
Chapter 65 ED EVALUATION OF CHILD ABUSE 455
8. What types of injuries are often seen in children who sustain physical abuse?
n
Skin (e.g., bruises, bites, burns, lacerations)
n
Skeletal (especially long bone and rib fractures)
n
Neurologic (e.g., intracranial hemorrhage, hypoxic brain injury, cerebral edema)
Any injury that doesn’t have a history or doesn’t fit the history provided should raise your
suspicion for abuse. Remember the developmental stages of infancy and childhood, and ask
yourself, “Could this child have done what the caregiver is reporting?” For example, a
2-month-old infant cannot roll over, so he or she likely didn’t “roll off the couch” and sustain a
fracture.
9. What injuries are particularly worrisome for abuse or neglect?
n
Skin injuries: Always interpret bruises in the context of a child’s history and developmental
stage. Any bruises on a child who is not independently mobile should raise concerns of
abuse. Accidental bruises generally occur on skin overlying bony prominences (e.g.,
anterior tibia, knee, forehead, scalp). Bruises on areas that are not commonly injured (i.e.,
ears, neck, lower cheeks, back of hands, chest, abdomen, back, genital area, and backs of
legs) are suspicious. Human bites with an intercanine distance greater than 2 cm,
immersion burns (well demarcated, often without splash marks) to the extremities or
buttocks, loop-shaped bruises (suggesting blows from an electrical cord or belt), or pattern
bruises with an impression of any recognizable object (such as a hair brush or hand) are
concerning for abuse and warrant further evaluation. Genital bruises should make you
suspicious for physical or sexual abuse. Finally, oral injuries in infancy should be
considered abuse until proven otherwise (e.g., frenulum tears, posterior pharyngeal
lacerations). These are generally caused by a caregiver forcefully inserting an object (e.g.,
bottle, utensil, pacifier) into the infant’s mouth.
n
Fractures very concerning for abuse: metaphyseal chip; posterior rib; spinous process;
complex skull; scapula/sternum (unless major mechanism, motor vehicle crash [MVC]);
any fracture in child younger than 2 years of age (especially femur, humerus, or tibia);
multiple, complex, diastatic, or occipital skull fractures following report of minor head
trauma.
n
Fractures moderately concerning for abuse: multiple fractures; fractures of different ages;
vertebral body fractures; epiphyseal separations.
n
Suspicious closed head injuries: Suspect physical abuse with any major head injury that
occurs after a reported minor trauma (i.e., short fall, stairway fall). Major injuries include:
intracranial hemorrhage (subdural hematoma, subarachnoid hemorrhage), retinal
hemorrhages, cerebral edema, and sudden, unexplained changes in neurologic status.
n
Other injuries concerning for abuse: Abdominal injuries (particularly to the liver,
duodenum, jejunum, and pancreas) without clear history of significant trauma. Lack of
abdominal bruising should not prevent further workup in a child with an abnormal
abdominal examination because serious internal injuries can occur without external
bruising. Other sites of NAT include: hypopharynx, genital area (scrotal hematomas, penile
bruising).
n
Overall appearance: Always obtain growth parameters in children (i.e., weight, height,
head circumference). These can be clues to neglect (e.g., failure to thrive, growth delay
from malnutrition).
10. What are metaphyseal fractures, and why are they suggestive of abuse?
Also called bucket handle, corner, or metaphyseal chip fractures, metaphyseal fractures in
young children strongly suggest physical abuse. These fractures occur at the junction between
the metaphysis and epiphysis, and they are caused by biomechanical forces rarely produced
by accidental trauma in infants. They are thought to be caused by rotational or shearing forces
(from shaking or pulling/twisting). Bucket handle fractures and corner fractures are
architecturally similar but have slightly different appearances on plain film, depending on angle
of view and severity. Remember, however, that all fractures should be interpreted in light of