This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Vascular Surgery  • Alert me on articles by topic

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Most recently, Mayberry et al¹ published an article calling into question the cost efficiency of aggressive screening and diagnosis of blunt carotid artery injury. The diagnosis and treatment of blunt cerebrovascular injury have received much attention in the literature during the past several years as the incidence approaches between 0.86% to 1.50% of blunt traumatic injuries. Biffl et al,² Cothren et al,³ Davis et al,⁴ and Miller et al⁵ have arguably led many to ask: How far should one pursue this type of injury? Furthermore, which modality is best suited for diagnosis, what are appropriate measures to treat each injury, and should follow-up angiography be instituted? Clearly, many institutions have taken notice and are finding that with an aggressive approach to blunt cerebrovascular injury many more patients are diagnosed and treated for a potentially costly and severely debilitating injury with life-threatening implications.

Mayberry et al approached the question of cerebral . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Mark L. Shapiro, MD