Magnetic resonance imaging: utilization in the management of central nervous system trauma

To determine the availability, use, and perceived value of magnetic resonance imaging (MR) in the management of acute central nervous system (CNS) trauma in United States Level I (or equivalent) trauma centers (TCs).

One hundred sixty-nine American College of Surgeons, state or locally designated Level I (or equivalent) TCs were identified using compiled lists and telephone contacts. Surveys about MR use in CNS trauma were mailed to each institution. Follow-up telephone calls were made to nonresponding institutions. Data were analyzed using frequency distribution.

Using returned questionnaires from trauma directors and follow-up telephone contacts, data on the physical location, technologist availability, and patient monitoring capabilities were accrued. The questionnaire addressed the perceived value and cost-effectiveness of MR for acute CNS trauma in general, distinguishing between spinal cord and traumatic brain injury, using a Likert-type rating scale.

One hundred nine (65%) of identified TCs responded by mail. Sixty (33%) required contact by telephone. One hundred fifty-two (93%) reported MR scanners "on site." Five of seven TCs without on-site MR had facilities within 5 miles. No TC reported the inability to obtain MR scans. Seventy-four percent of TCs reported MR angiography capabilities. Ninety-seven percent of MR facilities were staffed 24 hours per day, 83% by on-call, out-of-hospital technologists at night and on weekends. TCs reported patient monitoring capabilities including cardiac monitoring (83%) and pulse oximetry (91%). Seventy-one percent reported the ability to scan intubated patients. Forty-five percent of TCs "rarely" use MR, 51% report "occasional" use, and 4% "frequently" use MR for acute trauma. Ninety-four percent of trauma directors agreed or strongly agreed that MR directed management and was cost-effective for spinal cord trauma. Fifty-four percent agreed or strongly agreed that MR directed management and was cost-effective for traumatic brain injury. No correlation existed between perceptions of MR applicability in CNS trauma and the number of trauma admissions or on-site availability.

Most trauma directors consider MR important in the acute evaluation of spinal trauma and, to a lesser extent, for traumatic brain injury. Despite these opinions, the vast majority of these centers reported only "rare" to "occasional" use of MR in the setting of acute CNS trauma. Our results show that most TCs have on-site and continuously available MR facilities capable of cardiac and pulmonary monitoring. Other factors such as the higher relative cost of MR may be responsible for the discrepancy between the perceived value and the actual utilization of MR imaging in the setting of CNS trauma.