdf. Accessed 29 Jan 2019

20.

Huber-Wagner S, Mand C, Ruchholtz S et al (2014) Effect of the localisation of the CT scanner during trauma resuscitation on survival—A retrospective, multicentre study. Injury 45:76–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2014.08.022CrossRef

21.

Saltzherr TP, Bakker FC, Beenen LF, Dijkgraaf MG, Reitsma JB, Goslings JC (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(1):105–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.7705CrossRefPubMed

22.

Frellesen C, Boettcher M, Wichmann JL et al (2015) Evaluation of a dual-room sliding gantry CT concept for workflow optimisation in polytrauma and regular in- and outpatient management. Eur J Radiol 84(1):117–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.10.013CrossRefPubMed

23.

Kinoshita T, Yamakawa K, Matsuda H et al (2017) The survival benefit of a novel trauma workflow that includes immediate whole-body computed tomography, surgery, and interventional radiology, all in one trauma resuscitation room: a retrospective historical control study. Ann Surg. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000002527CrossRefPubMedCentral

24.

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Angiologie - Gesellschaft für Gefäßmedizin e.V. (DGA), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allgemeinmedizin und Familienmedizin (DEGAM), Deutsche Gesellschaft der Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin e.V. (DGAI) et al. S2k-Leitlinie: Diagnostik und Therapie der Venenthrombose und der Lungenembolie (AWMF-Registernr.: 065/002). Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF); 2015. https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/065-002l_S2k_VTE_2016-01.pdf. Accessed 29 Jan 2019

25.

Sierink JC, Treskes K, Edwards MJ et al (2016) Immediate total-body CT scanning versus conventional imaging and selective CT scanning in patients with severe trauma (REACT-2): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 388:673–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30932-1CrossRefPubMed

26.

Alagic Z, Eriksson A, Drageryd E, Motamed SR, Wick MC (2017) A new low-dose multi-phase trauma CT protocol and its impact on diagnostic assessment and radiation dose in multi-trauma patients. Emerg Radiol 24(5):509–518. https://doi.org/10.10007/s10140-017-1496-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Harrieder A, Geyer LL, Korner M et al (2012) Evaluation der Strahlendosis bei Polytrauma-CT-Untersuchungen eines 64-Zeilen-CT im Vergleich zur 4-Zeilen-CT. Rofo 184(5):443–449. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1299099CrossRefPubMed

28.

Kahn J, Grupp U, Kaul D, Boning G, Lindner T, Streitparth F (2016) Computed tomography in trauma patients using iterative reconstruction: reducing radiation exposure without loss of image quality. Acta Radiol 57(3):362–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185115580839CrossRefPubMed

29.

Kahn J, Kaul D, Boning G et al (2017) Quality and dose optimized CT trauma protocol-recommendation from a university level-i trauma center. Rofo 189(9):844–854. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-108996CrossRefPubMed

30.

Surendran A, Mori A, Varma DK, Gruen RL (2014) Systematic review of the benefits and harms of whole-body computed tomography in the early management of multitrauma patients: are we getting the whole picture? J Trauma Acute Care Surg 76(4):1122–1130. https://doi.org/10.1097/ta.0000000000000178CrossRefPubMed

31.

The Royal College of Radiologists. Standards for interpretation and reporting of imaging investigations. Available via NICE, National Instiutue for Health and Care Excellence; 2018. https://www.rcr.ac.uk/system/files/publication/field_publication_files/bfcr181_standards_for_interpretation_reporting.pdf. Accessed 23 Dec 2018

32.

The Royal College of Radiologists. Standards for providing a seven-day acute care diagnostic radiology service. Available via NICE, National Instiutue for Health and Care Excellence; 2015. https://www.rcr.ac.uk/system/files/publication/field_publication_files/bfcr1514_seven-day_acute.pdf. Accessed 20 Jan 2019

33.

Department of Health. Communication (Clinical Handover) in Acute and Children's Hospital Services. National Clinical Guideline No. 11; 2015.

34.

Crönlein M, Holzapfel K, Beirer M et al (2016) Evaluation of a new imaging tool for use with major trauma cases in the emergency department. BMC Musculoskel Disord 17(482):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1337-8CrossRef

35.

Sheppard CW, Groll AL, Austin CL, Thompson SJ (2018) Impact of duplicate CT scan rate after implementation of transfer image repository system at a level 1 trauma center. Emerg Radiol 25(3):275–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-017-1575-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Tewes S, Rodt T, Marquardt S, Evangelidou E, Wacker FK, Von Falck C (2013) Evaluation of the use of a tablet computer with a high-resolution display for interpreting emergency CT scans. Rofo 185(11):1063–1069. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0033-1350155CrossRefPubMed

37.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Major trauma: assessment and initial management: guidance (ng39); 2016.

38.

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Verbrennungsmedizin (DGV), Deutsche Gesellschaft der Plastischen RuÄCD, Deutsche Interdiszipliäre Vereinigung für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin e. V. (DIVI) et al. S2k-Behandlung thermischer Verletzungen des Erwachsenen (AWMF-Registernr.: 044–001); 2018. https://www.awmf.org/leitlinien/detail/ll/044-001.html. Accessed 04 Dec 2018

39.

Diercks DB, Mehrotra A, Nazarian DJ, Promes SB, Decker WW, Fesmire FM (2011) Clinical policy: critical issues in the evaluation of adult patients presenting to the emergency department with acute blunt abdominal trauma. Ann Emerg Med 57(4):387–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.01.013CrossRefPubMed

40.

Stengel D, Rademacher G, Ekkernkamp A, Güthoff C, Mutze S (2015) Emergency ultrasound-based algorithms for diagnosing blunt abdominal trauma (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:1–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004446.pub4CrossRef

41.

Abdulrahman Y, Musthafa S, Hakim SY et al (2015) Utility of extended FAST in blunt chest trauma: is it the time to be used in the ATLS algorithm? World J Surg 39(1):172–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2781-yCrossRefPubMed

42.

Akoglu H, Celik OF, Celik A, Ergelen R, Onur O, Denizbasi A (2018) Diagnostic accuracy of the Extended Focused Abdominal Sonography for Trauma (E-FAST) performed by emergency physicians compared to CT. Am J Emerg Med 36(6):1014–1017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2017.11.019CrossRefPubMed

43.

Becker A, Lin G, McKenney MG, Marttos A, Schulman CI (2010) Is the FAST exam reliable in severely injured patients? Injury 41(5):479–483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2009.10.054CrossRefPubMed

44.

Zieleskiewicz L, Fresco R, Duclos G et al (2018) Integrating extended focused assessment with sonography for trauma (eFAST) in the initial assessment of severe trauma: impact on the management of 756 patients. Injury Int J Care Injured 49(10):1774–1780. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2018.07.002CrossRef

45.

Sauter TC, Hoess S, Lehmann B, Exadaktylos AK, Haider DG (2017) Detection of pneumothoraces in patients with multiple blunt trauma: use and limitations of eFAST. Emerg Med J 34(9):568–572. https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2016-205980CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Ojaghi Haghighi SH, Adimi I, Vahdati SS, Khiavi RS (2014) Ultrasonographic diagnosis of suspected hemopneumothorax in trauma patients. Trauma Mon 19(4):5–8. https://doi.org/10.5812/traumamon.17498CrossRef

47.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Head injury: assessment and early management: guidance (cg176); 2014.

48.

British Orthopaedic Association, Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland, The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland. THE MANAGEMENT OF PATIENTS WITH PELVIC FRACTURES. British Orthopaedic Association (BOA); Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (ASGBI); 2018. https://www.boa.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Management-of-Pelvic-Fractures-BOAST.pdf. Accessed 24 Nov 2018

49.

Giannakopoulos GF, Saltzherr TP, Beenen LF et al (2017) Radiological findings and radiation exposure during trauma workup in a cohort of 1124 level 1 trauma patients. Langenbecks Arch Surg 402(1):159–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-016-1515-zCrossRefPubMed

50.

Moussavi N, Davoodabadi A, Atoof F, Razi SE, Behnampour M, Talari HR (2015) Routine chest computed tomography and patient outcome in blunt trauma. Arch Trauma Res 4(2):1–5CrossRef

51.

Gordic S, Alkadhi H, Hodel S et al (2015) Whole-body CT-based imaging algorithm for multiple trauma patients: radiation dose and time to diagnosis. Br J Radiol 88(20140616):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20140616CrossRef

52.

Jöres AP, Heverhagen JT, Bonel H, Exadaktylos A, Klink T (2016) Diagnostic accuracy of full-body linear x-ray scanning in multiple trauma patients in comparison to computed tomography. Rofo 188(2):163–171. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-107199CrossRefPubMed

53.

Saltzherr TP, Beenen LF, Reitsma JB, Luitse JS, Vandertop WP, Goslings JC (2010) Frequent computed tomography scanning due to incomplete three-view X-ray imaging of the cervical spine. J Trauma 68(5):1213–1217. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e3181b28aa4CrossRefPubMed

54.

Bayer J, Pache G, Strohm PC et al (2011) Influence of arm positioning on radiation dose for whole body computed tomography in trauma patients. J Trauma 70(4):900–905. https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e3181edc80eCrossRefPubMed

55.

Hickethier T, Mammadov K, Baeßler B et al (2018) Whole-body computed tomography in trauma patients: optimization of the patient scanning position significantly shortens examination time while maintaining diagnostic image quality. Ther Clin Risk Manag 14:849–859. https://doi.org/10.2147/tcrm.S162074CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

56.

Karlo C, Gnannt R, Frauenfelder T et al (2011) Whole-body CT in polytrauma patients: effect of arm positioning on thoracic and abdominal image quality. Emerg Radiol 18(4):285–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-011-0948-5CrossRefPubMed

57.

Loewenhardt B, Buhl M, Gries A et al (2012) Radiation exposure in whole-body computed tomography of multiple trauma patients: bearing devices and patient positioning. Injury 43(1):67–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2011.10.014CrossRefPubMed

58.

Kahn J, Grupp U, Maurer M (2014) How does arm positioning of polytraumatized patients in the initial computed tomography (CT) affect image quality and diagnostic accuracy? Eur J Radiol 83(1):e67–e71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.10.002CrossRefPubMed

59.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; Spinal injury: assessment and initial management: guidance (ng41); 2016.

60.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Fractures (complex): assessment and management: guidance (ng37); 2016.

61.

Geyer LL, Körner M, Harrieder A et al (2016) Dose reduction in 64-row whole-body CT in multiple trauma: an optimized CT protocol with iterative image reconstruction on a gemstone-based scintillator. Br J Radiol 89(20160003):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160003CrossRef

62.

Linder F, Mani K, Juhlin C, Eklöf H (2016) Routine whole body CT of high energy trauma patients leads to excessive radiation exposure. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 24(7):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-016-0199-2CrossRef

63.

Reske SU, Braunschweig R, Reske AW, Loose R, Wucherer M (2018) Whole-body CT in multiple trauma patients: clinically adapted usage of differently weighted CT protocols. Rofo 190(12):1141–1151. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0643-4553CrossRefPubMed

64.

American College of Radiology. ACR–ASNR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Performance of Computed Tomography (CT) of the Brain; 2004. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/CT-Brain.pdf?la=en. Accessed 23 Dec 2018

65.

Treskes K, Bos SA, Beenen LFM et al (2017) High rates of clinically relevant incidental findings by total-body CT scanning in trauma patients; results of the REACT-2 trial. Eur Radiol 27(6):2451–2462. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4598-6CrossRefPubMed

66.

Fakler JKM, Özkurtul O, Josten C (2014) Retrospective analysis of incidental non-trauma associated findings in severely injured patients identified by whole-body spiral CT scans. Patient Saf Surg 8(36):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13037-014-0036-3CrossRef

67.

Hinzpeter R, Sprengel K, Wanner GA, Mildenberger P, Alkadhi H (2017) Repeated CT scans in trauma transfers: an analysis of indications, radiation dose exposure, and costs. Eur J Radiol 88:135–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.01.007CrossRefPubMed

68.

James MK, Schubl SD, Francois MP, Doughlin GK, Lee SW (2017) Introduction of a pan-scan protocol for blunt trauma activations: what are the consequences? Am J Emerg Med 35(1):13–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajem.2016.09.027CrossRefPubMed

69.

James MK, Lee SW, Minneman JA et al (2017) Variability in CT imaging of blunt trauma among ED physicians, surgical residents, and trauma surgeons. J Surg Res 213:6–15CrossRef

70.

Laser A, Kufera JA, Bruns BR et al (2015) Initial screening test for blunt cerebrovascular injury: validity assessment of whole-body computed tomography. Surgery 158(3):627–635. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2015.03.063CrossRefPubMed

71.

Mistral T, Brenckmann V, Sanders L et al (2017) Clinical judgment is not reliable for reducing whole-body computed tomography scanning after isolated high-energy blunt trauma. Anesthesiology 126(6):1116–1124. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000001617CrossRefPubMed

72.

Schicho A, Luerken L, Meier R et al (2018) Incidence of traumatic carotid and vertebral artery dissections: results of cervical vessel computed tomography angiogram as a mandatory scan component in severely injured patients. Ther Clin Risk Manag 14:173–178. https://doi.org/10.2147/tcrm.S148176CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

73.

Whitesell RT, Steenburg SD, Shen C, Lin H (2015) Facial fracture in the setting of whole-body CT for trauma: incidence and clinical predictors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205(1):4–10. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.14.13589CrossRef

74.

Yaniv G, Portnoy O, Simon D, Bader S, Konen E, Guranda L (2013) Revised protocol for whole-body CT for multi-trauma patients applying triphasic injection followed by a single-pass scan on a 64-MDCT. Clin Radiol 68(7):668–675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2012.12.011CrossRefPubMed

75.

Fleck SK, Langner S, Baldauf J, Kirsch M, Kohlmann T, Schroeder HWS (2011) Incidence of blunt craniocervical artery injuries: use of whole-body computed tomography trauma imaging with adapted computed tomography angiography. Neurosurgery 69(3):615–623. https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e31821a8701CrossRefPubMed

76.

American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Suspected Spine Trauma. American College of Radiology; 2018. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69359/Narrative/. Accessed 29 Dec 2018

77.

American College of Radiology. ACR–ASNR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Performance of Computed Tomography (CT) of the Extracranial Head and Neck; 2001. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/CT-Head-Neck.pdf?la=en. Accessed 20 Jan 2019

78.

American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Crtieria® Penetrating Neck Injury. American College of Radiology; 2017. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/3099165/Narrative/. Accessed 29 Dec 2018

79.

American College of Radiology. ACR–NASCI–SIR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Performance and Interpretation of Body Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA); 2011. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/Body-CTA.pdf?la=en. Accessed 29 Jan 2019

80.

Party. PbtISW. National clinical guideline for stroke. Royal College of Physicians (RCP); 2016. https://www.strokeaudit.org/SupportFiles/Documents/Guidelines/2016-National-Clinical-Guideline-for-Stroke-5t-(1).aspx. Accessed 29 Dec 2018

81.

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie e.V. (DGU), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie (DGOU), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Orthopädie und Orthopädische Chirurgie e.V. (DGOOC), Österreichische Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie. Verletzungen der oberen Halswirbelsäule (AWMF-Registernr.: 012–011). Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF); 2018. https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/012-011l_S1_Verletzungen-der-oberen-HWS_2018-09.pdf. Accessed 29 Dec 2018

82.

Deutsche Gesellschaft Für Unfallchirurgie e.V. (DGU), Österreichische Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie (ÖGU), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Orthopädie und Orthopädische Chirurgie (DGOOC). Verletzungen der subaxialen Halswirbelsäule (AWMF-Registernr.: 012–032). Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF); 2017. https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/012-032l_S1_Verletzungen-der-sububaxialen-HWS_2018-01.pdf. Accessed 29 Dec 2018

83.

Hennerici MG, Kern R et al (2017) S1-Leitlinie Diagnostik akuter zerebrovaskulärer Erkrankungen. www.dgn.org/leitlinien. Accessed 23 Dec 2018

84.

Weimar C, Kurth T et al (2018) Zerebrale Venen- und Sinusthrombose, S2k-Leitlinie. https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/030-098l_S2k_Zerebrale_Venen_Sinusthrombose_2018-08.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2019

85.

Franz RW, Willette PA, Wood MJ, Wright ML, Hartman JF (2012) A Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic screening criteria for blunt cerebrovascular injuries. J Am Coll Surg 214(3):313–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.11.012CrossRefPubMed

86.

Gupta M, Schriger DL, Hiatt JR et al (2011) Selective use of computed tomography compared with routine whole body imaging in patients with blunt trauma. Ann Emerg Med 58(5):407–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2011.06.003CrossRefPubMed

87.

Grandhi R, Weiner GM, Agarwal N et al (2018) Limitations of multidetector computed tomography angiography for the diagnosis of blunt cerebrovascular injury. J Neurosurg 128(6):1642–1647. https://doi.org/10.3171/2017.2.JNS163264CrossRefPubMed

88.

Payabvash S, McKinney AM, McKinney ZJ, Palmer CS, Truwit CL (2014) Screening and detection of blunt vertebral artery injury in patients with upper cervical fractures: the role of cervical CT and CT angiography. Eur J Radiol 83(3):571–577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.11.020CrossRefPubMed

89.

Varjonen EA, Bensch FV, Pyhältö TT, Koivikko MP, Snäll J (2018) Remember the vessels! craniofacial fracture predicts risk for blunt cerebrovascular injury. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 76(7):1509.e1501-1509.e1509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2018.03.035CrossRef

90.

American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Blunt Chest Trauma; 2013. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/3082590/Narrative/. Accessed 29 Jan 2019

91.

American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Blunt Chest Trauma—Suspected Aortic Injury; 1995. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69410/Narrative/. Accessed 29 Jan 2019

92.

American College of Radiology. ACR–NASCI–SPR Practice Parameter for the Performance and Interpretation of Cardiac Computed Tomography (CT); 2006. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/CardiacCT.pdf?la=en. Accessed 29 Jan 2019

93.

American College of Radiology. ACR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Performance of Computed Tomography (CT) of the Abdomen and Computed Tomography (CT) of the Pelvis; 1995. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/CT-Abd-Pel.pdf?la=en. Accessed 29 Jan 2019

94.

American College of Radiology. ACR–SCBT-MR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Performance of Thoracic Computed Tomography (CT); 1995. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/CT-Thoracic.pdf?la=en. Accessed 29 Jan 2019

95.

American College of Radiology ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Pulsatile Abdominal Mass, Suspected Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm; 2016. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69414/Narrative/. Accessed 29 Jan 2019

96.

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gefäßchirurgie und Gefäßmedizin - Gesellschaft für operative endovaskuläre und präventive Gefäßmedizin e.V. (DGG), Deutsche Röntgengesellschaft (DRG), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Angiologie - Gesellschaft für Gefäßmedizin e.V. (DGA) et al. S3-Leitlinie zu Screening, Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Bauchaortenaneurysmas (AWMF-Registernr.: 004/014). Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF); 2018. https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/004-014l__S3_Bauchaortenaneurysma_2018-08.pdf. Accessed 29 Jan 2019

97.

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gefäßchirurgie und Gefäßmedizin - Gesellschaft für operative endovaskuläre und präventive Gefäßmedizin e.V. (DGG), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin e.V. (DGAI), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Angiologie - Gesellschaft für Gefäßmedizin e.V. (DGA) et al. S2k Typ B Aortendissektion (AWMF-Registernr.: 004/034). Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF); 2018. https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/004-034l_S2k_Typ_B_Aortendissektion_2018-09.pdf. Accessed 29 Jan 2019

98.

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gastroenterologie Verdauungs- und Stoffwechselkrankheiten (DGVS), Deutsche Röntgengesellschaft (DRG), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allgemein- und Viszeralchirurgie e.V. (DGAV) et al. S2k Leitlinie Gastrointestinale Blutung (AWMF-Registernr.: 021/028). Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF); 2017. https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/021-028l_S2k_Gastrointestinale_Blutung_2017-07.pdf. Accessed 29 Jan 2019

99.

Chidambaram S, Goh EL, Khan MA (2017) A meta-analysis of the efficacy of whole-body computed tomography imaging in the management of trauma and injury. Injury 48(8):1784–1793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2017.06.003CrossRefPubMed

100.

Hallinan JTPD, Tan CH, Pua U (2016) The role of multidetector computed tomography versus digital subtraction angiography in triaging care and management in abdominopelvic trauma. Singapore Med J 57(9):497–502. https://doi.org/10.11622/smedj.2015179CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

101.

Leung V, Sastry A, Woo TD, Jones HR (2015) Implementation of a split-bolus single-pass CT protocol at a UK major trauma centre to reduce excess radiation dose in trauma pan-CT. Clin Radiol 70(10):1110–1115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2015.05.014CrossRefPubMed

102.

Naulet P, Wassel J, Gervaise A, Blum A (2013) Evaluation of the value of abdominopelvic acquisition without contrast injection when performing a whole body CT scan in a patient who may have multiple trauma. Diagn Interven Imaging 94(4):410–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2013.01.018CrossRef

103.

Sedlic A, Chingkoe CM, Tso DK, Galea-Soler S, Nicolaou S (2013) Rapid imaging protocol in trauma: a whole-body dual-source CT scan. Emerg Radiol 20(5):401–408. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-013-1139-3CrossRefPubMed

104.

Forman MJ, Mirvis SE, Hollander DS (2013) Blunt thoracic aortic injuries: CT characterisation and treatment outcomes of minor injury. Eur Radiol 23(11):2988–2995. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2904-0CrossRefPubMed

105.

Foster BR, Anderson SW, Uyeda JW, Brooks JG, Soto JA (2011) Integration of 64-detector lower extremity CT angiography into whole-body trauma imaging: feasibility and early experience. Radiology 261(3):787–795. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.11100604CrossRefPubMed

106.

Frellesen C, Stock W, Kerl JM et al (2014) Topogram-based automated selection of the tube potential and current in thoraco-abdominal trauma CT: a comparison to fixed kV with mAs modulation alone. Eur Radiol 24(7):1725–1734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3197-7CrossRefPubMed

107.

Furlan A, Tublin ME, Rees MA, Nicholas DH, Sperry JL, Alarcon LH (2017) Delayed splenic vascular injury after nonoperative management of blunt splenic trauma. J Surg Res 211:87–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2016.11.062CrossRefPubMed

108.

Hakim W, Kamanahalli R, Dick E, Bharwani N, Fetherston S, Kashef E (2016) Trauma whole-body MDCT: an assessment of image quality in conventional dual-phase and modified biphasic injection. Br J Radiol 89:20160160. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20160160CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

109.

American College of Radiology. ACR–ASNR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Performance and Interpretation of Cervicocerebral Computed Tomography Angiography (CTA); 2010. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/CervicoCerebralCTA.pdf?la=en. Accessed 29 Jan 2019

110.

American College of Radiology. ACR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Use of Intravascular Contrast Media. American College of Radiology; 2001. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/IVCM.pdf?la=en. Accessed 20 Jan 2019

111.

Schicho A, Lürken L, Meier R et al (2018) Non-penetrating traumatic injuries of the aortic arch. Acta Radiol 59(3):275–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185117713352CrossRefPubMed

112.

Cotte J, Courjon F, Beaume S et al (2016) Vittel criteria for severe trauma triage: characteristics of over-triage. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med 35(2):87–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.accpm.2015.06.013CrossRefPubMed

113.

American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Hematuria; 1995. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69490/Narrative/. Accessed 16 Jan 2019

114.

American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Renal Trauma; 1996. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69373/Narrative/. Accessed 16 Jan 2019

115.

American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Suspected Lower Urinary Tract Trauma; 1996. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69376/Narrative/. Accessed 16 Jan 2019

116.

American College of Radiology. ACR-SAR Practice Parameter for the Performance of Adult Cystography and Urethrography; 1992. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/Cysto-Urethro.pdf?la=en. Accessed 16 Jan 2019

117.

American Urological Association. Urotrauma : AUA Guideline. American Urological Association; 2014. https://www.auanet.org/documents/education/clinical-guidance/Urotrauma.pdf. Accessed 16 Jan 2019

118.

Summerton DJ, Djakovic N, Kitrey ND et al. Guidelines on Urological Trauma. European Association of Urology (EAU); 2014. http://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/EAU-Guidelines-Urological-Trauma_LRV2.pdf. Accessed 16 Jan 2019

119.

American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiologic Management of Lower Gastrointestinal Tract Bleeding. American College of Radiology; 2006. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69457/Narrative/. Accessed 24 Jan 2019

120.

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie e.V. (DGU), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Orthopädie und Orthopädische Chirurgie (DGOOC), Österreichische Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie. S2e Sprunggelenkfraktur (AWMF-Registernr.: 012/003). Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF); 2015. https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/012-003l_S2e_Sprunggelenkfraktur_2016-02.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2019

121.

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie e.V. (DGU), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Orthopädie und Orthopädische Chirurgie (DGOOC), Österreichische Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie. S1 Unterschenkelschaftfraktur (AWMF-Registernr.:012/018). Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF); 2017. https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/012-018l_S1_Unterschenkelschaftfraktur_2017-08.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2019

122.

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie e.V. (DGU), Österreichische Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie. S1 Oberarmkopffraktur (AWMF-Registernr.: 012/023). Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF); 2017. https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/012-023l_S1_Oberarmkopffraktur_2017-10.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2019

123.

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie e.V. (DGU), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Orthopädie und Orthopädische Chirurgie (DGOOC). S1 Oberschenkelschaftfraktur (AWMF-Registernr.: 012/027). Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF); 2018. https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/012-027l_S1_Oberschenkelschaftfraktur_2018-07.pdf. Accessed 26 Jan 2019

124.

American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Acute Chest Pain-Suspected Aortic Dissection; 1995. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69402/Narrative/. Accessed 28 Jan 2019

125.

American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Suspected Thoracic Aortic Aneurysm; 2017. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/3102329/Narrative/. Accessed 24 Jan 2019

126.

American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Acute Nonspecific Chest Pain—Low Probability of Coronary Artery Disease; 1998. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69401/Narrative/. Accessed 28 Jan 2019

127.

American College of Radiology. ACR–SAR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Performance of Computed Tomography (CT) Enterography; 2015. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/CT-Entero.pdf?la=en. Accessed 28 Jan 2019

128.

American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging of Mesenteric Ischemia; 2018. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/70909/Narrative/. Accessed 28 Jan 2019

129.

Guidelines ESC, on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Peripheral Arterial Diseases, (2018) in collaboration with the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS): Document covering atherosclerotic disease of extracranial carotid and vertebral, mesenteric, renal, upper and lower extremity arteries. Eur Heart J 39(9):763–821. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehx095CrossRef

130.

Brandt LJ, Feuerstadt P, Longstreth GF, Boley SJ (2015) ACG clinical guideline: epidemiology, risk factors, patterns of presentation, diagnosis, and management of colon ischemia (CI). Am J Gastroenterol 110:18–44. https://doi.org/10.1038/ajg.2014.395CrossRefPubMed

131.

Goldstein SA, Evangelista A, Abbara S et al (2015) Multimodality imaging of diseases of the thoracic aorta in adults: from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging: Endorsed by the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography and Society for Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 28(2):119–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.echo.2014.11.015CrossRefPubMed

132.

Riambau V, Böckler D, Brunkwall J et al (2017) Editor´s choice - management of descending thoracic aorta diseases: clinical practice guidelines of the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS). Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 53:4–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejvs.2016.06.005CrossRefPubMed

133.

Menke J (2010) Diagnostic accuracy of multidetector CT in acute mesenteric ischemia: systematic review and meta-analysis. Radiology 256(1):93–101. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10091938CrossRefPubMed

134.

Colip CG, Gorantla V, LeBedis CA, Soto JA, Anderson SW (2017) Extremity CTA for penetrating trauma: 10-year experience using a 64-detector row CT scanner. Emerg Radiol 24(3):223–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-016-1469-zCrossRefPubMed

135.

Shalhub S, Starnes BW, Brenner ML et al (2014) Blunt abdominal aortic injury: a Western Trauma Association multicenter study. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 77(6):879–885. https://doi.org/10.1097/ta.0000000000000353CrossRefPubMed

136.

Geyer LL, Körner M, Linsenmaier U et al (2013) Incidence of delayed and missed diagnoses in whole-body multidetector CT in patients with multiple injuries after trauma. Acta Radiol 54(5):592–598. https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185113475443CrossRefPubMed

137.

Panda A, Kumar A, Gamanagatti S et al (2017) Can multidetector CT detect the site of gastrointestinal tract injury in trauma? A retrospective study. Diagn Interv Radiol 23(1):29–36. https://doi.org/10.5152/dir.2016.15481CrossRefPubMed

138.

American College of Radiology. ACR Practice Parameter for Radiologist Coverage of Imaging Performed in Hospital Emergency Departments; 2000. https://www.acr.org/-/media/ACR/Files/Practice-Parameters/HospER.pdf?la=en. Accessed 04 Dec 2018

139.

The Royal College of Radiologists (2016) Standards for the communication of radiological reports and fail-safe alert notification. https://www.rcr.ac.uk/system/files/publication/field_publication_files/bfcr164_failsafe.pdf. Accessed 04 Dec 2018

140.

National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, College of Paramedics, Resuscitation Coucil (UK) et al (2018) Trauma: guidance (gs166).

141.

James MK, Francois MP, Yoeli G, Doughlin GK, Lee SW (2017) Incidental findings in blunt trauma patients: prevalence, follow-up documentation, and risk factors. Emerg Radiol 24(4):347–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-017-1479-5CrossRefPubMed

142.

Muhm M, Danko T, Schmitz K, Winkler H (2012) Delays in diagnosis in early trauma care: evaluation of diagnostic efficiency and circumstances of delay. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 38(2):139–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-011-0129-yCrossRefPubMed

143.

Viergutz T, Terboven T, Henzler T, Schäfer D, Schönberg SO, Sudarski S (2018) Relevante Zufallsbefunde und iatrogene Verletzungen : Eine retrospektive Analyse von 1165 Schockraumpatienten. Der Anaesthesist. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00101-018-0505-7CrossRefPubMed

144.

Banaste N, Caurier B, Bratan F, Bergerot JF, Thomson V, Millet I (2018) Whole-body CT in patients with multiple traumas: factors leading to missed injury. Radiology 289(2):374–383. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2018180492CrossRefPubMed

145.

Eurin M, Haddad N, Zappa M et al (2012) Incidence and predictors of missed injuries in trauma patients in the initial hot report of whole-body CT scan. Injury 43(1):73–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2011.05.019CrossRefPubMed

146.

Ferree S, Houwert RM, van Laarhoven JJEM, Smeeing DPJ, Leenen LPH, Hietbrink F (2016) Tertiary survey in polytrauma patients should be an ongoing process. Injury 47(4):792–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.injury.2015.11.040CrossRefPubMed

147.

Briggs RH, Rowbotham E, Johnstone AL, Chalmers AG (2010) Provisional reporting of polytrauma CT by on-call radiology registrars. Is it safe? Clin Radiol 65(8):616–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2010.04.010CrossRefPubMed

148.

Smith CM, Mason S (2012) The use of whole-body CT for trauma patients: survey of UK emergency departments. Emerg Med J 29(8):630–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/emj.2011.111708CrossRefPubMed

149.

Huber-Wagner S, Lefering R, Qvick LM et al (2009) Effect of whole-body CT during trauma resuscitation on survival: a retrospective, multicentre study. Lancet 373(9673):1455–1461. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60232-4CrossRefPubMed

150.

Mueck FG, Wirth K, Muggenthaler M et al (2016) Radiological mass casualty incident (MCI) workflow analysis: single-centre data of a mid-scale exercise. Br J Radiol 89(1–6):20150918. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20150918CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

151.

Mück F, Wirth K, Muggenthaler M et al (2016) Prätherapeutische Ablaufanalyse bei einem Massenanfall von Verletzten: Vergleich von zwei Traumazentren der höchsten Versorgungsstufe. Der Unfallchirurg 119(8):632–641. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00113-016-0200-6CrossRefPubMed

Titel: European Society of Emergency Radiology: guideline on radiological polytrauma imaging and service (short version)
verfasst von: Stefan Wirth
Julian Hebebrand
Raffaella Basilico
Ferco H. Berger
Ana Blanco
Cem Calli
Maureen Dumba
Ulrich Linsenmaier
Fabian Mück
Konraad H. Nieboer
Mariano Scaglione
Marc-André Weber
Elizabeth Dick
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2020
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Insights into Imaging / Ausgabe 1/2020
Elektronische ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00947-7

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

European Society of Emergency Radiology: guideline on radiological polytrauma imaging and service (short version)

Abstract

Background

Results

Conclusions

Publisher's Note

Key points

Background

Methods

Key issues

Literature research

Inclusion/exclusion criteria for literature selection

Classification, rating, and evidence level of studies

Grade of recommendation (GoR)

Good clinical practice points (GPP)

Consensus development at the conferences

Results

Discussion and conclusions

Limitations

Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Competing interests

Publisher's Note

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Akuter Schwindel: Wann lohnt sich eine MRT?

Screening-Mammografie offenbart erhöhtes Herz-Kreislauf-Risiko

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

Update Radiologie

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Background

Results

Conclusions

Publisher's Note

Key points

Background

Methods

Key issues

Literature research

Inclusion/exclusion criteria for literature selection

Classification, rating, and evidence level of studies

Grade of recommendation (GoR)

Good clinical practice points (GPP)

Consensus development at the conferences

Results

Discussion and conclusions

Limitations

Conclusions

Acknowledgements

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication

Competing interests

Publisher's Note

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2020

Macrocyclic MR contrast agents: evaluation of multiple-organ gadolinium retention in healthy rats

The Current Status of Radiological Clinical Audit and Feedback on the ESR Guide to Clinical Audit in Radiology and the ESR Clinical Audit Tool (Esperanto) – an ESR Survey of European Radiology Departments

Study of breast implants mammography examinations for identification of suitable image quality criteria

Summary of the proceedings of the International Forum 2019: “What are the strategies to engage the young generation”

Radiomics in medical imaging—“how-to” guide and critical reflection

Role of MRI as first-line modality in the detection of previously undiagnosed otosclerosis: a single tertiary institute experience

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

Akuter Schwindel: Wann lohnt sich eine MRT?

Screening-Mammografie offenbart erhöhtes Herz-Kreislauf-Risiko

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

Update Radiologie