Traumatic Head Injury and the Diagnosis of Abuse: A Cluster Analysis

Evidence for significant misdiagnosis of abusive head trauma in pediBIRN data

Independently witnessed events are used as a reference standard to robustly categorize accidental or non-abusive head trauma (non-AHT) cases in the pediBIRN data set of acutely symptomatic infants with closed head injuries. Findings in such independently witnessed non-AHT cases are compared to findings in cases that were diagnosed as AHT but were not independently witnessed. The data shows that 14% of independently witnessed non-AHT cases are misdiagnosed as AHT, and that risk factors for misdiagnosis include acute encephalopathy, bilateral or interhemispheric SDH, and/or severe retinal hemorrhages, findings that are commonly associated with AHT. The data also shows that "dense retinal hemorrhages extending to the periphery" are not highly suggestive of AHT, as they also occur in independently witnessed non-AHT cases.

Why admitted cases of AHT make a low quality reference standard: A survey of people accused of AHT in France

Several influential articles that attempt to establish diagnostic methods for Abusive Head Trauma (AHT) use admitted cases as a reference standard. This study analyses a survey of people accused of AHT in France, to understand the environment and situations in which such admissions are made. Multiple reasons to question the reliability of admissions to AHT are demonstrated in the responses, including reduced sentences, the return of children to the family home, a desire to stop accusations being leveled at a partner and for legal proceedings to end. These factors must be considered in the context of proceedings that are long, expensive and stressful, leading to depression and financial hardship, and that seem to be inevitably heading towards conviction. The ineluctable conclusion is that admitted cases do not make a suitably reliable reference standard for undertaking scientific investigation, or for validating the diagnostic methods used for AHT.

Abusive head injuries in infants: from founders to denialism and beyond

INTRODUCTION

Abusive head injuries is a major cause of severe morbidity and the main cause of mortality by head trauma in infants.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Based on published data and their own clinical and medicolegal practice, the authors review briefly the historical roots and emergence of the concept of abusive head injuries (AHI), until the present scientific understanding of shaken baby syndrome (SBS) and Silverman syndrome. They then discuss the present epidemic of denialism and how this challenge to science should be seen as a stimulus to increase research and improve the accuracy of diagnosis and medical practice.

RESULTS

The denial of SBS is especially damaging because it undermines the possibilities of prevention and reparation for victims. The authors expand on AHI being part of a wider context of domestic violence and the prevention of child abuse being part of a broad and long-term endeavor to defend civilization values.

CONCLUSIONS

Prevention of AHI is a major challenge for the future. In the fields of science and prevention of child abuse, the input of pediatric neurosurgeons should not be underestimated.

The association of subcortical brain injury and abusive head trauma

BACKGROUND

Abusive head trauma (AHT) remains a major pediatric problem with diagnostic challenges. A small pilot study previously associated subcortical brain injury with AHT.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the association of subcortical injury on neuroimaging with the diagnosis of AHT.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

Children <3 years with acute TBI admitted to 18 PICUs between 2011 and 2021.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of existing, combined, de-identified, cross-sectional dataset.

RESULTS

Deepest location of visible injury was characterized as scalp/skull/epidural (n = 170), subarachnoid/subdural (n = 386), cortical brain (n = 170), or subcortical brain (n = 247) (total n = 973). Subcortical injury was significantly associated with AHT using both physicians' diagnostic impression (OR: 8.41 [95 % CI: 5.82-12.44]) and a priori definitional criteria (OR: 5.99 [95 % CI: 4.31-8.43]). Caregiver reports consistent with the child's gross motor skills and historically consistent with repetition decreased as deepest location of injury increased, p < 0.001. Patients with subcortical injuries were significantly more likely to have traumatic extracranial injuries such as rib fractures (OR 3.36, 95 % CI 2.30-4.92) or retinal hemorrhages (OR 5.97, 95 % CI 4.35-8.24), respiratory compromise (OR 12.12, 95 % CI 8.49-17.62), circulatory compromise (OR 6.71, 95 % CI 4.87-9.29), seizures (OR 3.18, 95 % CI 2.35-4.29), and acute encephalopathy (OR 12.44, 95 % CI 8.16-19.68).

CONCLUSIONS

Subcortical injury is associated with a diagnosis of AHT, historical inaccuracies concerning for abuse, traumatic extracranial injuries, and increased severity of illness including respiratory and circulatory compromise, seizures, and prolonged loss of consciousness. Presence of subcortical injury should be considered as one component of the complex AHT diagnostic process.

An analysis of physicians' diagnostic reasoning regarding pediatric abusive head trauma

BACKGROUND

Physician diagnoses of abusive head trauma (AHT) have been criticized for circular reasoning and over-reliance on a "triad" of findings. Absent a gold standard, analyses that apply restrictive reference standards for AHT and non-AHT could serve to confirm or refute these criticisms.

OBJECTIVES

To compare clinical presentations and injuries in patients with witnessed/admitted AHT vs. witnessed non-AHT, and with witnessed/admitted AHT vs. physician diagnosed AHT not witnessed/admitted. To measure the triad's AHT test performance in patients with witnessed/admitted AHT vs. witnessed non-AHT.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

Acutely head injured patients <3 years hospitalized for intensive care across 18 sites between 2010 and 2021.

METHODS

Secondary analyses of existing, combined, cross-sectional datasets. Probability values and odds ratios were used to identify and characterize differences. Test performance measures included sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values.

RESULTS

Compared to patients with witnessed non-AHT (n = 100), patients with witnessed/admitted AHT (n = 58) presented more frequently with respiratory compromise (OR 2.94, 95% CI: 1.50-5.75); prolonged encephalopathy (OR 5.23, 95% CI: 2.51-10.89); torso, ear, or neck bruising (OR 11.87, 95% CI: 4.48-31.48); bilateral subdural hemorrhages (OR 8.21, 95% CI: 3.94-17.13); diffuse brain hypoxia, ischemia, or swelling (OR 6.51, 95% CI: 3.06-13.02); and dense, extensive retinal hemorrhages (OR 7.59, 95% CI: 2.85-20.25). All differences were statistically significant (p ≤ .001). No significant differences were observed in patients with witnessed/admitted AHT (n = 58) vs. patients diagnosed with AHT not witnessed/admitted (n = 438). The triad demonstrated AHT specificity and positive predictive value ≥0.96.

CONCLUSIONS

The observed differences in patients with witnessed/admitted AHT vs. witnessed non-AHT substantiate prior reports. The complete absence of differences in patients with witnessed/admitted AHT vs. physician diagnosed AHT not witnessed/admitted supports an impression that physicians apply diagnostic reasoning informed by knowledge of previously reported injury patterns. Concern for abuse is justified in patients who present with "the triad."

Parenchymal Insults in Abuse—A Potential Key to Diagnosis

Subdural hemorrhage is a key imaging finding in cases of abusive head trauma and one that many radiologists and radiology trainees become familiar with during their years of training. Although it may prove to be a marker of trauma in a young child or infant that presents without a history of injury, the parenchymal insults in these young patients more often lead to the debilitating and sometimes devastating outcomes observed in this young population. It is important to recognize these patterns of parenchymal injuries and how they may differ from the imaging findings in other cases of traumatic injury in young children. In addition, these parenchymal insults may serve as another significant, distinguishing feature when making the medical diagnosis of abusive head injury while still considering alternative diagnoses, including accidental injury. Therefore, as radiologists, we must strive to look beyond the potential cranial injury or subdural hemorrhage for the sometimes more subtle but significant parenchymal insults in abuse.