ACMT Toxicology Visual Pearl – Hidden Danger

This abdominal radiograph indicates what type of activity?
- Body packing
- Body pushing
- Body stuffing
- Parachuting
[Image from Wikimedia Commons]

This abdominal radiograph indicates what type of activity?
[Image from Wikimedia Commons]
C-arms are mobile, C-shaped X-ray units that allow dynamic imaging for a wide range of procedures in outpatient clinics, procedure suites, operating rooms, and even emergency departments. Their uses include: fracture reduction and fixation, hardware placement, joint injections, and other image-guided interventional procedures. They are available in a variety of sizes including a mini C-arm that is specifically designed for imaging smaller body parts such as the hands and wrists.
Mini C-arms in emergency departments (ED) are not commonplace but when available they are often in trauma centers and most commonly utilized by orthopedic surgeons. Literature on the use of mini C-arms in the ED has mostly been for distal forearm fractures, where they have been shown to facilitate safe and effective fracture reductions and reduce the need for repeat formal radiographs during reductions [1-4]. Although mini C-arms are not typically used by emergency medicine (EM) physicians, familiarity with this imaging modality may be a valuable skill, especially for trainees rotating on the orthopedics service.
This article reviews mini C-arm anatomy, fluoroscopic principles, radiation safety and equipment, and illustrates its application in a case of a distal radius fracture.
The C-arm’s name comes from the C-shape that connects the X-ray source on one side to the image detector on the other, allowing rotation around the patient (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Anatomy of a mini c-arm machine
The C-arm has a rotation mechanism and an adjustable arm with various joints that allow movements in multiple planes. It allows orbital rotation, vertical and lateral movements, tilt, or swivel (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Maneuverability of a mini c-arm
Interpreting an image with a mini C-arm requires familiarity with fundamental radiographic principles related to image projection.
Unlike formal radiographs which include left or right markers, orientation of fluoroscopic images on a mini C-arm will be displayed based on the orientation of the image detector.
To illustrate this, in Figure 3, the right hand is rested with the palm resting directly on the image detector. On the monitor, the image appears as if the operator were directly looking at the hand, with the thumb on the left-most side. Most C-arms allow inversion of images on the monitor if another orientation is preferred.
Note: The X-ray beam travels from dorsal (posterior) to palmar (anterior), corresponding to a posteroanterior (PA) view.

Figure 3: Illustrated mini C-arm image of hand in posteroanterior view
The relative distance between the X-ray source, the object, and the image detector affects image magnification and apparent depth of structures. To put it simply: the closer an object is to an X-ray source, the more magnified it appears; the closer an object is to the image detector, the less magnified it appears. This is analogous to the size of a shadow formed when a finger is moved closer to a light source. This principle affects image interpretation and highlights the importance of standardized positioning when obtaining images [5].
To illustrate this effect, we can consider the lateral view of the hand. Starting from the position in Figure 3, the hand can be supinated so that the ulnar aspect rests on the detector producing a lateral view (Figure 4). In this orientation, the thumb and second metacarpal may appear slightly magnified because they are now closer to the X-ray source. This also applies to the relative appearance of the radius and ulna.

Figure 4: Illustrated mini C-arm image of hand in lateral view
As an analogy, imagine using a mini C-arm to image a rubber duck. If the duck is placed flat on the detector, the part closest to the X-ray source—the head—will appear slightly magnified. If the duck has an abnormally long neck that brings the head closer to the X-ray source, this magnification increases further (Figure 5). This same concept explains the apparent difference in heart size between posteroanterior (PA) and anteroposterior (AP) chest radiographs.

Figure 5: Illustrated mini C-arm image of rubber duck
This concept is important when using the mini C-arm for fracture reduction. You often want to capture as much of the entire body part as possible in the X-ray image while decreasing magnification, which means you will position the extremity directly against the image detector as far away as possible from the X-ray source while performing a reduction.
C-arms, like standard X-rays, emit ionizing radiation. Although most of the radiation is directed at patients, interactions between X-rays and surrounding matter produce scatter radiation, which is the primary source of radiation exposure to personnel. Repeated exposure is associated with increased lifetime risk of cancer, cataracts, thyroid issues including cancer, and fertility issues [6].
Radiation dose is measured in various units, including millirem (mrem) [5]. For context:
A benefit of the mini C-arm is that it emits less radiation than a standard-sized C-arm [8, 9]. In pediatric studies of distal forearm reductions performed with mini C-arm fluoroscopy, the estimated radiation exposure per case ranged from approximately 30 to 80 mrem, with lower exposures observed when trainees had completed radiation safety training, likely reflecting behavioral changes including fewer image acquisitions and shorter fluoroscopy activation [10]. Thus image acquisition should be intentional to reduce unnecessary radiation to both patients and personnel.
Radiation exposure follows the inverse square law, where if you double your distance from the X-ray source, you reduce exposure by one-fourth the original intensity. When possible, standing further away (at least 1 meter) from the X-ray source is recommended to reduce exposure (Figure 6) [5].
Additionally, use of radiation protective equipment such as lead aprons, thyroid shields, and leaded glasses, can significantly attenuate scatter radiation [8]. See Figure 7.

Figure 6: Inverse square law of radiation

Figure 7: Radiation protective equipment
You are rotating through orthopedics and holding the consult pager. A 30-year-old patient presents to the ED after falling on their right outstretched hand, resulting in a deformity to the right distal forearm.
On examination, the skin appears intact and distal neurovascular exam is normal. Formal three-view wrist radiographs show an impacted, dorsally angulated transverse distal radius fracture without intra-articular extension.
Your senior recommends a reduction under fluoroscopy with your assistance. You perform a hematoma block, apply finger traps, and suspend the extremity vertically under ~10 lbs of traction. While the arm remains in traction, you bring the mini C-arm into the room and apply lead shields.
Obtaining images:
Note: Since the forearm is suspended in traction, sometimes you will need to rotate the mini C-arm around the extremity to obtain the correct alignment, instead of manipulating the arm.

Figure 8: Illustrated mini C-arm image of a distal radius fracture in posteroanterior view

Figure 9: Illustrated mini C-arm image of a distal radius fracture in lateral view
Important radiographic measurements:
In these views, assess radiographic parameters such as radial height, radial inclination, ulnar variance, and volar versus dorsal angulation angles (Supplemental Figures 1 and 2).
Post-reduction imaging:
Once the fracture appears appropriately reduced, obtain repeat C-arm images prior to applying a splint (Figure 10). After splint placement, obtain another set of images to confirm the reduction was maintained. Finally, order a formal post-reduction three-view wrist radiograph.

Figure 10: Illustrated mini C-arm images of a post-reduction distal radius fracture
Before using a mini C-arm, clinicians should confirm that they are appropriately credentialed and permitted to operate the device under local or state regulations, as fluoroscopy use laws differ across states and countries. Alternatively, a fluoroscopy credentialed radiation technologist can operate the device while the clinician performs the reduction.
Mini C-arms are a useful imaging modality available in select emergency departments. With an understanding of proper device operation and radiographic concepts such as image projection and radiation safety, the mini C-arm can be an effective tool to facilitate procedures such as distal radius fracture reduction. Although ultrasound remains the primary imaging modality for many procedures in the emergency department, the mini C-arm may potentially be a useful adjunct in other ED procedures such as joint aspirations and could warrant future exploration.

A new international pooled analysis challenges the age-old dogma that all febrile infants 0-28 days require a lumbar puncture (LP). Can the PECARN febrile infant prediction rule safely identify a low-risk subset for invasive bacterial illnesses (bacterial meningitis and bacteremia) [1]?
For more than four decades, the standard of care for febrile infants in the first month of life has been aggressive: full sepsis workup (including an LP), admission, and IV antibiotics. A new study in JAMA suggests this paradigm may be shifting [2, 3].
To answer this question, the authors performed 2 distinct analyses:
An infant ≤28 days old is low risk if they meet all 3 criteria:
|
The prevalence of Invasive Bacterial Infections (IBI) in all studied patients was 4.5%.
| Metric | Primary Analysis of 4 International Cohorts (95% CI) | Secondary Analysis of 4 International + 2 US PECARN Cohorts (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|
| Total Infants | 1,537 | 2,531 |
| Classified as “Low Risk” | 632 (41.1%) | 1,079 (42.6%) |
| Sensitivity | 94.2% (85.6–97.8%) |
94.8% (88.1–97.8%) |
| Specificity | 41.6% (36.7–46.7%) |
43.3% (38.7–48.0%) |
| Negative Predictive Value (NPV) | 99.4% (98.1–99.8%) |
99.6% (98.7–99.9%) |
| Positive Predictive Value (PPV) | 6.9% ( 4.8–9.9%) | 6.1% (4.5–8.2%) |
| Missed Meningitis Cases | 0 (out of 11 cases) | 0 (out of 22 cases) |
| Missed Bacteremia Cases | 4 (5.8% of IBI cases) | 5 (5.3% of IBI cases) |
One of the most compelling arguments for using this rule is the statistical trade-off required to find a single missed case. The authors provide estimated Negative Predictive Values (NPV) across a range of disease prevalences.
If we assume a 1.00% prevalence of bacterial meningitis (which is conservative; the study observed 0.7%), the NPV for bacterial meningitis is 99.95% [2].
This means that for every 10,000 PECARN low-risk infants, 9,995 do not have bacterial meningitis, and 5 might. We can translate this into a “Number Needed to Tap” (NNT) to find one missed case:
Bottom Line: You would hypothetically need to perform 2,000 lumbar punctures on low-risk infants to find ONE case of bacterial meningitis that the rule missed.
Before applying these findings, we need to understand the strict inclusion criteria. This study—and the PECARN rule itself—was only validated on a specific population.
The “Must-Have” Checklist:
If you are already using the PECARN rule for older infants (29–60 days), you likely use it to rule out Serious Bacterial Infections (SBIs), which includes urinary tract infections (UTIs) [1].
This study is different – it focused purely on invasive bacterial infections (IBIs), which is defined as bacteremia and/or bacterial meningitis.
The rule had perfect sensitivity for bacterial meningitis, but it did miss 5 cases of bacteremia out of more than 2,500 infants ≤28 days old despite a low-risk stratification. Let’s look at the 5 cases classified as “missed bacteremia:
The authors note that S. aureus in blood cultures can be a contaminant rather than a true pathogen. If these S. aureus cases were indeed contaminants, the true sensitivity of the rule would be even higher than reported.
Notably, all 5 cases of missed bacteremia occurred in infants aged 8-21 days. There were 0 missed bacteremia cases in the 22-28 day age group.
To understand why this study is a big deal, we have to look at what the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines currently tells us to do. The new data exposes a potential practice shift specifically for infants in the third week of life (8–21 days).
| Age Group | Current AAP Guidelines (2021) | New PECARN Data (2025) | Bottom Line for Practice |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0–7 Days |
Excluded Standard of care is full sepsis workup (including LP), IV antibiotics, and admission. |
Technically Included Rule missed 0 cases of IBI in this age group, but sample size was smaller (~15% of cohort). |
No Change Due to perinatal risks and smaller sample sizes, the full sepsis workup remains a safe standard of care. |
| 8–21 Days |
• Action: Routine LP required • Strategy: Full sepsis workup (including LP), IV antibiotics, and admission • Reasoning: Previously considered insufficient data |
Potential to Defer LP • Meningitis: 0 missed cases • Bacteremia: 5 missed cases (all occurred in the 8–21 day window). • Nuance: High sensitivity for meningitis challenges the mandatory LP rule, but missed bacteremia warrants caution. |
Proceed with Caution While you might safely skip the LP (since 0 infants with bacterial meningitis were missed), the risk of missed bacteremia suggests these infants still require close monitoring. A reasonable approach for a well-appearing infant with normal inflammatory markers and urinalysis might be to skip the LP, give no antibiotics, but still hospitalize for observation. |
| 22–28 Days |
• Action: Risk stratify • Strategy: Defer LP if inflammatory markers are normal. • Reasoning: Biomarkers considered reliable risk stratification tools for meningitis. |
Evidence to Defer LP • Meningitis: 0 missed cases • Bacteremia: 0 missed cases |
Strong Validation This study supports the AAP’s existing recommendation: Skip the LP if all the PECARN criteria (UA, ANC, PCT) are negative, but admit for observation. |
For the first time, we have high-quality, multi-national data suggesting that a routine LP may not be necessary for every febrile infant ≤28 days old. While guidelines have not officially changed, this study provides the evidence needed to support shared decision-making with caregivers.
We can now honestly tell parents: “Based on these blood and urine tests, the chance of your baby having bacterial meningitis is extremely low—likely less than 1 in 2,000. We can safely hold off on the spinal tap and antibiotics right now and admit for observation.”
That is a conversation we couldn’t have yesterday.

The patient is a 47-year-old female whose past medical history includes ESRD on dialysis, type 1 diabetes, and hypertension, who presents to the Emergency Department for uncontrollable right-sided movements of her body. The patient states these symptoms have been present for several weeks and have progressively worsened over the past week. She reports difficulty with ambulation secondary to these involuntary movements of the right side of her body. She denies any missed dialysis sessions. She denies fever, headaches, sensory problems, or any other complaints at this time.

The patient is an 82-year-old female who presents to the Emergency Department after an unwitnessed fall from standing approximately 2 hours prior to arrival. The patient states that she thinks she lost her balance and fell, striking her face. She denies loss of consciousness or any antecedent dizziness or presyncopal symptoms, but has limited recollection of the event. At presentation, she reports pain to the left side of the face, a laceration to the left side of her face, and decreased vision in her left eye. She has no other complaints at this time and denies any other injuries.

The patient is a 72-year-old male with a history of CAD, hypertension, and BPH who presents to the Emergency Department for sinus congestion and right-sided facial pain. The patient reports progressively worsening darkening crusting around his nose for 3 weeks. He has also had a right-sided temporal and retrobulbar headache, blurry vision in right eye, diminished sense of smell, and right sided numbness to the roof of his mouth for the past week. He was prescribed amoxicillin and nasal steroid spray four days ago without improvement. He denies any recent illness, hospitalizations, travel, HIV risk factors, or any other complaints at this time.

The patient is a 30-year-old female who presents to the Emergency Department with severe left foot pain after snorkeling in shallow water off the coast of Phuket, Thailand. She reports a sudden onset of pain as she was kicking her legs while swimming. She describes the pain as burning in nature across the top of her foot, which worsens with weight bearing, though she can bear weight. She also complaints of multiple discolorations on the dorsum of her left foot since the pain began.