Dear Editor in Chief

In-depth research is conducted in the paper, “The role of secondary imaging in children aged under 24 months with proven skull fracture on initial computed tomography scan” to determine whether repeat imaging is required and beneficial for young children who have experienced mild blunt force head trauma and have been initially diagnosed with a skull fracture (SF) using computed tomography (CT) [1]. The study tackles a fundamental clinical topic about managing such situations, specifically the value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after an initial CT scan. This study is important because it shows that a considerable percentage of patients, even in cases with modest head injuries, have new intracranial abnormalities on follow-up MRI, underscoring the importance of careful monitoring in this susceptible age group. The paper’s emphasis on a particular and high-risk group children under 24 months old who are especially vulnerable to brain injuries and skull fractures because of physiological traits including weaker cranial bones, is one of its strongest points. The meticulous technique employed by the authors, encompassing a thorough examination of clinical symptoms, risk factors, and outcomes, offers significant insights into the potential development patterns of cerebral injuries subsequent to an initial trauma. The results of the research highlight the need of repeat imaging in making sure no postponed injuries are missed, potentially preventing major problems such brain herniation. Of particular, the high proportion of new MRI findings in children with skull fractures is notable. The analysis’s shortcomings, such as its retrospective methodology and single-center setting, may impair the result’s generalizability. Furthermore, even though the authors stress the advantages of repeat imaging, they also recognize its potential drawbacks, such as the necessity of sedation for young children undergoing MRIs. Notwithstanding these drawbacks, the study significantly advances paediatric neurosurgery by offering proof in favour of secondary imaging in some high-risk situations, ultimately leading to better clinical judgments on the treatment of juvenile head trauma [2].