Adherence to the guidelines of paediatric cervical spine clearance in a level I trauma centre: A single centre experience

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.

Awareness and use of five imaging decision rules for musculoskeletal injuries: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Several validated decision rules are available for clinicians to guide the appropriate use of imaging for patients with musculoskeletal injuries, including the Canadian CT Head Rule, Canadian C-Spine Rule, National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) guideline, Ottawa Ankle Rules and Ottawa Knee Rules. However, it is unclear to what extent clinicians are aware of the rules and are using these five rules in practice.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the proportion of clinicians that are aware of five imaging decision rules and the proportion that use them in practice.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

This was a systematic review conducted in accordance with the 'Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses' (PRISMA) statement. We performed searches in MEDLINE (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and Scopus databases to identify observational and experimental studies with data on the following outcomes among clinicians related to five validated imaging decision rules: awareness, use, attitudes, knowledge, and barriers and facilitators to implementation. Where possible, we pooled data using medians to summarise these outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 39 studies. Studies were conducted in 15 countries (e.g. the USA, Canada, the UK, Australasia, New Zealand) and included various clinician types (e.g. emergency physicians, emergency nurses and nurse practitioners). Among the five decision rules, clinicians' awareness was highest for the Canadian C-Spine Rule (84%, n = 3 studies) and lowest for the Ottawa Knee Rules (18%, n = 2). Clinicians' use was highest for NEXUS (median percentage ranging from 7 to 77%, n = 4) followed by Canadian C-Spine Rule (56-71%, n = 7 studies) and lowest for the Ottawa Knee Rules which ranged from 18 to 58% (n = 4).

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that awareness of the five imaging decision rules is low. Changing clinicians' attitudes and knowledge towards these decision rules and addressing barriers to their implementation could increase use.

Paediatric trauma imaging in a regional Queensland hospital: Do we need clearer guidance?

OBJECTIVE

Paediatric trauma is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in those aged 0-14. Anatomical and physiological differences require a specialised approach to paediatric trauma care. Medical imaging, particularly computed tomography (CT) scans, requires specific consideration because of the consequences of radiation exposure in the paediatric population. The present study compares current practice of CT scan ordering in paediatric trauma patients at a regional Australian hospital against consensus guidelines published in the UK.

METHODS

A retrospective audit of paediatric trauma CT scans referred from the ED from May 2017 to May 2018 was completed. Details relating to CT scan ordering were reviewed and compliance with the Royal College of Radiologists Paediatric trauma protocols, was determined. Descriptive statistics and χ² tests comparing those that met and did not meet guidelines were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 71 CT scans were included with an overall compliance rate of 56.3%. Specific regional compliance was lowest with CT neck at 14%. Patients where a trauma call was initiated were more likely to receive a full body (pan) scan rather than region specific imaging. Compliance improved when paediatric team involvement was documented.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence-based guidelines for CT imaging in paediatric trauma are essential to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure for children. The present study has demonstrated that current practice has the potential to be improved and that decisions should involve a multidisciplinary team.

Implementation of a dual cervical spine and blunt cerebrovascular injury assessment pathway for pediatric trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Pediatric cervical spine (CSI) and blunt cerebrovascular injuries (BCVI) are challenging to evaluate as they are rare but carry high morbidity and mortality. CT scans are the traditional imaging modality to evaluate for CSI/BCVI, but involve radiation exposure and potential future increased risk of malignancy. Therefore, we present results from the implementation of a combined CSI/BCVI pediatric trauma clinical pathway to aid clinicians in their decision-making.

METHODS

We conducted a 2-year retrospective cohort study analyzing data pre and post implementation of the combined CSI/BCVI pathway. Data was obtained from a level 1 pediatric trauma center and included blunt trauma patients under the age of 14. We evaluated the use of cervical spine computed tomography (CT), CT angiography, and plain radiographs, as well as missed injuries and provider pathway adherence.

RESULTS

We included 358 patients: 209 pre-pathway and 149 post-pathway implementation. Patient mean age was 8.9 years and 61% were male (61% males). There were no significant differences in GCS, AIS, and ISS between pre and post pathway groups. Post pathway implementation saw reduced use of cervical spine CT, although this was not clinically significant (33% vs 31%, p = 0.74). However, cervical spine radiography use increased (9% vs 16%, p = 0.03), and there was also an increase in screening for BCVI injuries with higher use of CTA (5% vs 7%, p = 0.52). A total of 12 CSI and 3 BCVI were identified with no missed injuries. Provider adherence to the pathway was modest (54%). Conclusion Implementation of a combined CSI/BCVI clinical pathway for pediatric trauma patients increased screening radiography and did not miss any injuries. However, CT use did not significantly decrease and provider adherence was modest, supporting the need for further implementation analysis and larger studies to validate the pathway's sensitivity and specificity for CSI/BCVI.

Increased and unjustified CT usage in paediatric C-spine clearance in a level 2 trauma centre

PURPOSE

Cervical spine injury after blunt trauma in children is rare but can have severe consequences. Clear protocols for diagnostic workup are, therefore, needed, but currently not available. As a step in developing such a protocol, we determined the incidence of cervical spine injury and the degree of protocol adherence at our level 2 trauma centre.

METHODS

We analysed data from all patients aged < 16 years suspected of cervical spine injury after blunt trauma who had presented to our hospital during two periods: January 2010 to June 2012, and January 2017 to June 2019. In the intervening period, the imaging protocol for diagnostic workup was updated. Outcomes were the incidence of cervical spine injury and protocol adherence in terms of the indication for imaging and the type of imaging.

RESULTS

We included 170 children in the first study period and 83 in the second. One patient was diagnosed with cervical spine injury. Protocol adherence regarding the indication for imaging was > 80% in both periods. Adherence regarding the imaging type decreased over time, with 45.8% of the patients receiving a primary CT scan in the second study period versus 2.9% in the first.

CONCLUSION

Radiographic imaging is frequently performed when clearing the paediatric cervical spine, although cervical spine injury is rare. Particularly CT scan usage has wrongly been emerging over time. Stricter adherence to current protocols could limit overuse of radiographic imaging, but ultimately there is a need for an accurate rule predicting which children really are at risk of injury.