To present our experience with helical computed tomographic (CT) arteriography as the initial diagnostic examination in patients suspected to have focal arterial injuries of the proximal extremities. During 19 months, 142 arterial segments in the proximal portions of the extremities of 139 patients with trauma were evaluated with helical CT arteriography. CT arteriograms were interpreted on site by the radiologist in charge of emergency procedures and retrospectively with consensus interpretation between two radiologists. CT study quality and the presence of arterial injuries were noted. CT arteriographic findings were compared with those of surgery, conventional arteriography, and/or clinical follow-up. Five (3.6%) patients had nondiagnostic studies and underwent conventional arteriography. In the remaining 137 arterial segments in 134 patients, helical CT arteriography demonstrated arterial injuries in 61 segments and normal arteries in 76 segments. These segments were treated initially with surgery (55 segments) or endovascular intervention (four segments) or were observed (78 segments); 77 of the 78 observed segments remained stable at 3-18 months (mean follow-up, 5.2 months). There were no differences between the on-site and consensus interpretations (kappa = 1.0). The sensitivity of CT arteriography was 95.1%, and the specificity was 98.7%. Helical CT arteriography can be performed as the initial diagnostic method in most patients suspected to have focal arterial injuries of the proximal portions of the extremities.

To report an experience with helical computed tomographic (CT) angiography as the initial procedure to rule out arterial lesions caused by penetrating neck injuries. During 27 months, 175 patients were referred for helical CT angiography of the neck because of clinical suspicion of arterial injuries. The protocol included a 100-mL bolus of nonionic contrast material injected at 4.5 mL/sec, with 11-second scanning delay, 3-mm collimation, and pitch of 1.3-2.0. CT images were interpreted prospectively by the emergency radiologist, and two radiologists retrospectively interpreted studies with consensus. Outcome was determined with examination of patients and their charts. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. Studies in two patients were considered inadequate for diagnosis; these patients were referred for conventional arteriography and had normal findings. In 27 patients (15.6%), arterial lesions were detected. One patient had two arterial injuries. Lesions demonstrated with helical CT angiography were arterial occlusion (n = 14), pseudoaneurysm (n = 8), pseudoaneurysm and arteriovenous fistulae (n = 4), and partial thrombosis (n = 2). The remaining 146 patients had normal arteries. On the basis of these findings, patients were treated with surgery (n = 21), endovascular intervention (n = 7), and observation alone (n = 146). Results indicate that helical CT angiography can be used as the initial method for evaluation in patients with possible arterial injuries of the neck.

In 1994 a decision analysis, based on the literature and utility ratings for outcome by a panel of experienced head and neck physicians, was presented which showed a threshold probability of occult metastases of 20% to recommend elective treatment of the neck. It was stated that recommendations for the management of the cN0 neck are not immutable and should be reconfigured to determine the optimal management based on different sets of underlying assumptions. Although much has changed and is published in the almost 25 years after its publication, up to date this figure is still mentioned in the context of decisions on treatment of the clinically negative (cN0) neck. Therefore, we critically reviewed the developments in diagnostics and therapy and modeling approaches in the context of decisions on treatment of the cN0 neck. However, the results of studies on treatment of the cN0 neck cannot be translated to other settings due to significant differences in relevant variables such as population, culture, diagnostic work-up, follow-up, costs, institutional preferences and other factors. Moreover, patients may have personal preferences and may weigh oncologic outcomes versus morbidity and quality of life differently. Therefore, instead of trying to establish "the" best strategy for the cN0 neck or "the" optimal cut-off point for elective neck treatment, the approach to optimize the management of the cN0 neck would be to develop and implement models and decision support systems that can serve to optimize choices depending on individual, institutional, population and other relevant variables.