Cervical collars and immobilisation: A South African best practice recommendation

Triage tools for detecting cervical spine injury in paediatric trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Paediatric cervical spine injury (CSI) after blunt trauma is rare but can have severe consequences. Clinical decision rules (CDRs) have been developed to guide clinical decision-making, minimise unnecessary tests and associated risks, whilst detecting all significant CSIs. Several validated CDRs are used to guide imaging decision-making in adults following blunt trauma and clinical criteria have been proposed as possible paediatric-specific CDRs. Little information is known about their accuracy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy of CDRs or sets of clinical criteria, alone or in comparison with each other, for the evaluation of CSI following blunt trauma in children.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases from 1 January 2015 to 13 December 2022. As we expanded the index test eligibility for this review update, we searched the excluded studies from the previous version of the review for eligibility. We contacted field experts to identify ongoing studies and studies potentially missed by the search. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included cross-sectional or cohort designs (retrospective and prospective) and randomised controlled trials that compared the diagnostic accuracy of any CDR or clinical criteria compared with a reference standard for the evaluation of paediatric CSI following blunt trauma. We included studies evaluating one CDR or comparing two or more CDRs (directly and indirectly). We considered X-ray, computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the cervical spine, and clinical clearance/follow-up as adequate reference standards.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance, and carried out eligibility, data extraction and quality assessment. A third review author arbitrated. We extracted data on study design, participant characteristics, inclusion/exclusion criteria, index test, target condition, reference standard and data (diagnostic two-by-two tables) and calculated and plotted sensitivity and specificity on forest plots for visual examination of variation in test accuracy. We assessed methodological quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Version 2 tool. We graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies with 21,379 enrolled participants, published between 2001 and 2021. Prevalence of CSI ranged from 0.5% to 1.85%. Seven CDRs were evaluated. Three studies reported on direct comparisons of CDRs. One study (973 participants) directly compared the accuracy of three index tests with the sensitivities of NEXUS, Canadian C-Spine Rule and the PECARN retrospective criteria being 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 1.00), 1.00 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.00) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.00), respectively. The specificities were 0.56 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.59), 0.52 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.55) and 0.32 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.35), respectively (moderate-certainty evidence). One study (4091 participants) compared the accuracy of the PECARN retrospective criteria with the Leonard de novo model; the sensitivities were 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.96) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.97), respectively. The specificities were 0.46 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.47) and 0.50 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.52) (moderate- and low-certainty evidence, respectively). One study (270 participants) compared the accuracy of two NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) head injury guidelines; the sensitivity of the CG56 guideline was 1.00 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.00) compared to 1.00 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.00) with the CG176 guideline. The specificities were 0.46 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.52) and 0.07 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), respectively (very low-certainty evidence). Two additional studies were indirect comparison studies. One study (3065 participants) tested the accuracy of the NEXUS criteria; the sensitivity was 1.00 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.00) and specificity was 0.20 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.21) (low-certainty evidence). One retrospective study (12,537 participants) evaluated the PEDSPINE criteria and found a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.99) and specificity of 0.70 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.72) (very low-certainty evidence). We did not pool data within the broader CDR categories or investigate heterogeneity due to the small quantity of data and the clinical heterogeneity of studies. Two studies were at high risk of bias. We identified two studies that are awaiting classification pending further information and two ongoing studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine the diagnostic test accuracy of CDRs to detect CSIs in children following blunt trauma, particularly for children under eight years of age. Although most studies had a high sensitivity, this was often achieved at the expense of low specificity and should be interpreted with caution due to a small number of CSIs and wide CIs. Well-designed, large studies are required to evaluate the accuracy of CDRs for the cervical spine clearance in children following blunt trauma, ideally in direct comparison with each other.

Knowledge, attitude, and practices regarding cervical collars in adult trauma patients amongst practitioners at three hospitals in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa

Background

The use of cervical collars in adult patients with possible injuries to the cervical spine has been an accepted standard of care for many years, despite the absence of evidence for the efficacy of these devices in preventing unwanted movement and harm. Changes to the terminology and recommendations of major trauma guidelines have been made but are limited by low quality evidence. In this context, little is known about what practitioners know, believe, and do, when managing the cervical spine of trauma patients.

Methods

In this quantitative, observational, descriptive, cross-sectional survey a specifically designed questionnaire was used to collect data on the knowledge, attitude, and practices of practitioners managing adult trauma patients regarding cervical collars at three hospitals in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

Results

A total of 128 completed questionnaires were collected, captured, and analysed. Participants with the additional qualification of ATLS and DipPEC had a mean knowledge score of 8.1 (SD=1.70), compared to those with no additional qualification of 4.5 (SD=1.9) (p<0.001). Participants in the Emergency Department (ED) attained a mean knowledge score of 7.1 (SD=2.2) followed by Surgery (Mean=6, SD=2.0), Orthopaedics (Mean=5.5, SD=1.7) and ICU/Anaesthetics (Mean=4.4, SD=1.8), p<0.001. Head blocks only were most frequently used by 97.4 % of ED, 55.6 % of Surgery, 3.8 % Orthopaedic and 22.2 % ICU/Anaesthetics participants (p<0.001).

Conclusion

The knowledge of management principles of cervical spine injuries was influenced by the department in which practitioners worked, the frequency that they managed patients with suspected injuries and additional courses. Head blocks were the most frequently used spinal protection device in all three hospitals. Most participants would be open to a change in practice if new guidelines were recommended. Further research is needed to determine the optimal management of patients with suspected cervical spine injuries and the role of motion restriction devices in limiting movement of the injured spine.

Factors which affect the application and implementation of a spinal motion restriction protocol by prehospital providers in a low resource setting: A scoping review

·

There is a need for a patient-centred approach to the prehospital spinal management approach, which considers the associated risks, available personnel and limited resources.

·

There is limited evidence supporting the use of the NEXUS and CCR decision tools in the prehospital setting.

·

Prehospital spinal motion restriction decision tools should focus on reducing unnecessary spinal motion restriction and its associated adverse effects

·

Developing a decision tool with more context-specific prehospital instructions for selective spinal motion restriction is of value.

Introduction

The safety and effectiveness of prehospital clinical c-spine clearance or spinal motion restriction (SMR) decision support tools are unclear. The present study aimed to examine the available literature on clinical cervical spine clearance and selective SMR decision support tools to identify possible barriers to implementation, safety, and effectiveness when used by emergency medical service (EMS) practitioners.

Method

We performed a focused scoping review of published literature on the prehospital use of clinical c-spine clearance and SMR decision tools in adult blunt trauma patients. The Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, Turning Research into Practice and EBSCOhost online databases were searched (February 2021). The type of decision support tool and facilitators and barriers to its use were extracted from each included publication in accordance with a modified descriptive-analytical framework. Extracted data were subjected to thematic analysis.

Results

Following screening, forty-two articles were included in this scoping review. No studies conducted specifically in low resource settings were found. The majority of articles (57%) evaluated the use of specific SMR decision support tools, such as the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) and the Canadian C-spine Rule (CCR). Potential facilitators of safe and effective use were identified in 60%, and potential barriers to safe and effective use in 55% of included articles. Only one study evaluated the CCR when used by EMS practitioners, making it difficult to determine its appropriateness for implementation in the prehospital setting.

Conclusion

This is the first scoping review, to our knowledge, that has attempted to identify the possible barriers and facilitators to their implementation, safety, and effectiveness when used by EMS practitioners. Key issues identified included terminology, guideline compliance and implementation, and a lack of context-specific evidence. These may provide important considerations for future guideline development.

Cervical immobilization in trauma patients: soft collars better than rigid collars? A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Rigid cervical spine following trauma immobilization is recommended to reduce neurological disability and provide spinal stability. Soft collars have been proposed as a good alternative because of the complications related to rigid collars. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review on soft and rigid collars in the prehospital management of cervical trauma.

METHOD

A systematic review was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. Search terms were (immobilization) AND (collar) AND ((neck) OR (cervical)) to evaluate the range of motion (ROM) and evidence of clinical outcome for soft and rigid collars.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies met eligibility criteria including 2 clinical studies and 16 articles investigating the range of motion (ROM). Four hundred and ninety-six patients at a mean age of 32.5 years (SD 16.8) were included. Measurements were performed in a seated position in twelve studies. Eight articles reported the ROM without a collar, 7 with a soft collar, and 15 with a rigid collar. There was no significant difference in flexion/extension, bending and rotation following immobilization with soft collars compared to no collar. Rigid collars provided significantly higher stability compared to no collar (p < 0.005) and to soft collars in flexion/extension and rotation movements (p < 0.05). The retrospective clinical studies showed no significant differences in secondary spinal cord injuries for soft collar (0.5%) and for rigid collar (1.1%). One study, comparing immobilization without a collar compared to that with a rigid collar, found a significant difference in neurologic deficiency and supraclavicular nerve lesion.

CONCLUSION

Although rigid collars provide significant higher stability to no collar and to soft collars in flexion/ extension and rotation movements, clinical studies could not confirm a difference in neurological outcome.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II, Systematic Review.

The Impact of a Cervical Collar on Intracranial Pressure in Traumatic Brain Injury Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: Although the use of a cervical collar in the prehospital setting is recommended to prevent secondary spinal cord injuries and ensure spinal immobilization, it is not known what effects this has on raising intracranial pressure (ICP) in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. In the absence of studies measuring ICP in the prehospital setting, the aim of this study was to systematically review the data related to ICP changes measured after presentation at the hospital in patients who had arrived wearing cervical collars. Methods: We searched Medline (PubMed), Embase, CINAHL, and Google Scholar for studies that investigated in-hospital ICP changes in TBI patients arriving at the hospital wearing collars. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were then searched for inclusion in the study. A narrative synthesis, as well as a meta-analysis, was performed. Results: Of the 1006 studies identified, only three met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The quality of the three included studies was moderate and the risk of bias was low. All three studies used the Laerdal Stifneck collar, but all studies showed an increase in ICP after application of the collar. A further three studies that measured ICP but did not fit the systematic search were also included due to low patient numbers. A meta-analysis of the pooled data confirmed a significant increase in ICP, although between the four studies, only 77 patients were included. The meta-analysis also confirmed that after removal of the collar, there was a significant decrease in ICP. Conclusions: Our study suggests that the use of a cervical collar increases ICP in TBI and head injury patients, which may have detrimental effects. However, due to the extremely low sample size from all six studies, caution must be exercised when interpreting these data. Thus, further high-quality research is necessary to unequivocally clarify whether cervical collars should be used in patients with TBI.

Extrication techniques of entrapped car crash victims: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

to summarize the extrication techniques of entrapped car crash victims with potential spinal injury.

METHOD

a literature review study, of scoping review type, using the MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and gray literature data sources, without time frame, with studies that addressed extricating techniques extrication of entrapped car crash victims.

RESULTS

a total of 33 studies were included that enabled identifying and summarizing the different types of extrication and respective devices for extrication of entrapped car crash victims, indicated according to injury assessment and the victim's clinical condition. All pointed to the need for techniques to maintain neutral alignment and prevent spine twists.

CONCLUSION

this study indicated that injury assessment with an emphasis on the victim's clinical condition provides a coherent decision-making regarding the technique and device to be used. However, carrying out other comparative studies between existing techniques may help in the decision-making process more assertively.

Evidence-Based Nursing Care for Spinal Nursing Immobilization: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

A high degree of suspicion for spinal injury after trauma is commonplace in an emergency department, and spinal immobilization is considered an accepted intervention to prevent the progression of a potential injury. This systematic review was conducted to gain insight into the best research evidence related to nursing interventions for patients with trauma presenting with a suspected spinal injury.

METHODS

A systematic search of online databases was conducted in April 2019 for relevant research using specific search terms. The studies were selected on the basis of pre-established eligibility criteria, and the quality was appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool.

RESULTS

Nineteen included articles were synthesized thematically on the basis of the outcomes from interventions directed at a suspected spinal injury. The main findings were that spinal immobilization may compromise pulmonary function and airway management, cause pain and pressure ulcers, and be inappropriate with penetrating trauma. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence to support the safety and efficacy of the hard neck collar and long backboard.

DISCUSSION

Patients would benefit from a more selective and cautious approach to spinal immobilization. Emergency nurses should use the evidence to facilitate informed decision-making in balancing the benefits of spinal immobilization against harm when considering the needs and values of the patient.

A profile of traumatic brain injuries and associated cervical spine injuries at a regional hospital in the KwaZulu-Natal Province

Background

Clearing the cervical spine in an unconscious blunt trauma patient is an elusive concept. The aim of this study was to describe the incidence of cervical spine injury (CSI) in patients with a traumatic brain injury (TBI). The study was conducted on patients who underwent imaging of both the cervical spine and the brain in one sitting at a busy government healthcare facility in Pietermaritzburg.

Methods

This was a retrospective, cross sectional study of all the trauma patients presenting to a regional hospital emergency department (ED) in the KwaZulu-Natal (KZN) Province, who underwent computed tomography (CT) imaging of the brain and the cervical spine in one sitting during the period January 2016 to June 2016.

Results

Adult males formed the majority (78.9%) of the study population and had the highest incidence of TBI, the most common identified pathology in CT being parenchymal injuries (41%). The mechanisms that resulted in the majority of injuries sustained were assault (38.7%) and motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) (25%), while seven patients (4.76%) had a combined diagnosis of TBI and CSI. The average Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) was 12.

Conclusion

Young adult males are at the greatest risk of sustaining TBI, with assault being the most common mechanism of injury. Combined diagnoses of TBI and CSI are rare and were mostly noted in patients involved in MVCs and pedestrian vehicle collisions. While the chance of an abnormal CT scan increased with a decreasing GCS score, 33% of patients with a mild TBI did not have abnormal CT findings, and 25% patients with severe TBI had no abnormal CT findings.

Systematic Review of Evidence-Based Guidelines for Prehospital Care

Introduction: Multiple national organizations have identified a need to incorporate more evidence-based medicine in emergency medical services (EMS) through the creation of evidence-based guidelines (EBGs). Tools like the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and criteria outlined by the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) have established concrete recommendations for the development of high-quality guidelines. While many guidelines have been created that address topics within EMS medicine, neither the quantity nor quality of prehospital EBGs have been previously reported. Objectives: To perform a systematic review to identify existing EBGs related to prehospital care and evaluate the quality of these guidelines using the AGREE II tool and criteria for clinical guidelines described by the NAM. Methods: We performed a systematic search of the literature in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMED, Trip, and guidelines.gov, through September 2018. Guideline topics were categorized based on the 2019 Core Content of EMS Medicine. Two independent reviewers screened titles for relevance and then abstracts for essential guideline features. Included guidelines were appraised with the AGREE II tool across 6 domains by 3 independent reviewers and scores averaged. Two additional reviewers determined if each guideline reported the key elements of clinical practice guidelines recommended by the NAM via consensus. Results: We identified 71 guidelines, of which 89% addressed clinical aspects of EMS medicine. Only 9 guidelines scored >75% across AGREE II domains and most (63%) scored between 50 and 75%. Domain 4 (Clarity of Presentation) had the highest (79.7%) and domain 5 (Applicability) had the lowest average score across EMS guidelines. Only 38% of EMS guidelines included a reporting of all criteria identified by the NAM for clinical practice guidelines, with elements of a systematic review of the literature most commonly missing. Conclusions: EBGs exist addressing a variety of topics in EMS medicine. This systematic review and appraisal of EMS guidelines identified a wide range in the quality of these guidelines and variable reporting of key elements of clinical guidelines. Future guideline developers should consider established methodological and reporting recommendations to improve the quality of EMS guidelines.