advertisement

Kids and concussions: limiting the risks

EDITOR'S NOTE: We said shortly after 3 p.m. ET this piece would likely not air this evening, but as is often the case in this business, that's changed again. So, as of 4:20, be looking for this piece on tonight's broadcast.

I can still hear the crack. My head hit the sidewalk so hard that my brothers and sisters still talk about it. I was rollerskating on concrete, lost my balance, and fell backward. I don't remember anything else but the sound. I was konked out. My mother did all the things you were supposed to do in 1962. She called the pediatrician, who came to the house and looked at me and told to stay on the sofa so my mom could keep an eye on me. As long as I didn't throw up or drift into a deep sleep, the doctor thought I would be OK. That's the way we did things before X-rays, CT scans, and other tests.

Would we do it the same way today? Of course not. But the funny thing is that even with today's technology, it may be low-tech testing that is the best way to evaluate a child after a concussion. CT scans and X-rays can't tell the depth of the brain bruise and are very poor at predicting how that bruise will affect a child in the long term. But what we do know is that a second smack may harm the brain for good. So now doctors check for concentration, simple tasks like adding, dividing, and recalling numbers, irritability and sleep disturbances. The idea is that if a child shows some differences in brain function, then a second blow has to be prevented.

And why is that important? 3.8 million kids suffer sports-related concussions every year, yet most of them are sent right back into the game. What we'll show you tonight is that sending them back into the game may be the worst decision that doctors and coaches can make.

Read more from Nancy Snyderman

Persian Gulf oil threatened

EMAIL THIS