Whole-Body Computed Tomography (WBCT) for the initial assessment of trauma patients: a retrospective observational study.

IF 1.2 Q3 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Emergency Radiology Pub Date : 2026-08-01 Epub Date: 2026-05-11 DOI:10.1007/s10140-026-02488-w
Abdelaziz Hammo, Rabab Abdelrahman, Husham Abdelrahman, Tarik Abulkhair, Mohamed N Ahmed, Ayman El-Menyar, Naushad A Khan, Mohammad Asim, Sandro Rizoli, Hassan Al-Thani
{"title":"Whole-Body Computed Tomography (WBCT) for the initial assessment of trauma patients: a retrospective observational study.","authors":"Abdelaziz Hammo, Rabab Abdelrahman, Husham Abdelrahman, Tarik Abulkhair, Mohamed N Ahmed, Ayman El-Menyar, Naushad A Khan, Mohammad Asim, Sandro Rizoli, Hassan Al-Thani","doi":"10.1007/s10140-026-02488-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinicians assessing trauma patients are routinely faced with the critical question of when to pursue whole-body computed tomography (WBCT) and when to withhold it to limit unnecessary exposure and resource use. Despite its widespread integration into early trauma care, there remains uncertainty about the best approach for selecting patients for WBCT, particularly given the implications of its findings. We aimed to evaluate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of trauma patients with positive (pWBCT) versus negative (nWBCT) findings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective study of adult trauma patients who underwent WBCT imaging in 2021 and 2022 was conducted. Patients were stratified into pWBCT; at least one acute traumatic injury identified on scan from head to pelvis or nWBCT; no acute traumatic injury detected on scan from head to pelvis. Clinical characteristics, mechanisms of injury, injury severity, Trauma activation level, and outcomes were analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of pWBCT at presentation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2,555 patients were included (76.8% pWBCT and 23.2% nWBCT). pWBCT was associated with significantly higher rates of Level 1 trauma activations (20.5% vs 7.8%, p = 0.001), higher mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) (15.1 ± 9.9 vs 6.4 ± 4.1; p = 0.001), Shock Index (0.72 ± 0.24 vs. 0.67 ± 0.16; p = 0.001), and lower Trauma Score and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) (0.932 ± 0.15 vs 0.990 ± 0.02; p = 0.001). Patients with pWBCT required significantly higher rates of intubation, exploratory laparotomy, and massive blood transfusion. This group also had increased ICU admission, longer durations of mechanical ventilation, and higher mortality compared with patients with nWBCT (p < 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis demonstrated that age (aOR 1.013; 95% CI 1.004-1.022; p = 0.003), male gender (aOR 0.687; 95% CI 0.475-0.995; p = 0.047), shock index (aOR 1.990; 95% CI 1.045-3.789; p = 0.036), lower GCS at ED (aOR 0.852; 95% CI 0.804-0.904; p = 0.001), traffic related incidents (aOR 1.464; 95% CI 1.065-2.012; p = 0.019), falls from height (aOR 2.545; 95% CI 1.750-3.701; p = 0.001), pedestrian crashes (aOR 1.620; 95% CI 1.013-2.588; p = 0.044), and a positive FAST (aOR 5.977; 95% CI 2.149-16.623; p = 0.001) were independent predictors of pWBCT.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Patients with pWBCT form a high-risk population with greater injury severity, physiological instability, and intervention needs. The proportion of negative scans highlights potential overutilization. Identifying predictors of positive findings may refine imaging decisions, improve resource use, and support risk-stratified strategies to reduce unnecessary WBCT and its potential complications while avoiding missed injuries.</p>","PeriodicalId":11623,"journal":{"name":"Emergency Radiology","volume":" ","pages":"801-813"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13433399/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergency Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10140-026-02488-w","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/5/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Clinicians assessing trauma patients are routinely faced with the critical question of when to pursue whole-body computed tomography (WBCT) and when to withhold it to limit unnecessary exposure and resource use. Despite its widespread integration into early trauma care, there remains uncertainty about the best approach for selecting patients for WBCT, particularly given the implications of its findings. We aimed to evaluate the clinical characteristics and outcomes of trauma patients with positive (pWBCT) versus negative (nWBCT) findings.

Methods: A retrospective study of adult trauma patients who underwent WBCT imaging in 2021 and 2022 was conducted. Patients were stratified into pWBCT; at least one acute traumatic injury identified on scan from head to pelvis or nWBCT; no acute traumatic injury detected on scan from head to pelvis. Clinical characteristics, mechanisms of injury, injury severity, Trauma activation level, and outcomes were analyzed. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors of pWBCT at presentation.

Results: A total of 2,555 patients were included (76.8% pWBCT and 23.2% nWBCT). pWBCT was associated with significantly higher rates of Level 1 trauma activations (20.5% vs 7.8%, p = 0.001), higher mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) (15.1 ± 9.9 vs 6.4 ± 4.1; p = 0.001), Shock Index (0.72 ± 0.24 vs. 0.67 ± 0.16; p = 0.001), and lower Trauma Score and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) (0.932 ± 0.15 vs 0.990 ± 0.02; p = 0.001). Patients with pWBCT required significantly higher rates of intubation, exploratory laparotomy, and massive blood transfusion. This group also had increased ICU admission, longer durations of mechanical ventilation, and higher mortality compared with patients with nWBCT (p < 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis demonstrated that age (aOR 1.013; 95% CI 1.004-1.022; p = 0.003), male gender (aOR 0.687; 95% CI 0.475-0.995; p = 0.047), shock index (aOR 1.990; 95% CI 1.045-3.789; p = 0.036), lower GCS at ED (aOR 0.852; 95% CI 0.804-0.904; p = 0.001), traffic related incidents (aOR 1.464; 95% CI 1.065-2.012; p = 0.019), falls from height (aOR 2.545; 95% CI 1.750-3.701; p = 0.001), pedestrian crashes (aOR 1.620; 95% CI 1.013-2.588; p = 0.044), and a positive FAST (aOR 5.977; 95% CI 2.149-16.623; p = 0.001) were independent predictors of pWBCT.

Conclusion: Patients with pWBCT form a high-risk population with greater injury severity, physiological instability, and intervention needs. The proportion of negative scans highlights potential overutilization. Identifying predictors of positive findings may refine imaging decisions, improve resource use, and support risk-stratified strategies to reduce unnecessary WBCT and its potential complications while avoiding missed injuries.

全身计算机断层扫描(WBCT)对创伤患者的初步评估:一项回顾性观察性研究。
背景:临床医生在评估创伤患者时经常面临这样一个关键问题:什么时候进行全身计算机断层扫描(WBCT),什么时候不进行,以限制不必要的暴露和资源使用。尽管它被广泛地整合到早期创伤治疗中,但对于选择患者进行WBCT的最佳方法仍然存在不确定性,特别是考虑到其研究结果的含义。我们的目的是评估创伤患者阳性(pWBCT)和阴性(nWBCT)结果的临床特征和结果。方法:对2021年和2022年接受WBCT成像的成人创伤患者进行回顾性研究。患者分为pWBCT组;至少一次从头部到骨盆的急性创伤性损伤或nWBCT扫描;从头部到骨盆扫描未发现急性创伤。分析患者的临床特点、损伤机制、损伤严重程度、创伤激活水平及预后。进行多变量logistic回归分析以确定pWBCT出现时的独立预测因素。结果:共纳入2555例患者(76.8%为pWBCT, 23.2%为nWBCT)。pWBCT与较高的1级创伤激活率(20.5% vs 7.8%, p = 0.001)、较高的平均损伤严重程度评分(ISS)(15.1±9.9 vs 6.4±4.1,p = 0.001)、较高的休克指数(0.72±0.24 vs 0.67±0.16,p = 0.001)、较低的创伤评分和损伤严重程度评分(TRISS)(0.932±0.15 vs 0.990±0.02,p = 0.001)相关。pWBCT患者需要更高的插管、剖腹探查和大量输血率。与nWBCT患者相比,该组ICU住院人数增加,机械通气持续时间更长,死亡率更高(p结论:pWBCT患者构成高危人群,损伤严重程度更高,生理不稳定,需要干预。负扫描的比例突出了潜在的过度使用。确定阳性结果的预测因素可以改进成像决策,改善资源利用,并支持风险分层策略,以减少不必要的WBCT及其潜在并发症,同时避免漏诊。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Emergency Radiology
Emergency Radiology RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
4.50%
发文量
98
期刊介绍: To advance and improve the radiologic aspects of emergency careTo establish Emergency Radiology as an area of special interest in the field of diagnostic imagingTo improve methods of education in Emergency RadiologyTo provide, through formal meetings, a mechanism for presentation of scientific papers on various aspects of Emergency Radiology and continuing educationTo promote research in Emergency Radiology by clinical and basic science investigators, including residents and other traineesTo act as the resource body on Emergency Radiology for those interested in emergency patient care Members of the American Society of Emergency Radiology (ASER) receive the Emergency Radiology journal as a benefit of membership!
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书