A 4-month-old male infant presents to the emergency department with decreased responsiveness, seizure-like activity, and vomiting following a reported fall from a low sofa. On examination, there is a bulging anterior fontanelle and head circumference crossing two percentile lines upward. CT brain shows bilateral acute subdural haematomas with diffuse cerebral oedema and no skull fracture. Skeletal survey reveals healing posterior rib fractures and metaphyseal lesions. Indirect ophthalmoscopy reveals the pattern marked **A** in the diagram—multilayered haemorrhages extending from the posterior pole to the ora serrata, involving preretinal, intraretinal, and subretinal layers. Which of the following clinical features most strongly supports the diagnosis of abusive head trauma in this case?
A. Presence of dome-shaped preretinal haemorrhages at the posterior pole alone, which are pathognomonic for accidental head injury
B. White-centred retinal haemorrhages with normal retinal periphery, indicating a coagulopathy rather than trauma
C. Extensive multilayered retinal haemorrhages extending to the periphery in the setting of subdural haematomas, healing rib fractures, and metaphyseal lesions
D. Macular retinoschisis with surrounding folds as the sole ophthalmological finding, which excludes the possibility of non-accidental injury
Explanation
Why option 1 is right
The extensive multilayered retinal haemorrhages extending from the posterior pole to the ora serrata (marked A) are a hallmark ophthalmological finding in abusive head trauma. According to the AAP Clinical Report on Abusive Head Trauma in Infants and Children (Pediatrics 2020), this pattern of peripheral multilayered haemorrhages—particularly when combined with subdural haematomas, healing rib fractures, and metaphyseal lesions—is highly suggestive of non-accidental injury. The mechanism involves severe rotational and acceleration-deceleration forces causing vitreous traction and retinal tears, leading to haemorrhages across all retinal layers. The constellation of findings (multilayered peripheral haemorrhages + intracranial injury + skeletal injuries) is the key diagnostic triad for abusive head trauma.
Why each distractor is wrong
Option 2: Dome-shaped preretinal haemorrhages at the posterior pole alone are not pathognomonic for accidental injury; they are common in abusive head trauma but are non-specific. The critical distinguishing feature is the extent of haemorrhages (extending to the periphery) combined with other injuries, not the preretinal haemorrhage in isolation.
Option 3: White-centred retinal haemorrhages (Roth-like spots) are associated with medical conditions such as leukaemia, thrombocytopenia, and bacterial endocarditis, not abusive head trauma. Their presence does not exclude trauma, but they are not the defining feature of non-accidental injury. The absence of peripheral haemorrhages would argue against abusive head trauma in this case.
Option 4: Macular retinoschisis with surrounding folds is a traumatic finding that may occur in abusive head trauma, but it is not the sole ophthalmological finding here and cannot exclude non-accidental injury. The diagnosis rests on the pattern of multilayered peripheral haemorrhages combined with the clinical and radiological evidence of abuse.
High-YieldNEET PG
Multilayered retinal haemorrhages extending to the periphery (ora serrata) in an infant with subdural haematomas, healing skeletal injuries, and metaphyseal lesions = abusive head trauma until proven otherwise.
AAP Clinical Report on Abusive Head Trauma in Infants and Children, Pediatrics 2020
Practice similar questions
Sign up free to access AI-powered MCQ practice with detailed explanations and adaptive learning.
