Advertisement

Imaging Thresholds of Salvageability of Life, Limb, and Eyesight

  • Les R. Folio
Chapter
  • 684 Downloads

Abstract

Important considerations in triage and re-triage are identifying the most critical casualties and separating out those who can be saved, and injuries so severe (expectant) that trying to save would unnecessarily drain resources from those who could live. The challenge of recent advances now saving more lives than ever is shifting the mortality threshold toward the more severe injuries; many considered expectant in prior conflicts and put to the side to die in the past are now saved. Perhaps, the most dramatic example of this is in head injuries with advent of faster transport times to neurosurgical capability on the battlefield as mentioned previously, and MDCT availability with correlations showing better survival predictability. Additionally, extremities not previously salvageable now are readily diagnosed by CTA (for example) with volume rendered 3D and multiplanar reformations with tools such as vessel tracking.

Keywords

Salvageability  Traumatic brain injury  Imaging mortality threshold Radiology-assisted autopsy 

Notes

Acknowledgments

I thank Sofia Echelmeyer for her excellent artwork. I would also like to thank Adrianne Noe, Director at National Museum of Health and Medicine/AFIP, and Tim Clarke, Jr. (Contractor, American Registry of Pathology), Deputy Director (Communications), National Museum of Health and Medicine for donation of the images in this chapter and the first chapter.

References

  1. 1.
    Gowda NK, Agrawal D, Bal C et al. Technetium Tc-99m cysteinate dimer brain single-photon emission ct in mild traumatic brain injury: a prospective study. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2006 Feb; 27:447–451.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ingebrigsten T. Aspects of the management of minor head injury. Tromse University Tromso: Tromprodukt, 1998.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shoung HM, Sichez JP, Pertuiset B. The early prognosis of craniocerebral gunshot wounds in civilian practice as an aid to the choice of treatment. A series of 56 cases studied by the computerized tomography. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1985; 74(1–2):27–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kaufman HH, Loyola WP, Makela ME, Frankowski RF, Wagner KA, Bernstein DP, Gildenberg PL. Civilian gunshot wounds: the limits of salvageability. Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1983; 67(1–2):115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Folio LR, Craig S, Singleton B. Emergency decompressive crainiotomy with banked skull flap in subcutaneous pocket. Mil Med. 2006 May/June; 171(5–6):v–viii.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marshall LF, Eisenberg HM, Jane JA et al. A new classification of head injury based on computerized tomography. J Neurosurg. 1991; 75:s14–s20.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marshall LF, Marshall SB, Klauber MR et al. The diagnosis of head injury requires a classification based on computed axial tomography. J Neurotrauma. 1992; 9(Suppl 1):287–292.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guidelines for the management of severe head injury. Brain Trauma Foundation, American Association of Neurological Surgeons, Joint Section on Neurotrauma and Critical Care. J Neurotrauma. 1996; 13:641–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vos PE, van Voskuilen AC, Beems T, Krabbe PF, Vogels OJ. Evaluation of the traumatic coma data bank computed tomography classification for severe head injury. J Neurotrauma. 2001 Jul; 18(7):649–655.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meagher S, Galifianakis A, Jannotta D, Krapiva P, Les Folio L. Diffuse axonal injury with negative CT and positive MRI findings. Mil Med. 2008 Nov; 173(11):xx–xxi.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim KA, Wang MY, McNatt SA, Pinsky G, Liu CY, Giannotta SL, Apuzzo ML.Vector analysis correlating bullet trajectory to outcome after civilian through-and-through gunshot wound to the head: using imaging cues to predict fatal outcome. Neurosurgery. 2005 Oct; 57(4):737–747.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mackett K, Folio L. CT severity spectrum of penetrating head trauma. American Society of Emergency Radiologists annual meeting. Orlando, FL; October 2009.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Abrams E, Folio L. Penetrating eye injuries. Mil Med. 2011 Mar; 176(03)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lemley CA, Wirostko WJ, Mieler WF, McCabe CM, Dieckert JP. Ch 377 Intraocular foreign bodies. In: Albert DM (ed). Principles and Practice of Ophthalmology, 3rd edn. Saunders: Philadelphia, 2008:p 5143.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lemley CA, Wirostko WJ, Mieler WF, McCabe CM, Dieckert JP. Ch 377 Intraocular foreign bodies. In: Albert DM (ed). Principles and Practice of Ophthalmology. 3rd edn. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008:p 5143.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ehlers JP, Kunimoto DY, Ittoop S, Maguire JI, Ho AC, Regillo CD. Metallic intraocular foreign bodies: characteristics, interventions, and prognostic factors for visual outcome and globe survival. Am J. Ophthalmol. 2008; 146(3):427–433.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Spoor TC. Penetrating orbital injuries. In: An Atlas of Ophthalmic Trauma. Mosby: London, 1997:p 117.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chu A, Levine MR. Gunshot wounds of the eye and orbit. Ophthalmic Surg. 1989; 20(10):729–735.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lemley CA, Wirostko WJ, Mieler WF, McCabe CM, Dieckert JP. Ch 377 Intraocular foreign bodies. In: Albert DM (ed). Principles and Practice of Ophthalmology. 3rd edn. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders; 2008:p 5143.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thach AB, Ward TP, Dick JS II et al. Intraocular foreign body injuries during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Ophthalmology. 2005; 112(10):1829–1833.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Colyer MH, Weber ED, Weichel ED et al. Delayed intraocular foreign body removal without endophthalmitis during Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Opthalmology. 2007; 114:1439–1447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ehlers JP, Kunimoto DY, Ittoop S, Maguire JI, Ho AC, Regillo CD. Metallic intraocular foreign bodies: characteristics, interventions, and prognostic factors for visual outcome and globe survival. Am J. Ophthalmol. 2008; 146(3):427–433.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ehlers JP, Kunimoto DY, Ittoop S, Maguire JI, Ho AC, Regillo CD. Metallic intraocular foreign bodies: characteristics, interventions, and prognostic factors for visual outcome and globe survival. Am J Ophthalmol. 2008; 146(3):427–433.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Savar A, Andreoli MT, Kloek CE, Andreoli CM. Enucleation for open globe injury. Am J Ophthalmol. 2009; 147(4):595–600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lichtenstein JE, Fitzpatrick JJ, Madewell JE. The role of radiology in fatality investigations. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988 Apr; 150(4):751–755.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Harcke HT, Levy AD, Abbott RM, Mallak CT, Getz JM, Champion HR, Pearse L. Autopsy radiography: digital radiographs (DR) vs multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in high-velocity gunshot-wound victims. Am J Forensic Med Pathol. 2007 Mar; 28(1):13–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Krefft S. Estimation of pilot control at the time of the crash. In: Mason JK, Reals WJ (eds). Aerospace Pathology. College of American Pathologists Foundation: Chicago, 1973.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Krefft S. Who was at the aircraft’s controls when the fatal accident occurred? Aerospace Med. 1970; 41(7):785–789.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Coltart WD. Aviator’s astragalus. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1952; 34-B(4):545–566.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Anderson HG. The Medical and Surgical Aspects on Aviation. Henry Frowde Oxford University Press: London, 1919.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Folio L, Harcke T, Luzi S. Radiology-assisted autopsy in helicopter mishap. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2009 Apr; 80(4):400–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer New York 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Les R. Folio
    • 1
  1. 1.Associate Professor Radiology and Radiological Sciences Associate Professor Military and Emergency MedicineUniformed Services University of the Health SciencesBethesdaUSA

Personalised recommendations