Cervical spine clearance protocols in Level I, II, and III trauma centers in California

Outcomes of Patients With Negative Cervical Imaging but Persistent Neck Tenderness Discharged With a Rigid Collar After Trauma

Introduction

It is not uncommon for patients with persistent neck pain after trauma despite negative cervical imaging to be discharged with a rigid collar. Protocols for these patients vary widely. Few studies have evaluated clinical outcomes after discharge. No studies have evaluated the patient’s experience in a cervical collar after discharge.

Methods

We evaluated adults with blunt trauma and negative cervical spine imaging who were discharged in a rigid cervical collar. Over a 19-month period, 45 patients were available for analyses. The primary outcome was any identified missed injuries after discharge. Secondary outcomes were the incidence of patients self-clearing from their collars and complications related to wearing a collar.

Results

There were no missed traumatic injuries on follow-up imaging. Twenty of 45 patients cleared themselves from the collar without a physician order. Twenty-four patients had their collars removed by a provider in the clinic between 1-84 days after injury. One patient removed the collar after being advised by a chiropractor. More than half of patients reported one or more complications from wearing the cervical collar including pain, skin irritation, problems sleeping, difficulty talking or swallowing.

Conclusions

Collar complications are frequent. Follow-up imaging did not change outpatient management. Our data suggests against the practice of discharging trauma patients home in a cervical collar with negative imaging and no focal neurologic deficit.

Is magnetic resonance imaging becoming the new computed tomography for cervical spine clearance? Trends in magnetic resonance imaging utilization at a Level I trauma center

BACKGROUND

Increasing evidence supports the limited use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for cervical spine (C-spine) clearance following blunt trauma. We sought to characterize the utilization of MRI of the C-spine at a Level I trauma center.

METHODS

All blunt trauma patients undergoing a computed tomography (CT) of the C-spine between January 2009 and December 2018 were reviewed. The CT and MRI results, demographics, clinical presentation, subspecialty consultations, and interventions were recorded. The MRI results were considered clinically significant if they resulted in cervical thoracic orthosis/halo placement or surgical intervention. Linear regression models were utilized to identify trends.

RESULTS

There were 9,101 patients that underwent a CT of the C-spine, with 513 (5.6%) being positive for an acute injury. MRI was obtained for 375 (4.1%) of patients. A linear increase in the proportion of patients undergoing an MRI was noted, from 0.9% in 2009 to 5.6% in 2018 (p < 0.01). Of the 513 patients with a positive CT, 290 (56.5%) had an MRI. In 40 (13.8%) of them, the CT demonstrated a minor injury. Clinically significant MRI findings were noted only in two (5.0%) of the 40 patients, and both had a neurologic deficit on initial examination. Of the 8,588 patients with a negative CT, 85 (1.0%) underwent an MRI. Of those, 9 (10.6%) had a clinically significant MRI with all but one presenting with a neurological deficit.

CONCLUSION

MRI is increasingly utilized for C-spine clearance following blunt trauma. MRI was exceedingly unlikely to demonstrate a clinically significant finding in the absence of a neurological deficit, when the CT was negative or included minor injuries. Trauma centers are encouraged to constantly evaluate their own practices and intervene with education and collaboration to limit the excessive use of unnecessary resources.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic/Care Management Study, Level III or IV. Diagnostic test, level IV.

Does prehospital spinal immobilization influence in hospital decision to obtain imaging after trauma?

IMPORTANCE

This study highlights the unnecessarily high suspicion for cervical spine injury among study providers and shows that cervical CT scans were more likely in patients who arrived to the emergency department wearing a cervical collar, even when clinically cleared for suspicion of cervical spine injury by the emergency department provider.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if patients with a cervical collar were more likely to undergo cervical spine imaging than those who arrived to the emergency department without a collar.

DESIGN

Adult trauma patients at a level 1 trauma center over 4 months (n = 1,438) were stratified by acuity (1,2, or 3), mechanism, and known injury cephalad to clavicles, defined as pain, wounds, or hematomas. Cervical spine imaging findings were recorded.

RESULTS

975 patients (67.8%) had cervical CT scans. Twenty-six (1.81%) sustained a fracture or ligamentous injury, all with known injury cephalad to clavicles. 161 (11.2%) patients without injury cephalad to clavicles all had a negative cervical CT. Category 1 patients with gunshot wounds with injury cephalad to clavicles were more likely to have CT if they arrived with a collar versus without (66.7% vs 14.3%, p = 0.027). Category 2 and 3 patients with injury cephalad to clavicles after motor vehicle collision (MVC) (88.2% vs 69.6%, p = 0.011), low energy falls (88.3% vs 59.4%, p < 0.0001), and assault (86.0% vs 37.1%, p < 0.0001) underwent cervical CT more frequently if they arrived wearing a collar. Category 2 and 3 trauma patients without injury cephalad to clavicles were also more likely to undergo CT when wearing a collar after MVC (66.3% vs 21.4%, p = 0.001), low energy fall (81.8% vs 35.3%, p = 0.016), and pedestrian vs MVC (55.6% vs 12.5%, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Certain trauma patients were more likely to undergo cervical CT if they arrived wearing a cervical collar. No conscious patients without complaints proximal to the clavicles had cervical injury.

The Use of Clinical Cervical Spine Clearance in Trauma Patients: A Literature Review

INTRODUCTION

Five million patients in America are placed in spinal immobilization annually, with only 1% to 2% of these patients suffering from an unstable cervical spine injury. Prehospital agencies are employing selective and limited immobilization practices, but there is concern that this practice misses cervical spine injuries and therefore possibly predisposes patients to worsening injuries.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted that examined literature from the last 5 years that reviewed cervical spine immobilization application and/or clearance in alert trauma patients.

RESULTS

Prehospital selective immobilization protocols and bedside clinical clearance examinations are becoming more commonplace, with few missed injuries or poor outcomes. Prehospital providers can evaluate patients in the field safely to assess who needs or does not need cervical collars; similar criteria can be used in the emergency department. Harm from cervical collars is increasingly documented, with concerns that risks exceed possible benefits.

DISCUSSION

The literature suggests that alert trauma patients can be cleared from cervical spine immobilization safely through a structured algorithm in either the prehospital or ED setting. The evidence is primarily observational. Thus, many providers who fear missing cervical injuries may be reluctant to follow the recommendations despite few or no published cases of sudden deterioration from missed cervical spine injuries.

Missed cervical spine injuries: a national survey of the practice of evaluation of the cervical spine in confused and comatose patients

AIM

Identifying cervical spine injuries in confused or comatose patients with multiple injuries provides a diagnostic challenge. Our aim was to investigate the protocols which are used for the clearance of the cervical spine in these patients in English hospitals.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All hospitals in England with an Emergency Department were asked about the protocols which they use for assessing the cervical spine. All 22 Major Trauma Centres (MTCs) and 141 of 156 non-MTCs responded (response rate 91.5%).

RESULTS

Written guidelines were used in 138 hospitals (85%). CT scanning was the first-line investigation in 122 (75%). A normal CT scan was sufficient to clear the cervical spine in 73 (45%). However, 40 (25%) would continue precautions until the patient regained full consciousness. MRI was performed in all confused or comatose patients with a possible cervical spinal injury in 15 (9%). There were variations in the grade and speciality of the clinician who had responsibility for deciding when to discontinue precautions. A total of 31 (19%) reported at least one missed cervical spinal injury following discontinuation of spinal precautions within the last five years. Only 93 (57%) had a formal mechanism for reviewing missed injuries.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

There are significant variations in protocols and practices for the clearance of the cervical spine in multiply injured patients in acute hospitals in England. The establishment of trauma networks should be taken as an opportunity to further standardise trauma care. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:825-8.