Objectives Whole-body computed tomography (WBCT) is the standard procedure for examining severely injured patients. In addition to trauma-caused pathologies, a high number of non-trauma-related pathologies, incidental findings (IFs) are found regularly but often underestimated in WBCT. A standardized image analysis and a classification of IFs regarding their clinical graduation is of paramount interest for both treatment concepts and outcomes. The present study is aimed at developing and validating a feasible classification system. We evaluated WBCT scans regarding IFs and classified the IFs into 5 degrees of severity. Materials and methods The present retrospective study included 1475 polytrauma patients from two maximum care hospitals who underwent a WBCT scan. Medical reports and CT scans were then reviewed for IFs. Results The 83.8% of patients had suffered trauma-related injuries, and in 83.9%, IFs were found. The patients’ age and gender significantly influenced the number and severity of IFs. Older and female patients tended to have more IFs. IFs are not described more often in patients without trauma-related findings (15%) than in patients with traumatic injuries (6%). Based on an analysis of 476 literature sources, we classified 511 different IFs into 5 categories. Most of them fell into categories 1 (variant) and 2 (benign), but 24% fell into categories 3 (follow-up), 4 (needs clarification), and 5 (needs treatment), requiring monitoring, clarification, or immediate treatment. Conclusion Due to the high rate of IFs, standardized image analysis and IFs classification are of utmost importance for both the patients’ further treatment and the healthcare system’s refinancing of resources. Critical relevance statement IFs in polytrauma CT scans are common and, if not adequately addressed, can negatively impact patient outcomes—therefore, this 5-level classification standardizes interpretation and provides specific recommendations for further action, evaluation, or treatment. Key Points <UnorderedList Mark="Bullet"> <ItemContent> In polytrauma, IFs are as common as trauma-related findings. </ItemContent> <ItemContent> There is a need for standardized classification. </ItemContent> <ItemContent> For IFs in WBCT scans, we propose a classification into 5 categories, labeled as IF-RADS 1–5. </ItemContent> </UnorderedList> Graphical Abstract

Classification of incidental findings in polytrauma computed tomography

期刊论文
出版模式：

开放获取
发表日期：

2026年3月2日

查看全文

Daniela Kildal,
Rainer Braunschweig,
Stefan Reske,
Nadine Egenrieder,
Daniel Vogele,
Meinrad Beer

摘要

Objectives

Whole-body computed tomography (WBCT) is the standard procedure for examining severely injured patients. In addition to trauma-caused pathologies, a high number of non-trauma-related pathologies, incidental findings (IFs) are found regularly but often underestimated in WBCT. A standardized image analysis and a classification of IFs regarding their clinical graduation is of paramount interest for both treatment concepts and outcomes. The present study is aimed at developing and validating a feasible classification system. We evaluated WBCT scans regarding IFs and classified the IFs into 5 degrees of severity.

Materials and methods

The present retrospective study included 1475 polytrauma patients from two maximum care hospitals who underwent a WBCT scan. Medical reports and CT scans were then reviewed for IFs.

Results

The 83.8% of patients had suffered trauma-related injuries, and in 83.9%, IFs were found. The patients’ age and gender significantly influenced the number and severity of IFs. Older and female patients tended to have more IFs. IFs are not described more often in patients without trauma-related findings (15%) than in patients with traumatic injuries (6%). Based on an analysis of 476 literature sources, we classified 511 different IFs into 5 categories. Most of them fell into categories 1 (variant) and 2 (benign), but 24% fell into categories 3 (follow-up), 4 (needs clarification), and 5 (needs treatment), requiring monitoring, clarification, or immediate treatment.

Conclusion

Due to the high rate of IFs, standardized image analysis and IFs classification are of utmost importance for both the patients’ further treatment and the healthcare system’s refinancing of resources.

Critical relevance statement

IFs in polytrauma CT scans are common and, if not adequately addressed, can negatively impact patient outcomes—therefore, this 5-level classification standardizes interpretation and provides specific recommendations for further action, evaluation, or treatment.

Key Points

In polytrauma, IFs are as common as trauma-related findings.

There is a need for standardized classification.

For IFs in WBCT scans, we propose a classification into 5 categories, labeled as IF-RADS 1–5.

Graphical Abstract