The use of plain images and computed tomography (CT) scans for the diagnosis and management of nasal fractures has been controversial. Several small studies have shown that use of these modalities is neither cost-effective nor beneficial to the patient or physician. Nasal fractures are usually evident and can be elicited by means of careful history taking and physical examination. Rarely is the radiologic confirmation of these injuries needed.[14] However, some clinicians still use plain images and CT scans, and the radiologist must understand some of the diagnostic pitfalls to reduce the rate of erroneous readings.[15, 16]
The legal value of an examination depends on the degree of medical findings supported by the examination results.[22] In isolated cases of nasal trauma, radiographs have a high number of false-negative results and a large, but unknown, number of false-positive results. Thus, the legal value is low because of the uncertain degree of confidence in the findings. Radiographic examinations of the nose have been known to fail in the assessment of nasal fractures.[22]
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/391863-overview
Much more at link. IMO, there were no convincing reasons to do any images.
Plain films (which is what kind of imaging the clinic likley has available, if they have any radiology services) would have yielded the
least reliable information. And there is no indication for CT or MRI that I can see so far.
Imaging would not have changed the treatment plan at THIS stage of the injury. Later on ( months to years later), if any kind of nasal surgery were contemplated, the appropriate work up would be done, with imaging.
I kind of don't understand why there is such importance being placed on having radiographic imaging to "prove" the injury. It was minor, with no other facial fractures suspected. That's enough for me to know. The injury existed, and it was not major (requiring hospitalization or surgery) within 24 hours of the incident.
and I am not as adept at the details.
