Radiologists play a key role in the recognition of child abuse. In the last century, radiologists pioneered the identification of nonaccidental injuries, including fractures and brain injury, and together with colleagues in paediatrics advocated the protection of children from abuse. Prevalence studies in many countries have revealed the widespread and hidden nature of child maltreatment. New and complex forms of abuse, e.g. fabricated or induced illness, have been recognized. Physical abuse affects 7-9% of children in the UK, although fewer suffer the severe or life-threatening injuries seen by radiologists. A high index of suspicion of nonaccidental trauma is required where known patterns of injury or inconsistencies of presentation and history are detected. In many cases the diagnosis is readily made, although some cases remain contentious or controversial and consume much clinical time and energy. Differences of view between doctors are tested in the courts. Adverse publicity has made this work unpopular in the UK. Knowledge of the differential diagnosis of unexplained or apparent injury is essential for accurate diagnosis, vital where errors in either direction can be disastrous. New UK radiological guidelines will assist radiologists in achieving best evidence-based practice.

Abusive head trauma (AHT) is one of the most severe forms of physical child abuse. If a child initially survives severe AHT the neurological outcome can be poor. In recent years several children were seen who developed multicystic encephalomalacia (MCE) after documented severe AHT. A search of the Netherlands Forensic Institute database in The Hague was performed. Inclusion criteria were cases of AHT between 1999 and 2010 where the child was under the age of 1 year old at the time of trauma. Trauma mechanism and radiological information were collected. Five children, three boys and two girls (mean age 57 days, range 8–142 days) who developed cystic encephalomalacia after inflicted traumatic brain injury were included. Survival ranged from 27 to 993 days. In all cases judicial autopsy was performed. All cases came before court and in each case child abuse was considered to be proven. In two cases the perpetrator confessed, during police interrogation, to shaking of the child only. Although a known serious outcome, this is one of the few reports on MCE as a result of AHT. In all cases the diagnosis was confirmed at autopsy.

No abstract

Abusive Head Trauma (AHT) refers to the combination of findings formerly described as shaken baby syndrome. Although these findings can be caused by shaking, it has become clear that in many cases there may have been impact trauma as well. Therefore a less specific term has been adopted by the American Academy of Pediatrics. AHT is a relatively common cause of childhood neurotrauma with an estimated incidence of 14–40 cases per 100,000 children under the age of 1 year. About 15–23% of these children die within hours or days after the incident. Studies among AHT survivors demonstrate that approximately one-third of the children are severely disabled, one-third of them are moderately disabled and one-third have no or only mild symptoms. Other publications suggest that neurological problems can occur after a symptom-free interval and that half of these children have IQs below the 10th percentile. Clinical findings are depending on the definitions used, but AHT should be considered in all children with neurological signs and symptoms especially if no or only mild trauma is described. Subdural haematomas are the most reported finding. The only feature that has been identified discriminating AHT from accidental injury is apnoea. Conclusion: AHT should be approached with a structured approach, as in any other (potentially lethal) disease. The clinician can only establish this diagnosis if he/she has knowledge of the signs and symptoms of AHT, risk factors, the differential diagnosis and which additional investigations to perform, the more so since parents seldom will describe the true state of affairs spontaneously.

No abstract

Abusive head trauma (AHT) is a relatively common cause of neurotrauma in young children. Radiology plays an important role in establishing a diagnosis and assessing a prognosis. Computed tomography (CT), followed by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) including diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI), is the best tool for neuroimaging. There is no evidence-based approach for the follow-up of AHT; both repeat CT and MRI are currently used but literature is not conclusive. A full skeletal survey according to international guidelines should always be performed to obtain information on possible underlying bone diseases or injuries suspicious for child abuse. Cranial ultrasonography is not indicated as a diagnostic modality for the evaluation of AHT. If there is a suspicion of AHT, this should be communicated with the clinicians immediately in order to arrange protective measures as long as AHT is part of the differential diagnosis. Conclusion: The final diagnosis of AHT can never be based on radiological findings only; this should always be made in a multidisciplinary team assessment where all clinical and psychosocial information is combined and judged by a group of experts in the field.

The high number of families with prior abuse indicates that both the healthcare system and child welfare authorities failed to protect some of the children that have been in their care. Our results highlight the importance of training healthcare and child welfare professionals in recognizing physical abuse, as well as the importance of optimizing abusive head trauma prevention strategies.

No abstract