The routine use of arteriography for evaluating penetrating extremity injuries is undergoing reevaluation in the adult literature. Its role in children is less clear. Eighty-seven children treated for penetrating extremity trauma over a 5-year period were studied retrospectively to define the usefulness of arteriography. The ages ranged from 2 to 16 years. Twenty-four arteriograms were performed. Twelve were for patients who exhibited physical signs of vascular injury (diminished pulse, distal ischemia, expanding hematoma, or bruits/thrills over the wound). The other 12 were performed on asymptomatic children with wounds in proximity to major vessels. Two other patients with ongoing hemorrhage were taken directly to the operating room. Of the 12 arteriograms performed for abnormal physical signs, eight (67%) showed vascular injuries. None of the studies performed for proximity alone had abnormal results (P < .01). Ten of 10 patients with vascular injuries had abnormal physical findings, whereas only four of 77 patients without vascular injuries had abnormal findings (sensitivity 100%, specificity 95%). Eighty-five percent of patients have had follow-up in the pediatric surgery clinic, and no missed injuries or complications have been discovered. Timely diagnosis and repair is the cornerstone for successful management of vascular injuries. While the arteriogram is an important adjunct in patients who have abnormal physical findings, proximity to major vessels alone fails to identify patients at risk for significant injuries. Angiography may not be warranted in patients whose physical examination results are normal. Noninvasive modalities such as B-mode ultrasound and Doppler may have future application in the evaluation of these cases.