Changes in physical examination caused by use of spinal immobilization

Prospective observational study to assess the performance accuracy of clinical decision rules in children presenting to emergency departments with possible cervical spine injuries: the Study of Neck Injuries in Children (SONIC)

INTRODUCTION

Paediatric cervical spine injury (CSI) is uncommon but can have devastating consequences. Many children, however, present to emergency departments (EDs) for the assessment of possible CSI. While imaging can be used to determine the presence of injuries, these tests are not without risks and costs, including exposure to radiation and associated life-time cancer risks. Clinical decision rules (CDRs) to guide imaging decisions exist, although two of the existing rules, the National Emergency X-Radiography Low Risk Criteria and the Canadian C-Spine Rule (CCR), focus on adults and a newly developed paediatric rule from the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) is yet to be externally validated. This study aims to externally validate these three CDRs in children.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicentre prospective observational study of children younger than 16 years presenting with possible CSI following blunt trauma to 1 of 14 EDs across Australia, New Zealand and Singapore. Data will be collected on presenting features (history, injury mechanism, physical examination findings) and management (diagnostic imaging, admission, interventions, outcomes). The performance accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive values) of three existing CDRs in identifying children with study-defined CSIs and the specific CDR defined outcomes will be determined, along with multiple secondary outcomes including CSI epidemiology, investigations and management of possible CSI.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval for the study was received from the Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne Human Research Ethics Committee in Australia (HREC/69436/RCHM-2020) with additional approvals from the New Zealand Human and Disability Ethics Committee and the SingHealth Centralised Institutional Review Board. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and future management guidelines.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Registration with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry prior to the commencement of participant recruitment (ACTRN12621001050842). 50% of expected patients have been enrolled to date.

Prevalence and Indications for Applying Prehospital Spinal Motion Restriction in Children at Risk for Cervical Spine Injury

OBJECTIVES

Spinal motion restriction (SMR) is commonly applied to injured children with potential cervical spine injuries (CSI). There are, however, risks to indiscriminate SMR application. We recently derived the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) CSI clinical prediction rule. Effective implementation of this prediction rule requires an accurate understanding of current emergency medical services (EMS) SMR practices. Little is known about the prevalence of prehospital SMR application in children. Our primary objective was to determine the proportion of children sustaining blunt trauma who are placed in SMR by EMS. Our secondary objective was to identify factors associated with SMR placement.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of data collected during a prospective study of children 0-17 years with blunt trauma transported by EMS to one of 18 PECARN-affiliated emergency departments. Prehospital clinicians completed surveys regarding CSI risk factors and SMR application. We summarized SMR prevalence, techniques used, reasons for application, and clinician suspicion for CSI by patient age. We conducted univariable and multivariable logistic regression to determine factors associated with SMR placement.

RESULTS

Of 13,453 children transported by EMS, we enrolled a convenience sample of 7,721 (57.4%) of whom 1.6% had a CSI and 41.5% had SMR placed. Older children were more likely to have SMR placed (35.5-50.4%) compared to those < 2 years (22.0%). Factors associated with SMR placement included patient demographics (non-Hispanic White race/ethnicity, age > 2 years), mechanisms of injury (high-risk motor vehicle crash (MVC), unrestrained MVC passenger, high-risk fall, axial load), clinical history (loss of consciousness, self-reported neck pain, paresthesia, numbness, or extremity weakness) and physical examination findings (altered mental status, neck tenderness, inability to move neck, focal neurological deficits, and substantial head or torso injuries).

CONCLUSIONS

Of children transported by EMS after blunt trauma in this study, 41.5% had SMR placed, while only 1.6% had CSIs. Factors associated with SMR placement included patient demographics, mechanism of injury, history, and examination findings. Many of these factors are not in the new PECARN CSI clinical prediction rule. Implementation of a risk-centered EMS decision aid for SMR in children after blunt trauma must address this discrepancy.

Effects of Spinal Immobilization with Backboard at 20 Degrees on Pain and Discomfort Levels

BACKGROUND

Although spinal immobilization (SI) in the form of reverse Trendelenburg at a 20-degree angle has been shown to reduce undesirable side effects, such as decreased respiratory function seen with 0-degree SI, concerns exist that SI at 20 degrees might increase pain and discomfort, particularly in the lower body, because of gravity.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate whether SI at a 20-degree angle results in different levels of pain and discomfort in various body regions compared to SI at a 0-degree angle.

METHODS

This experimental study was conducted with healthy adult volunteers aged 25 to 45 years who had no chronic illnesses or obesity (body mass index <30). Each volunteer underwent two separate immobilization sessions on different days: once at a 0-degree angle (0-degree group) and once at a 20-degree angle (20-degree group), each lasting 1 hour. Vital signs and pain/discomfort levels by visual analog scale (VAS) were recorded at baseline, 15, 30, and 60 min.

RESULTS

A total of 51 volunteers participated in the study. While a statistically significant increase in pain and discomfort was observed over time in both the 0-degree and 20-degree groups, no statistically significant difference in VAS scores was found between the two groups at any time point.

CONCLUSION

Although SI at a 20-degree angle does not reduce the pain and discomfort associated with the 0-degree position, it also does not increase these symptoms.

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.

Straight Leg Raise Cannot Replace Computed Tomography in the Detection of Spinal Column Fractures

INTRODUCTION

An active straight leg raise (SLR) is a weight bearing test which assesses pain upon movement and a patient's ability to load their pelvis, lumbar, and thoracic spine. Since many stable patients undergo computed tomography (CT) scanning solely for spinal tenderness, our hypothesis is that performing active straight leg raising could effectively rule out lumbar and thoracic vertebral fractures.

METHODS

Blunt trauma patients ≥18 years of age with Glasgow Coma Scale 15 presenting in hemodynamically stable condition were screened. Patients remaining in the supine position were asked to perform SLR at 12, 18, and 24 inches above the bed. The patient's ability to raise the leg, baseline pain, and pain at each level were assessed. Patients also underwent standard CT scanning of the chest, abdomen and pelvis. The clinical examination results were then matched post hoc with the official radiology reports.

RESULTS

99 patients were screened, 65 males and 34 females. Spinal fractures were present in 15/99 patients (16%). Mechanisms of injury included motor vehicle collision 51%, pedestrian struck 25%, fall1 9%, and other 4%. The median pain score of patients with and without significant spinal fractures at 12, 18, 24 inches was 7.5, 7, 6 and 5, 5, 4, respectively. At 24 inches, active SLR had sensitivity of 0.47, a specificity of 0.59, a positive predictive value of 0.17, and an negative predictive value of 0.86.

CONCLUSIONS

Although SLR has been discussed as a useful adjunct to secondary survey and physical exam following blunt trauma, its positive and more importantly negative predictive value are insufficient to rule out spinal column fractures. Liberal indications for CT based upon mechanism and especially pain and tenderness are necessary to identify all thoraco-lumbar spine fractures.

Spinal Backboard-Necessity or Hazard? The IDF Clinical Practice Guidelines and Policy

INTRODUCTION

Prehospital spinal immobilization using a cervical collar and a backboard has been standard practice for suspected spinal cord injuries (SCIs) since the 1960s. Multiple studies have shown that the disadvantages of the spinal backboard outweigh its advantages. This report aims to present a review of the current literature along with the revised IDF protocol regarding patients with suspected SCI.

METHODS

In 2019, the IDF Medical Corps (IDFMC) convened a multidisciplinary expert committee to revise the IDFMC protocols regarding the use of spinal backboards. Prior to convening the committee, a review of the pertinent literature was done by conducting a thorough clinical evaluation in "PubMed" and "Google Scholar" databases to identify recent studies investigating traumatic SCI and the prehospital military use of spinal backboards.

RESULTS

There were no documented studies that have managed to prove the efficacy of spinal backboards to prevent exacerbation of spinal injuries during mobilization. Despite being a good tool for extraction from vehicles and combat arenas, more than 11 studies have shown that backboards may even result in adverse outcomes such as pain due to the contact between board and skin, the formation of decubitus ulcers, hypothermia, and inadequate ventilation.

CONCLUSION

In light of the evidence showing the potential harmful effects of the routine use of spinal backboards, the IDF guidelines have been revised and now recommends avoiding the routine use of spinal backboards and using a standard stretcher for transporting potential SCI patients. Current IDF guidelines recommend using a backboard for the extraction of an entrapped patient and for obtunded or unconscious patients with obvious deformity or mechanism for spinal trauma.

Implementation of the Modified Canadian C-Spine Rule by Paramedics

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The Canadian C-spine rule was modified and validated for use by the paramedics in a multicenter study where patients were assessed with the Canadian C-spine rule yet all transported with immobilization. This study evaluated the clinical impact of the modified Canadian C-spine rule when implemented by paramedics.

METHODS

This single-center prospective cohort implementation study took place in Ottawa, Canada (from 2011 to 2015). Advanced and primary care paramedics were trained to use the modified Canadian C-spine rule, collect data on a standardized study form, and selectively transport eligible patients without immobilization. We evaluated all consecutive low-risk adult patients (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] 15, stable vital signs) at risk for a neck injury. We followed all patients without initial radiologic evaluation for 30 days. Analyses included descriptive statistics with 95% confidence intervals (CI), sensitivity, specificity, and kappa coefficients.

RESULTS

The 4,034 enrolled patients had a mean age of 43 (range 16 to 99), and 53.4% were female. Motor vehicle collisions were the most common mechanism of injury (55.1%), followed by falls (23.9%). There were 11 clinically important injuries. The paramedics classified these injuries with a sensitivity of 90.9% (95% CI, 58.7 to 99.8) and specificity of 66.5% (95% CI, 65.1 to 68.0). There was no adverse event or resulting spinal cord injury. The kappa agreement between paramedics and investigators was 0.94. A total of 2,583 (64.0%) immobilizations were avoided using the modified Canadian C-spine rule.

CONCLUSION

Paramedics could accurately apply the modified Canadian C-spine rule to low-risk trauma patients and significantly reduce the need for spinal immobilization during transport. This resulted in no adverse event or any spinal cord injury.

A multicenter cohort study on the association between prehospital immobilization and functional outcome of patients following spinal injury in Asia

Prehospital spinal immobilization is a widely used procedure in the emergency medical service (EMS) system worldwide, while the incidence of patients with spinal injury (SI) is relatively low, and unnecessary prehospital spinal immobilization is associated with patient complications. This study aimed to determine the association between prehospital spine immobilization and favorable functional outcomes at hospital discharge among trauma patients with SI. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Pan-Asia Trauma Outcomes Study (PATOS) registry data from January 1, 2016, to November 30, 2018. A total of 759 patients with SI were enrolled from 43,752 trauma patients in the PATOS registry during the study period. The subjects had a median age of 58 years (Q1-Q3, 41-72), and 438 (57.7%) patients had prehospital spine immobilization. Overall, prehospital spinal immobilization was not associated with favorable functional outcomes at discharge in multivariable logistic regression (aOR 1.06; 95% CI 0.62-1.81, p = 0.826). However, in the subgroup of cervical SI, prehospital spinal immobilization was associated with favorable functional outcomes at discharge (aOR 3.14; 95% CI 1.04-9.50; p = 0.043). Therefore, we suggest that paramedics should be more careful when determining the presence of a cervical SI and should apply full spine immobilization if possible.

An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma multicenter trial examining prehospital procedures in penetrating trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Prehospital procedures (PHP) by emergency medical services (EMS) are performed regularly in penetrating trauma patients despite previous studies demonstrating no benefit. We sought to examine the influence of PHPs on outcomes in penetrating trauma patients in urban locations where transport to trauma center is not prolonged. We hypothesized that patients without PHPs would have better outcomes than those undergoing PHP.

METHODS

This was an Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma-sponsored, multicenter, prospective, observational trial of adults (18+ years) with penetrating trauma to the torso and/or proximal extremity presenting at 25 urban trauma centers. The impact of PHPs and transport mechanism on in-hospital mortality were examined.

RESULTS

Of 2,284 patients included, 1,386 (60.7%) underwent PHP. The patients were primarily Black (n = 1,527, 66.9%) males (n = 1,986, 87.5%) injured by gunshot wound (n = 1,510, 66.0%) with 34.1% (n = 726) having New Injury Severity Score of ≥16. A total of 1,427 patients (62.5%) were transported by Advanced Life Support EMS, 17.2% (n = 392) by private vehicle, 13.7% (n = 312) by police, and 6.7% (n = 153) by Basic Life Support EMS. Of the PHP patients, 69.1% received PHP on scene, 59.9% received PHP in route, and 29.0% received PHP both on scene and in route. Initial scene vitals differed between groups, but initial emergency department vitals did not. Receipt of ≥1 PHP increased mortality odds (odds ratio [OR], 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.83; p = 0.04). Logistic regression showed increased mortality with each PHP, whether on scene or during transport. Subset analysis of specific PHP revealed that intubation (OR, 10.76; 95% CI, 4.02-28.78; p < 0.001), C-spine immobilization (OR, 5.80; 95% CI, 1.85-18.26; p < 0.01), and pleural decompression (OR, 3.70; 95% CI, 1.33-10.28; p = 0.01) had the highest odds of mortality after adjusting for multiple variables.

CONCLUSION

Prehospital procedures in penetrating trauma patients impart no survival advantage and may be harmful in urban settings, even when performed during transport. Therefore, PHP should be forgone in lieu of immediate transport to improve patient outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic, level III.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: First aid

The European Resuscitation Council has produced these first aid guidelines, which are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. The topics include the first aid management of emergency medicine and trauma. For medical emergencies the following content is covered: recovery position, optimal positioning for shock, bronchodilator administration for asthma, recognition of stroke, early aspirin for chest pain, second dose of adrenaline for anaphylaxis, management of hypoglycaemia, oral rehydration solutions for treating exertion-related dehydration, management of heat stroke by cooling, supplemental oxygen in acute stroke, and presyncope. For trauma related emergencies the following topics are covered: control of life-threatening bleeding, management of open chest wounds, cervical spine motion restriction and stabilisation, recognition of concussion, cooling of thermal burns, dental avulsion, compression wrap for closed extremity joint injuries, straightening an angulated fracture, and eye injury from chemical exposure.

2020 International Consensus on First Aid Science With Treatment Recommendations

This is the summary publication of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation's 2020 International Consensus on First Aid Science With Treatment Recommendations. It addresses the most recent published evidence reviewed by the First Aid Task Force science experts. This summary addresses the topics of first aid methods of glucose administration for hypoglycemia; techniques for cooling of exertional hyperthermia and heatstroke; recognition of acute stroke; the use of supplementary oxygen in acute stroke; early or first aid use of aspirin for chest pain; control of life- threatening bleeding through the use of tourniquets, haemostatic dressings, direct pressure, or pressure devices; the use of a compression wrap for closed extremity joint injuries; and temporary storage of an avulsed tooth. Additional summaries of scoping reviews are presented for the use of a recovery position, recognition of a concussion, and 6 other first aid topics. The First Aid Task Force has assessed, discussed, and debated the certainty of evidence on the basis of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and present their consensus treatment recommendations with evidence-to-decision highlights and identified priority knowledge gaps for future research. The 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC) Science With Treatment Recommendations (CoSTR) is the fourth in a series of annual summary publications from the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR). This 2020 CoSTR for first aid includes new topics addressed by systematic reviews performed within the past 12 months. It also includes updates of the first aid treatment recommendations published from 2010 through 2019 that are based on additional evidence evaluations and updates. As a result, this 2020 CoSTR for first aid represents the most comprehensive update since 2010.

2020 International Consensus on First Aid Science With Treatment Recommendations

This is the summary publication of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation's 2020 International Consensus on First Aid Science With Treatment Recommendations. It addresses the most recent published evidence reviewed by the First Aid Task Force science experts. This summary addresses the topics of first aid methods of glucose administration for hypoglycemia; techniques for cooling of exertional hyperthermia and heatstroke; recognition of acute stroke; the use of supplementary oxygen in acute stroke; early or first aid use of aspirin for chest pain; control of life-threatening bleeding through the use of tourniquets, hemostatic dressings, direct pressure, or pressure devices; the use of a compression wrap for closed extremity joint injuries; and temporary storage of an avulsed tooth. Additional summaries of scoping reviews are presented for the use of a recovery position, recognition of a concussion, and 6 other first aid topics. The First Aid Task Force has assessed, discussed, and debated the certainty of evidence on the basis of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria and present their consensus treatment recommendations with evidence-to-decision highlights and identified priority knowledge gaps for future research.

Removal of the Long Spine Board From Clinical Practice: A Historical Perspective

Since the early 1970s, initial management of patients with suspected spinal injuries has involved the use of a cervical collar and long spine board for full immobilization, which was thought to prevent additional injury to the cervical spine. Despite a growing body of literature demonstrating the detrimental effects and questionable efficacy of spinal immobilization, the practice continued until 2013, when the National Association of EMS Physicians issued a position statement calling for a reduction in the use of spinal immobilization and a shift to spinal-motion restriction. This article examines the literature that prompted the change in spinal-injury management and the virtual elimination of the long spine board as a tool for transport.

Compulsory Use of the Backboard is Associated with Increased Frequency of Thoracolumbar Imaging

BACKGROUND

Backboards have been shown to cause pain in uninjured patients. This may alter physical exam findings, leading emergency department (ED) providers to suspect a spinal injury when none exists resulting in additional imaging of the thoracolumbar spine. New York had previously employed a "Spinal Immobilization" protocol that included compulsory backboard application for all patients with suspected spinal injuries. In 2015, New York instituted a new "Spinal Motion Restriction" protocol that made backboard use optional for these patients. The objective of this study was to determine if this protocol change was associated with decreased backboard utilization and ED thoracolumbar spine imaging.

METHODS

This was a retrospective before-and-after chart review of subjects transported by a single emergency medical services (EMS) agency to one of four EDs for emergency calls dispatched as motor vehicle collisions (MVC). EMS and ED data were included for all calls within a 6-month interval before and after the protocol change. The protocol change was implemented in the second half of 2015. Subject demographics, backboard use, and spine imaging were reviewed for the intervals January-June 2015 and January-June 2016.

RESULTS

There were 818 subjects in the before period and 796 subjects in the after period. Subjects were similar in terms of gender, age and type of MVC in both periods. A backboard was utilized for 440 (54%) subjects in the before period and 92 (12%) subjects in the after period (p < 0.001). ED thoracic spine imaging was performed on 285 (35%) subjects in the before period, and 235 (30%) subjects in the after period (p = 0.02). ED lumbar spine imaging was performed for 335 (41%) subjects in the before period, and 281 (35%) subjects in the after period (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

A shift from a spinal immobilization protocol to a spinal motion restriction protocol was associated with a decrease in backboard utilization by EMS providers and a decrease in thoracolumbar spine imaging by ED providers.

New Immobilization Guidelines Change EMS Critical Thinking in Older Adults With Spine Trauma

OBJECTIVE

The impact of immobilization techniques on older adult trauma patients with spinal injury has rarely been studied. Our advisory group implemented a change in the immobilization protocol used by emergency medical services (EMS) professionals across a region encompassing 9 trauma centers and 24 EMS agencies in a Rocky Mountain state using a decentralized process on July 1, 2014. We sought to determine whether implementing the protocol would alter immobilization methods and affect patient outcomes among adults ≥60 years with a cervical spine injury.

METHODS

This was a 4-year retrospective study of patients ≥60 years with a cervical spine injury (fracture or cord). Immobilization techniques used by EMS professionals, patient demographics, injury characteristics, and in-hospital outcomes were compared before (1/1/12-6/30/14) and after (7/1/14-12/31/15) implementation of the Spinal Precautions Protocol using bivariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Of 15,063 adult trauma patients admitted to nine trauma centers, 7,737 (51%) were ≥60 years. Of those, 237 patients had cervical spine injury and were included in the study; 123 (51.9%) and 114 (48.1%) were transported before and after protocol implementation, respectively. There was a significant shift in the immobilization methods used after protocol implementation, with less full immobilization (59.4% to 28.1%, p < 0.001) and an increase in the use of both a cervical collar only (8.9% to 27.2%, p < 0.001) and not using any immobilization device (15.5% to 31.6%, p = 0.003) after protocol implementation. While the proportion of patients who only received a cervical collar increased after implementing the Spinal Precautions Protocol, the overall proportion of patients who received a cervical collar alone or in combination with other immobilization techniques decreased (72.4% to 56.1%, p = 0.01). The presence of a neurological deficit (6.5% vs. 5.3, p = 0.69) was similar before and after protocol implementation; in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio = 0.56, 95% confidence interval: 0.24-1.30, p = 0.18) was similar post-protocol implementation after adjusting for injury severity.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no differences in neurologic deficit or patient disposition in the older adult patient with cervical spine trauma despite changes in spinal restriction protocols and resulting differences in immobilization devices.

The effect of trauma backboards on computed tomography radiation dose

AIM

To assess the effect of trauma backboards on the radiation dose at computed tomography (CT) when using automatic tube current modulation (ATCM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An anthropomorphic phantom was scanned with two commercially available CT systems (GE LightSpeed16 Pro and Siemens Definition AS+) without and with backboards. Tube current-time product (mAs), and CTDIvol (mGy) were recorded for each examination. Thermoluminescent dosimeters were used to measure skin entrance dose in the pelvis and breast. Statistical significance was determined using a two-sample t-test. In addition, an institutional review board-approved retrospective image review was performed to quantify the frequency of backboard use during CT in the emergency department.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant increase in maximum tube current-time product (p<0.05) and CTDIvol (p<0.05) with the presence of a backboard; tube current-time product increased up to 31% and CTDIvol increased up to 27%. There was a significant increase in skin entrance dose in the anterior and posterior pelvis (p<0.05) with the presence of a backboard; skin entrance dose increased up to 25% in the anterior pelvis. Skin entrance dose to the breast increased with a backboard, although this was not statistically significant. The frequency of backboard use during CT markedly decreased (from 77% to 3%) after instituting a multidisciplinary policy to promptly remove patients from backboards upon arrival to the emergency department after a primary clinical survey.

CONCLUSIONS

Using backboards during CT with ATCM can significantly increase the radiation dose. Although the decision to maintain patients on backboards is multifactorial, attempts should be made to minimise backboard use during CT when possible.

Characteristics of Trauma Patients With Potential Cervical Spine Injuries Underimmobilized by Prehospital Providers

STUDY DESIGN

This study was a retrospective chart review to determine characteristics of patients under-immobilized by prehospital providers.

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to examine the characteristics of patients who met the criteria for spinal immobilization but were inappropriately cleared.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Many emergency medical services (EMS) use selective spinal immobilization (SSI) based on the NEXUS criteria. However, there is been research examining patients who are under-immobilized by EMS.

METHODS

This was a retrospective chart review over 18 months of a single EMS service. We reviewed all charts dispatched as "motor vehicle crash" (MVC) or "fall". We then determined, whether the patient met the criteria for SSI under Pennsylvania protocols, which mirror the NEXUS criteria.

RESULTS

Our EMS system responded to 1151 falls and MVCs over the study period. Seventy-six patients were immobilized leaving 1075 patients who had clinical clearance of their cervical spine. Of these patients, 4/1075 (0.3%) were considered to be under-immobilized. All 4 of these patients had intoxication or altered mentation mentioned in their charts. Two of these patients had CT scans of their cervical spine, with both being negative. One patient eloped from the ED before any imaging, and 1 patient was clinically cleared.

CONCLUSION

EMTs are very proficient in following the SSI guidelines with an under-immobilization rate of approximately 0.3% in our study. However, all patients who were under-immobilized were under the influence of alcohol. There were no patients who were not immobilized and had cervical spine injuries. This was a limited chart review involving only 2 dispatch categories. EMTs should be cautious while evaluating patients with possible spinal injuries who are under the influence of alcohol.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

4.

Comparison of three prehospital cervical spine protocols for missed injuries

Introduction

We wanted to compare 3 existing emergency medical services (EMS) immobilization protocols: the Prehospital Trauma Life Support (PHTLS, mechanism-based); the Domeier protocol (parallels the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study [NEXUS] criteria); and the Hankins’ criteria (immobilization for patients <12 or >65 years, those with altered consciousness, focal neurologic deficit, distracting injury, or midline or paraspinal tenderness).To determine the proportion of patients who would require cervical immobilization per protocol and the number of missed cervical spine injuries, had each protocol been followed with 100% compliance.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study of patients ≥18 years transported by EMS post-traumatic mechanism to an inner city emergency department. Demographic and clinical/historical data obtained by physicians were recorded prior to radiologic imaging. Medical record review ascertained cervical spine injuries. Both physicians and EMS were blinded to the objective of the study.

Results

Of 498 participants, 58% were male and mean age was 48 years. The following participants would have required cervical spine immobilization based on the respective protocol: PHTLS, 95.4% (95% CI: 93.1–96.9%); Domeier, 68.7% (95% CI: 64.5–72.6%); Hankins, 81.5% (95% CI: 77.9–84.7%). There were 18 cervical spine injuries: 12 vertebral fractures, 2 subluxations/dislocations and 4 spinal cord injuries. Compliance with each of the 3 protocols would have led to appropriate cervical spine immobilization of all injured patients. In practice, 2 injuries were missed when the PHTLS criteria were mis-applied.

Conclusion

Although physician-determined presence of cervical spine immobilization criteria cannot be generalized to the findings obtained by EMS personnel, our findings suggest that the mechanism-based PHTLS criteria may result in unnecessary cervical spine immobilization without apparent benefit to injured patients. PHTLS criteria may also be more difficult to implement due to the subjective interpretation of the severity of the mechanism, leading to non-compliance and missed injury.

Confirmation of suboptimal protocols in spinal immobilisation?

Background

Spinal immobilisation during extrication of patients in road traffic collisions is routinely used despite the lack of evidence for this practice. In a previous proof of concept study (n=1), we recorded up to four times more cervical spine movement during extrication using conventional techniques than self-controlled extrication.

Objective

The objective of this study was to establish, using biomechanical analysis which technique provides the minimal deviation of the cervical spine from the neutral in-line position during extrication from a vehicle in a larger sample of variable age, height and mass.

Methods

A crew of two paramedics and four fire-fighters extricated 16 immobilised participants from a vehicle using six techniques for each participant. Participants were marked with biomechanical sensors and relative movement between the sensors was captured via high-speed infrared motion analysis cameras. A three-dimensional mathematical model was developed and a repeated-measures analysis of variance was used to compare movement across extrication techniques.

Results

Controlled self-extrication without a collar resulted in a mean movement of 13.33° from the neutral in-line position of the cervical spine compared to a mean movement of 18.84° during one of the equipment-aided extrications. Two equipment-aided techniques had significantly higher movement (p<0.05) than other techniques. Both height (p=0.003) and mass (p=0.02) of the participants were significant independent predictors of movement.

Conclusions

These data support the findings of the proof of concept study, for haemodynamically stable patients controlled self-extrication causes less movement of the cervical spine than extrications performed using traditional prehospital rescue equipment.

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.

EMS spinal precautions and the use of the long backboard - resource document to the position statement of the National Association of EMS Physicians and the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma

Field spinal immobilization using a backboard and cervical collar has been standard practice for patients with suspected spine injury since the 1960s. The backboard has been a component of field spinal immobilization despite lack of efficacy evidence. While the backboard is a useful spinal protection tool during extrication, use of backboards is not without risk, as they have been shown to cause respiratory compromise, pain, and pressure sores. Backboards also alter a patient's physical exam, resulting in unnecessary radiographs. Because backboards present known risks, and their value in protecting the spinal cord of an injured patient remains unsubstantiated, they should only be used judiciously. The following provides a discussion of the elements of the National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP) and American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) position statement on EMS spinal precautions and the use of the long backboard. This discussion includes items where there is supporting literature and items where additional science is needed.

Spinal motion restriction: an educational and implementation program to redefine prehospital spinal assessment and care

INTRODUCTION

Prehospital spine immobilization has long been applied to victims of trauma in the United States and up to 5 million patients per year are immobilized mostly with a cervical collar and a backboard.

OBJECTIVE

The training of paramedics and emergency medical technicians on the principals of spine motion restriction (SMR) will decrease the use of backboards.

METHODS

The training for SMR emphasized the need to immobilize those patients with a significant potential for an unstable cervical spine fracture and to use alternative methods of maintaining spine precautions for those with lower risk. The training addressed the potential complications of the use of the unpadded backboard and education was provided about the mechanics of spine injuries. Emergency medical services (EMS} personnel were taught to differentiate between the critical multisystem trauma patients from the more common moderate, low kinetic energy trauma patients. A comprehensive education and outreach program that included all of the EMS providers (fire and private), hospitals, and EMS educational institutions was developed.

RESULTS

Within 4 months of the policy implementation, prehospital care practitioners reduced the use of the backboard by 58%. This was accomplished by a decrease in the number of patients considered for SMR with low kinetic energy and the use of other methods, such as the cervical collar only.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of a SMR training program significantly decreases the use of backboards and allows alternative methods of maintaining spine precautions.

Backboard time for patients receiving spinal immobilization by emergency medical services

Background

Use of backboards as part of routine trauma care has recently come into question because of the lack of data to support their effectiveness. Multiple authors have noted the potential harm associated with backboard use, including iatrogenic pain, skin ulceration, increased use of radiographic studies, aspiration and respiratory compromise. An observational study was performed at a level 1 academic trauma center to determine the total and interval backboard times for patients arriving via emergency medical services (EMS).

Findings

Patients were directly observed. Transport time was recorded as an estimate of initiation of backboard use; arrival time, nurse report time and time of removal from the backboard were all recorded. National Emergency Department Overcrowding Study (NEDOCS) score, Emergency Severity Index (ESI) and demographic information were recorded for each patient encounter. Forty-six patients were followed. The mean total backboard time was 54 min (SD ±65). The mean EMS interval was 33 min (SD ±64), and the mean ED interval was 21 min (SD ±15). The ED backboard interval trended inversely to ESI (1 = 5 min, 2 = 10 min, 3 = 25 min, 4 = 26 min, 5 = 32 min).

Conclusion

Patients had a mean total backboard time of around an hour. The mean EMS interval was greater than the mean ED interval. Further study with a larger sample directed to establishing associated factors and to target possible reduction strategies is warranted.

Evaluation of the safety of C-spine clearance by paramedics: design and methodology

BACKGROUND

Canadian Emergency Medical Services annually transport 1.3 million patients with potential neck injuries to local emergency departments. Less than 1% of those patients have a c-spine fracture and even less (0.5%) have a spinal cord injury. Most injuries occur before the arrival of paramedics, not during transport to the hospital, yet most patients are transported in ambulances immobilized. They stay fully immobilized until a bed is available, or until physician assessment and/or X-rays are complete. The prolonged immobilization is often unnecessary and adds to the burden of already overtaxed emergency medical services systems and crowded emergency departments.

METHODS/DESIGN

The goal of this study is to evaluate the safety and potential impact of an active strategy that allows paramedics to assess very low-risk trauma patients using a validated clinical decision rule, the Canadian C-Spine Rule, in order to determine the need for immobilization during transport to the emergency department.This cohort study will be conducted in Ottawa, Canada with one emergency medical service. Paramedics with this service participated in an earlier validation study of the Canadian C-Spine Rule. Three thousand consecutive, alert, stable adult trauma patients with a potential c-spine injury will be enrolled in the study and evaluated using the Canadian C-Spine Rule to determine the need for immobilization. The outcomes that will be assessed include measures of safety (numbers of missed fractures and serious adverse outcomes), measures of clinical impact (proportion of patients transported without immobilization, key time intervals) and performance of the Rule.

DISCUSSION

Approximately 40% of all very low-risk trauma patients could be transported safely, without c-spine immobilization, if paramedics were empowered to make clinical decisions using the Canadian C-Spine Rule. This safety study is an essential step before allowing all paramedics across Canada to selectively immobilize trauma victims before transport. Once safety and potential impact are established, we intend to implement a multi-centre study to study actual impact.

The out-of-hospital validation of the Canadian C-Spine Rule by paramedics

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We designed the Canadian C-Spine Rule for the clinical clearance of the cervical spine, without need for diagnostic imaging, in alert and stable trauma patients. Emergency physicians previously validated the Canadian C-Spine Rule in 8,283 patients. This study prospectively evaluates the performance characteristics, reliability, and clinical sensibility of the Canadian C-Spine Rule when used by paramedics in the out-of-hospital setting.

METHODS

We conducted this prospective cohort study in 7 Canadian regions and involved alert (Glasgow Coma Scale score 15) and stable adult trauma patients at risk for neck injury. Advanced and basic care paramedics interpreted the Canadian C-Spine Rule status for all patients, who then underwent immobilization and assessment in the emergency department to determine the outcome, clinically important cervical spine injury.

RESULTS

The 1,949 patients enrolled had these characteristics: median age 39.0 years (interquartile range 26 to 52 years), female patients 50.8%, motor vehicle crash 62.5%, fall 19.9%, admitted to the hospital 10.8%, clinically important cervical spine injury 0.6%, unimportant injury 0.3%, and internal fixation 0.3%. The paramedics classified patients for 12 important injuries with sensitivity 100% (95% confidence interval [CI] 74% to 100%) and specificity 37.7% (95% CI 36% to 40%). The kappa value for paramedic interpretation of the Canadian C-Spine Rule (n=155) was 0.93 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.99). Paramedics conservatively misinterpreted the rule in 320 (16.4%) patients and were comfortable applying the rule in 1,594 (81.7%). Seven hundred thirty-one (37.7%) out-of-hospital immobilizations could have been avoided with the Canadian C-Spine Rule.

CONCLUSION

This study found that paramedics can apply the Canadian C-Spine Rule reliably, without missing any important cervical spine injuries. The adoption of the Canadian C-Spine Rule by paramedics could significantly reduce the number of out-of-hospital cervical spine immobilizations.

Reduced time on the spinal board-effects of guidelines and education for emergency department staff

AIM

Prehospital spinal immobilisation is usually accomplished with a spinal board. Prolonged immobilisation on spinal boards in the emergency department (ED) can be detrimental. This study aimed to reduce the time spent by patients on spinal boards using a staff education program.

METHODS

Observational study in a trauma centre ED seeing 180,000ED attendances per year. The length of time immobilised on spinal board was recorded by the trauma nurse coordinator. Guidelines on removal of spinal boards were issued after recording period 1 (January-June 2001) and reinforced several times. The post-training period (period 2) extended from May to October 2003. Medians were compared using Mann-Whitney U-test (non-parametric data); chi-square test was used for categorical data.

RESULTS

There were 122 eligible patients in period 1 and 104 eligible patients in period 2. Median time to removal from the spinal board was reduced by 18.5 min from 50 to 31.5 min (Mann-Whitney U-test, p<0.0001, 95% CI for difference in medians 13-29 min). In period 1, 44 of 122 patients (36%) were removed from the spinal board before leaving the ED, compared to 78 of 104 patients (75%) in period 2 (p<0.0001, chi-square test).

CONCLUSION

The introduction of guidelines, reinforced by ED staff education, can significantly reduce the time patients spend on spinal boards after trauma and can increase the proportion of patients who can be removed from the board before leaving the ED.

Prospective performance assessment of an out-of-hospital protocol for selective spine immobilization using clinical spine clearance criteria

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We determine whether the use of an emergency medical services (EMS) protocol for selective spine immobilization would result in appropriate immobilization without spinal cord injury associated with nonimmobilization.

METHODS

A 4-year prospective study examined EMS and hospital records for patients after the implementation of an EMS protocol for selective spine immobilization. EMS personnel were trained to perform and document a spine injury assessment for out-of-hospital trauma patients with a mechanism of injury judged sufficient to cause a spine injury. The assessment included these clinical criteria: altered mental status, evidence of intoxication, neurologic deficit, suspected extremity fracture, and spine pain or tenderness. The protocol required immobilization for patients with a positive assessment on any of those criteria. Outcome characteristics included the presence or absence of spine injury and spine injury management.

RESULTS

The study collected data on 13,483 patients; 126 of the patients were subsequently excluded from the study because of incomplete data, leaving a study sample of 13,357 patients with complete data. Spine injuries were confirmed in the hospital records for 3% (n=415) of patients, including 50 patients with cord injuries and 128 patients with cervical injuries. Sensitivity of the EMS protocol was 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] 89.4 to 94.6%) resulting in nonimmobilization of 8% of the patients with spine injuries (33 of 415). None of the nonimmobilized patients sustained cord injuries. The specificity was 40% (95% CI 38.9 to 40.5%).

CONCLUSION

The use of our selective immobilization protocol resulted in spine immobilization for most patients with spine injury without causing harm in cases in which spine immobilization was withheld.