Evaluation of distracting pain and clinical judgment in cervical spine clearance of trauma patients

National emergency X-radiography utilization study guidelines versus Canadian C-Spine guidelines on trauma patients, a prospective analytical study

INTRODUCTION

The most common cause of hospital emergency department visits is trauma resulting from a variety of underlying mechanisms. Unknown neck and spinal cord injuries and a lack of early diagnosis can have catastrophic consequences, such as paralysis of some or all limbs. The use of imaging techniques reduces the number of patients suffering from severe injuries.

OBJECTIVE

To assess and compare the effectiveness and ease of utilizing two different sets of guidelines, the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study guidelines (NEXUS) and the Canadian C-Spine guidelines (CCR), on trauma patients.

METHODS

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. Of all the patients presenting to the hospital, 200 trauma patients were randomly included in the study. NEXUS and CCR were surveyed for each patient, and subsequent radiographies were also requested. The specificity and sensitivity of each of the methods was calculated, and the two methods were compared using Kendall's W test.

RESULTS

A total of 200 trauma patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. A total of 69.5% of the patients were male, and 30.5% were female. According to NEXUS guidelines, 47.5% of the patients were required to undergo neck radiography. According to CCR guidelines, 57.5% of the patients were required to undergo neck radiography. The sensitivity was found to be 90% for neck radiography by both NEXUS and CCR guidelines, while specificities were found to be 54.73% and 44.2% for NEXUS and CCR guidelines, respectively.

CONCLUSION

This study showed that the two guidelines have the same sensitivity for evaluating which trauma patients need to undergo radiography. It seems that the NEXUS guidelines have the same effectiveness as CCR for determining which trauma patients need to undergo radiography. They also perform better than CCR guidelines in terms of ruling out which cases need no further radiologic investigation.

Cervical spine evaluation in the bluntly injured patient

BACKGROUND

Cervical spine injuries causing spinal cord trauma are rare in blunt trauma yet lead to devastating morbidity and mortality when they occur. There exists considerable debate in the literature about the best way for clinicians to proceed in ruling out cervical spine injuries in alert or obtunded blunt trauma patients.

METHODS

We reviewed the current literature and practice management guidelines to generate clinical recommendations for the detection and clearance of cervical spine injuries in the blunt trauma patient.

RESULTS

The NEXUS and Canadian C-Spine Rules are clinical tools to guide in the clearance of the cervical spine of patients who have sustained low risk trauma and who are pain free, with the Canadian C-Spine Rules having superior sensitivity and specificity. In the alert, high risk patient with pain (or without, if over the age of 65 years), follow up imaging is required. The best imaging modality to use is Computerized Tomography (CT) of the cervical spine. In the obtunded trauma patient, CT clearance of c-spine injury is adequate, unless there is soft tissue injury or any non-bony abnormalities detected. At such point, definitive clearance may be obtained with Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).

CONCLUSIONS

It is imperative to assume cervical spine injury in the blunt trauma patient. Clinical decision rules for cervical clearance may be used in low risk patients, avoiding imaging. High risk patients require imaging in the form of CT scan of the cervical spine.

Cervical spine collar clearance in the obtunded adult blunt trauma patient: a systematic review and practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma

BACKGROUND

With the use of the framework advocated by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group, our aims were to perform a systematic review and to develop evidence-based recommendations that may be used to answer the following PICO [Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes] question:In the obtunded adult blunt trauma patient, should cervical collar removal be performed after a negative high-quality cervical spine (C-spine) computed tomography (CT) result alone or after a negative high-quality C-spine CT result combined with adjunct imaging, to reduce peri-clearance events, such as new neurologic change, unstable C-spine injury, stable C-spine injury, need for post-clearance imaging, false-negative CT imaging result on re-review, pressure ulcers, and time to cervical collar clearance?

METHODS

Our protocol was registered with the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews on August 23, 2013 (REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42013005461). Eligibility criteria consisted of adult blunt trauma patients 16 years or older, who underwent C-spine CT with axial thickness of less than 3 mm and who were obtunded using any definition.Quantitative synthesis via meta-analysis was not possible because of pre-post, partial-cohort, quasi-experimental study design limitations and the consequential incomplete diagnostic accuracy data.

RESULTS

Of five articles with a total follow-up of 1,017 included subjects, none reported new neurologic changes (paraplegia or quadriplegia) after cervical collar removal. There is a worst-case 9% (161 of 1,718 subjects in 11 studies) cumulative literature incidence of stable injuries and a 91% negative predictive value of no injury, after coupling a negative high-quality C-spine CT result with 1.5-T magnetic resonance imaging, upright x-rays, flexion-extension CT, and/or clinical follow-up. Similarly, there is a best-case 0% (0 of 1,718 subjects in 11 studies) cumulative literature incidence of unstable injuries after negative initial imaging result with a high-quality C-spine CT.

CONCLUSION

In obtunded adult blunt trauma patients, we conditionally recommend cervical collar removal after a negative high-quality C-spine CT scan result alone.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Systematic review, level III.

Evaluation and treatment of trauma related collapse in athletes

Although blunt traumatic injuries are common in athletes, life-threatening trauma is fortunately rare. Most current literature has focused on nontraumatic causes of athlete death though traumatic injuries may be more common. Although prevention of these injuries may be more difficult than nontraumatic causes, prompt recognition and treatment is paramount. Common traumatic causes of collapse athlete generally involve the head, neck, and trunk and are more frequent in collision sports. Other higher risk sports include track and field, cheerleading, snow sports, and those involving motorized vehicles. Health care providers who participate in sports coverage should be aware of the potential for these injuries as emergency treatment is required to maximize outcomes. Emergency action plans allow providers to expediently activate emergency management services while providing treatment and stabilization.

Prehospital use of cervical collars in trauma patients: a critical review

The cervical collar has been routinely used for trauma patients for more than 30 years and is a hallmark of state-of-the-art prehospital trauma care. However, the existing evidence for this practice is limited: Randomized, controlled trials are largely missing, and there are uncertain effects on mortality, neurological injury, and spinal stability. Even more concerning, there is a growing body of evidence and opinion against the use of collars. It has been argued that collars cause more harm than good, and that we should simply stop using them. In this critical review, we discuss the pros and cons of collar use in trauma patients and reflect on how we can move our clinical practice forward. Conclusively, we propose a safe, effective strategy for prehospital spinal immobilization that does not include routine use of collars.