Imaging Outcomes of Emergency MR Imaging in Dizziness and Vertigo: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients exhibiting acute dizziness or vertigo often represent a diagnostic challenge, and many undergo neuroimaging for stroke detection. We aimed to demonstrate the imaging outcomes of first-line emergency MR imaging among patients with acute dizziness or vertigo and to determine the clinical risk factors for stroke and other acute pathology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive patients with acute dizziness or vertigo referred for emergency MR imaging in a tertiary hospital during 5 years. We recorded and analyzed patient characteristics, relevant clinical information, and imaging outcomes. Risk score models were derived to predict which patients were more likely to present with positive MR imaging findings. RESULTS: A total of 1169 patients were included. Acute stroke was found in 17%; other clinically significant pathology, in 8% of patients. In 75% of the patients, emergency MR imaging showed no significant abnormalities. Risk factors for acute stroke included older age, male sex, and a prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors and neurologic signs. Isolated dizziness had no discriminative power on imaging outcomes, and 14% of these patients showed acute stroke. Risk scores had only moderate performance in predicting acute ischemic stroke (receiver operating characteristic area under curve = 0.75) or any significant pathology (receiver operating characteristic area under curve = 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Acute dizziness and vertigo remain challenging even when emergency MR imaging is readily available. One in 4 patients had acute pathology on MR imaging. Predictors for acute pathology (older age, male sex, cardiovascular risk factors, and neurologic signs) may aid in patient selection for MR imaging, optimizing the yield and clinical impact of emergency neuroimaging. Low diagnostic yields of CT and internal acoustic canal MR imaging may offer an opportunity to reduce health care expenditures in the future.

Outcomes of Follow-up Imaging After Pediatric Spinal Trauma Confirmed With Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

BACKGROUND: Imaging plays a crucial role in the diagnostic workup of pediatric spinal trauma. Computed tomography and conventional radiographs are widely used as the primary imaging methods. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a radiation-free alternative with high sensitivity for bony and soft tissue injuries. There is no consensus on the optimal use of follow-up imaging in pediatric spinal trauma without immediate surgical treatment, especially if the injury is primarily confirmed with MRI. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic value of follow-up imaging after MRI-confirmed spinal trauma in children. METHODS: The medical records and the imaging data of children and adolescents with emergency spinal MRI and follow-up imaging over 8 years were retrospectively reviewed. The primary study outcome was the outcome of follow-up imaging and its effect on management. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 127 patients. The follow-up imaging did not alter the management in any patient with presumably stable injury in emergency MRI. Short-term follow-up imaging showed no clinically significant progression in thoracolumbar compression fractures. Flexion-extension radiographs had no additional value in cases with stable cervical spinal injury on emergency MRI. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical utility of short-term follow-up imaging is low in children with stable spinal injury on emergency MRI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III-retrospective observational study.

Utility of brain imaging in pediatric patients with a suspected accidental spinal injury but no brain injury-related symptoms.

PURPOSE: Imaging is the gold standard in diagnosing traumatic brain injury, but unnecessary scans should be avoided, especially in children and adolescents. Clinical decision-making rules often help to distinguish the patients who need imaging, but if spinal trauma is suspected, concomitant brain imaging is often conducted. Whether the co-occurrence of brain and spine injuries is high enough to justify head imaging in patients without symptoms suggesting brain injury is unknown. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the diagnostic yield of brain MRI in pediatric patients with suspected or confirmed accidental spinal trauma but no potential brain injury symptoms. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the medical and imaging data of pediatric patients (under 18 years old) who have undergone concomitant MRI of the brain and spine because of acute spinal trauma in our emergency radiology department over a period of 8 years. We compared the brain MRI findings in patients with and without symptoms suggesting brain injury and contrasted spine and brain MRI findings. RESULTS: Of 179 patients (mean age 11.7 years, range 0-17), 137 had symptoms or clinical findings suggesting brain injury, and 42 did not. None of the patients without potential brain injury symptoms had traumatic findings in brain MRI. This finding also applied to patients with high-energy trauma (n = 47) and was unrelated to spinal MRI findings. CONCLUSION: Pediatric accidental trauma patients with suspected or confirmed spine trauma but no symptoms or clinical findings suggesting brain injury seem not to benefit from brain imaging.