Radiographic cervical spine evaluation in the alert asymptomatic blunt trauma victim: much ado about nothing

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.

Our experience with the surgical management of lower cervical spine fractures: fifty case series

PURPOSE

Trauma to the lower cervical spine is a serious lesion due to its neurological consequences which jeopardize the vital and functional prognosis. They constitute a public health problem due to their frequency and seriousness requiring rapid and adequate treatment. The aim of our study is to (1) describe the epidemiological, clinical, and radiological characteristics of lower cervical spine trauma patients; (2) support the therapeutic management of these patients and show our experience in surgery for lower cervical spine trauma; and (3) analyze the anatomical and functional results and discuss them with literature data.

METHODS

This is a retrospective descriptive study of 50 patients with lower cervical spine trauma treated surgically over a period of five years from January 1, 2016, to December 2020.

RESULTS

The average age of our patients was 34.5 years, with a sex ratio of 1.7. The etiologies are dominated by accidents on public roads (58%). They show neurological disorders such as spinal cord damage in 30% of cases and root damage in 20% of cases. The radiological assessment revealed eight tear drops, ten comminuted fractures, 12 severe sprains, 12 biarticular dislocations, six uniarticular dislocations, and two herniated discs. Treatment was surgical in all patients with an anterolateral approach and anterior arthrodesis. The evolution was favourable in 21 patients and stationary in 29 patients.

CONCLUSION

Our study concluded that dislocations and fracture dislocations were the predominant type of injury in cases of AVP. Tetraplegia was mainly observed with uni- and biarticular dislocations. The variation in consolidation time was not correlated with trauma-to-surgery time. Better neurological recovery was observed with mild initial neurological damage than with initially severe damage. The appearance of an adjacent syndrome is less frequent with monosegmental arthrodesis than with multisegmental arthrodesis. Cage arthrodesis was an alternative to iliac harvesting with similar results.

[Guideline-conform diagnostics for injuries of the subaxial cervical spine]

Injuries to the subaxial cervical spine are increasing and have a high risk for neurological injury in comparison to the thoracic and lumbar spine. The current treatment recommendations according to the recommendations of the section spine of the German Society for Orthopaedics and Trauma (DGOU) and the S1 guidelines of the German Society for Trauma Surgery are summarized in this article. High-energy as well as low-energy trauma can cause a significant injury to the cervical spine. If there is a suspicion of a cervical spine injury, a tomographic imaging modality (CT/MRI) is the procedure of choice. Injuries should be classified according to the AOSpine classification for subaxial injuries. Based on this classification, a decision on a conservative or operative treatment regimen as well as individual details of the treatment can be made.

Unstable Cervical Spine Fracture in a Surfer Presenting as Concussion With Associated Low Grade Neck Pain: A Case Report

Objective

The purpose of this study is to describe the evaluation and management of a surfer who presented with concussion-like symptoms and was eventually diagnosed with an unstable cervical spine fracture.

Clinical Features

A young man presented to a chiropractic clinic 5 weeks after a surfing injury. He had mild lower cervical spine pain and complaints of cognitive disturbance. He was previously evaluated by his primary care provider who diagnosed cervical sprain and strain injuries. There was no prior imaging or follow-up concussion management.

Intervention and Outcome

After a history, exams were performed of the cervical spine, thoracic spine, shoulder, and head, including a modified Sport Concussion Assessment Tool, Third Edition, concussion evaluation. Cervical spine radiographs were taken, which demonstrated a right C6 pillar fracture grade 2 anterior spondylolisthesis. These findings were confirmed with a CT scan. The patient was referred to an orthopedic spine specialist for further consultation, which resulted in cervical fusion of the C6/7 motor unit.

Conclusion

The use of clinical guidelines for head and neck injury assisted in the appropriate management of this patient with cervical spine injury presenting with concussion symptoms.

Routine cervical spine immobilisation is unnecessary in patients with isolated cerebral gunshot wounds: A South African experience

OBJECTIVE

Routine immobilisation of the cervical spine in trauma has been a long established practice. Very little is known in regard to its appropriateness in the specific setting of isolated traumatic brain injury secondary to gunshot wounds (GSWs).

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted over a 5 year period (January 2010 to December 2014) at the Pietermaritzburg Metropolitan Trauma Service, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa in order to determine the actual incidence of concomitant cervical spine injury (CSI) in the setting of isolated cerebral GSWs.

RESULTS

During the 5 year study period, 102 patients were included. Ninety-two per cent (94/102) were male and the mean age was 29 years. Ninety-eight per cent of the injuries were secondary to low velocity GSWs. Twenty-seven (26%) patients had cervical collar placed by the Emergency Medical Service. The remaining 75 patients had their cervical collar placed in the resuscitation room. Fifty-five (54%) patients had a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) of 15 and underwent plain radiography, all of which were normal. Clearance of cervical spine based on normal radiography combined with clinical assessment was achieved in all 55 (100%) patients. The remaining 47 patients whose GCS was <15 all underwent a computed tomography (CT) scan of their cervical spine and brain. All 47 CT scans of the cervical spine were normal and there was no detectable bone or soft tissue injury noted.

CONCLUSION

Patients who sustain an isolated low velocity cerebral GSW are highly unlikely to have concomitant CSI. Routine cervical spine immobilisation is unnecessary, and efforts should be directed at management strategies aiming to prevent secondary brain injury. Further studies are required to address the issue in the setting of high velocity GSWs.

Triage tools for detecting cervical spine injury in pediatric trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Pediatric cervical spine injury (CSI) after blunt trauma is rare. Nonetheless, missing these injuries can have severe consequences. To prevent the overuse of radiographic imaging, two clinical decision tools have been developed: The National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) criteria and the Canadian C-spine Rule (CCR). Both tools are proven to be accurate in deciding whether or not diagnostic imaging is needed in adults presenting for blunt trauma screening at the emergency department. However, little information is known about the accuracy of these triage tools in a pediatric population.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the NEXUS criteria and the Canadian C-spine Rule in a pediatric population evaluated for CSI following blunt trauma.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases to 24 February 2015: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, MEDLINE Non-Indexed and In-Process Citations, PubMed, Embase, Science Citation Index, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database, OpenGrey, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Health Technology Assessment, and the Aggressive Research Intelligence Facility.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all retrospective and prospective studies involving children following blunt trauma that evaluated the accuracy of the NEXUS criteria, the Canadian C-spine Rule, or both. Plain radiography, computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the cervical spine, and follow-up were considered as adequate reference standards.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the quality of included studies using the QUADAS-2 checklists. They extracted data on study design, patient characteristics, inclusion and exclusion criteria, clinical parameters, target condition, reference standard, and the diagnostic two-by-two table. We calculated and plotted sensitivity, specificity and negative predictive value in ROC space, and constructed forest plots for visual examination of variation in test accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

Three cohort studies were eligible for analysis, including 3380 patients ; 96 children were diagnosed with CSI. One study evaluated the accuracy of the Canadian C-spine Rule and the NEXUS criteria, and two studies evaluated the accuracy of the NEXUS criteria. The studies were of moderate quality. Due to the small number of included studies and the diverse outcomes of those studies, we could not describe a pooled estimate for the diagnostic test accuracy. The sensitivity of the NEXUS criteria of the individual studies was 0.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.18 to 0.90), 0.98 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.00). The specificity of the NEXUS criteria was 0.35 (95% CI 0.25 to 0.45), 0.54 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.62) and 0.2 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.21). For the Canadian C-spine Rule the sensitivity was 0.86 (95% CI 0.42 to 1.00) and specificity was 0.15 (95% CI 0.08 to 0.23). Since the quantity of the data was small we were not able to investigate heterogeneity.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There are currently few studies assessing the diagnostic test accuracy of the NEXUS criteria and CCR in children. At the moment, there is not enough evidence to determine the accuracy of the Canadian C-spine Rule to detect CSI in pediatric trauma patients following blunt trauma. The confidence interval of the sensitivity of the NEXUS criteria between the individual studies showed a wide range, with a lower limit varying from 0.18 to 0.91 with a total of four false negative test results, meaning that if physicians use the NEXUS criteria in children, there is a chance of missing CSI. Since missing CSI could have severe consequences with the risk of significant morbidity, we consider that the NEXUS criteria are at best a guide to clinical assessment, with current evidence not supporting strict or protocolized adoption of the tool into pediatric trauma care. Moreover, we have to keep in mind that the sensitivity differs among several studies, and individual confidence intervals of these studies show a wide range. Our main conclusion is therefore that additional well-designed studies with large sample sizes are required to better evaluate the accuracy of the NEXUS criteria or the Canadian C-spine Rule, or both, in order to determine whether they are appropriate triage tools for the clearance of the cervical spine in children following blunt trauma.

Distracting injury defined: does an isolated hip fracture constitute a distracting injury for clearance of the cervical spine?

OBJECTIVES

As the population within the USA ages, the number of hip fractures seen yearly in the emergency department is expected to rise. According to the NEXUS criteria, many of these patients receive computerized tomographic scan (CT) evaluation of the cervical spine because a hip fracture may constitute a distracting injury. The objective of this study is to determine if an isolated hip fracture constitutes a distracting injury which requires imaging of the cervical spine.

METHODS

Data were prospectively collected on 158 trauma patients with isolated hip fractures between April 1, 2015 and March 9, 2016. Patient demographics were analyzed and compared to the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS).

RESULTS

Patients with isolated hip fractures were predominantly elderly, on average 78.6 +/- 15.9 years old, and 94.3% of these injuries occurred after a fall from standing. Only one patient also had a cervical spine fracture which was not clinically significant. When compared to the established rate of cervical spine injury of 2.4%, the absolute risk reduction (ARR) was 0.35% (95% CI, - 1.06 to 1.75%) and the number needed to treat (NNT) was 290.

CONCLUSION

In the case of an elderly patient with an isolated hip fracture and no cervical midline tenderness, cervical spine imaging may be reserved for those who have other NEXUS criteria for further workup.

Early imaging of spinal trauma

Spinal injury has the ability to maim and kill, but appropriate diagnosis and early treatment should result in minimization of secondary neurological injury and the restoration of the integrity of the spinal column. Rapid early diagnosis is essential and an impressive array of imaging technology is now available to the clinician. However, plain radiography remains the starting point for imaging of patients with potential spinal injury. This article reviews the role of plain radiography and the indications for further imaging, specifically with computerized tomography and magnetic resonance imaging.

Critical pitfalls in the immediate assessment of the trauma patient

In the immediate assessment of trauma patients, critical pitfalls exist that may interfere with optimal clinical care. Failure to recognize the need for early anaesthesia and endotracheal intubation may put the patient at unnecessary risk and delay the assessment and treatment process. Pressure to clear the cervical spine may lead to inadequate imaging and premature removal of neck immobilization devices. The limitations of the initial chest X-ray in diagnosing pneumothoraces may not be appreciated and needle thoracentesis may be ineffective. ‘Springing’ the pelvis to assess for instability may cause life-threatening haemorrhage and should not be done prior to the initial pelvic X-ray. Log rolling may dislodge crucial clot formation and promote bleeding, and should only be used for diagnostic purposes. Applying clinical common sense to the assessment of trauma patients may avoid the pitfalls whilst allowing the clinician to operate within internationally agreed assessment and treatment frameworks.

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.

Femur fractures should not be considered distracting injuries for cervical spine assessment

INTRODUCTION

The National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) clinical decision rule is extremely sensitive for clearance of cervical spine (C-spine) injury in blunt trauma patients with distracting injuries.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine whether the NEXUS criteria would maintain sensitivity for blunt trauma patients when femur fractures were not considered a distracting injury and an absolute indication for diagnostic imaging.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed blunt trauma patients with at least 1 femur fracture who presented to our emergency department as trauma activations from 2009 to 2011 and underwent C-spine injury evaluation. Presence of C-spine injury requiring surgical intervention was evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 566 trauma patients included, 77 (13.6%) were younger than 18 years. Cervical spine injury was diagnosed in 53 (9.4%) of 566. A total of 241 patients (42.6%) had positive NEXUS findings in addition to distracting injury; 51 (21.2%) of these had C-spine injuries. Of 325 patients (57.4%) with femur fractures who were otherwise NEXUS negative, only 2 (0.6%) had C-spine injuries (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2%-2.2%); both were stable and required no operative intervention. Use of NEXUS criteria, excluding femur fracture as an indication for imaging, detected all significant injuries with a sensitivity for any C-spine injury of 96.2% (95% CI, 85.9%-99.3%) and negative predictive value of 99.4% (95% CI, 97.6%-99.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

In our patient population, all significant C-spine injuries were identified by NEXUS criteria without considering the femur fracture a distracting injury and indication for computed tomographic imaging. Reconsidering femur fracture in this context may decrease radiation exposure and health care expenditure with little risk of missed diagnoses.

Prehospital Clinical Clearance of the Cervical Spine: A Prospective Study

Physician clinical clearance of the cervical spine after blunt trauma is practiced in many trauma centers. Prehospital clinical clearance of the cervical spine (c-spine) performed by emergency medical services (EMS) personnel can decrease cost, improve patient comfort, decrease complications, and decrease prehospital time. The purpose of this study was to assess whether EMS personnel can effectively clinically clear the c-spine of injury in the prehospital setting. All paramedics from a single urban fire department were trained in clinical clearance of the c-spine. During the 14-month period from January 2008 through March 2009, clinical examination of the c-spine was performed by paramedics on blunt trauma patients in the prehospital setting. Paramedics immobilized the c-spine and delivered the patients to the University of South Alabama Medical Center. After trauma center arrival, paramedics documented their clinical examination of the c-spine in a computerized data collection form. Paramedic clinical findings were compared with trauma surgeon clinical examination findings and computed tomographic findings of the c-spine. All patients had prehospital Glasgow Coma Score 14 or greater. Patients were not excluded for distracting injuries. One hundred ninety-three blunt trauma patients were entered. Sixty-five (34%) c-spines were clinically cleared by EMS. There were no known missed injuries in this patient group. Eight (6%) patients who were not clinically cleared by EMS were diagnosed with c-spine injury. Trauma surgeons clinically cleared 135 (70%) of the patients with no known missed injury. EMS personnel in the prehospital setting may reliably and effectively perform clinical clearance of the c-spine. Further prospective study for prehospital c-spine clinical clearance is warranted.

[Cervical spine instability: point of view of the anesthesiologist]

The experience in airway management permits the anesthesiologist to participate in cases of cervical spine instability in the operating room when the patient is subjected to surgical procedures, or in cases of difficulty to access or keep the airway open in emergencies. This article reviews the epidemiology, definition, etiology, diagnostic criteria, methods of approach to airway management, and current recommendations on handling cervical instability in different scenarios. There is no approach to the airway that ensures complete immobility of the cervical spine, but there are methods that are better adapted to specific contexts; at the end, the reader will be able to identify the virtues and defects of the various options that the anesthesiologists have to address the airway in cases of cervical instability.

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

BACKGROUND

The concept of distracting pain (DP) is a controversial subjective confounder that often impedes the efficient and timely clearance of the cervical spine (C-spine). This study attempted to define DP more objectively and assess its true potential to mask the presence of C-spine injury. It also evaluated reliability and safety of clinical judgment in discounting the significance of pain peripheral to the neck (PP).

METHODS

This prospective study included patients with a Glasgow Coma Score ≥14 at a level I trauma center presenting in a C-spine collar. Demographics, mechanism of injury, severity and location of all pain, and C-spine imaging data were obtained. Patient and examiner perception of DP were ascertained using the Verbal Numerical Rating Scale (VNRS) along with the examiner's clinical opinion as to the presence of a fracture.

RESULTS

A total of 160 patients were studied: 65 % male, mean age 39 years, and 44 % presenting after a motor vehicle crash. In all, 16 % complained of neck pain (NP) and 82 % of PP. There were 134 patients without NP, 110 of whom (82 %) had PP. The mean VNRS in patients with no NP was 4.2; in patients with NP it was 4.8. When examined, 14 patients without NP exhibited posterior cervical tenderness, one of whom had a fracture (7 %). Of the patients with PP, 10 % stated it was DP. The mean VNRS described as DP by all patients was 7.5 but by clinician 6.5. VNRS described as not DP was 4.8 for both patients and clinicians. Overall, 8 of the 160 patients (5 %) had confirmed C-spine injuries. Regardless of NP or PP and its potentially distracting nature, clinicians believed no fracture was present in 95 % of all cases. Clinical impression was 98 % accurate. For patients with NP, clinical impression had a 91 % negative predictive value (NPV) and a 100 % a positive predictive value (PPV). In those without NP, the NPV was 99 % and the PPV 25 %.

CONCLUSIONS

The concept of DP is subjective and unreliable as a method to mitigate missed C-spine injuries. If it is to be considered for use, DP should be defined as VNRS ≥5. Reliance on clinical impressions regardless of the presence or absence of NP or PP, distracting or otherwise, is accurate and safe.

The presence of nonthoracic distracting injuries does not affect the initial clinical examination of the cervical spine in evaluable blunt trauma patients: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

A distracting injury mandates cervical spine (c-spine) imaging in the evaluable blunt trauma patient who demonstrates no pain or tenderness over the c-spine. The purpose of this study was to examine which distracting injuries can negatively affect the sensitivity of the standard clinical examination of the c-spine.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational study conducted at a Level I Trauma Center from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2009. After institutional review board approval, all evaluable (Glasgow Coma Scale score ≥13) blunt trauma patients older than 16 years sustaining a c-spine injury were enrolled. A distracting injury was defined as any immediately evident bony or soft tissue injury or a complaint of non-c-spine pain whether or not an actual injury was subsequently diagnosed. Information regarding the initial clinical examination and the presence of a distracting injury was collected from the senior resident or attending trauma surgeon involved in the initial management.

RESULTS

During the study period, 101 evaluable patients sustained a c-spine injury. Distracting injuries were present in 88 patients (87.1%). The most common was rib fracture (21.6%), followed by lower extremity fracture (20.5%) and upper extremity fracture (12.5%). Only four (4.0%) patients had no pain or tenderness on the initial examination of the c-spine. All four patients had bruising and tenderness to the upper anterior chest. None of these four patients developed neurologic sequelae or required a surgical stabilization or immobilization.

CONCLUSION

C-spine imaging may not be required in the evaluable blunt trauma patient despite distracting injuries in any body regions that do not involve the upper chest. Further definition of distracting injuries is mandated to avoid unnecessary utilization of resources and to reduce the imaging burden associated with the evaluation of the c-spine.

Diagnostic accuracy of clinical examination in cervical spine injuries in awake and alert blunt trauma patients

Study Design

Observational, case series.

Purpose

To determine the sensitivity and specificity of clinical judgment as compared to the use of X-ray images in detecting cervical spine injuries in trauma patients presenting in the emergency department of Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi.

Overview of Literature

Cross-table cervical spine views are important in patients with signs and symptoms relating to cervical spine, but asymptomatic patients constitute a different subgroup. Accuracy of clinical examination in these patients has not been subjected to scrutiny.

Methods

All patients with blunt trauma who presented to the emergency department and underwent cross-table X-rays as part of their trauma workup were included. The X-rays were read by a radiologist not aware of the history of the patients. We recorded demographic data along with mechanism of injury, associated neck signs or symptoms whether present or not, cervical spine range of motion, associated injuries and X-ray findings. The history and examination were carried out by the on-call neurosurgery team member. The sensitivity and specificity along with negative and positive predictive value of the clinical examination were calculated. Data were analyzed using SPSS ver. 16.0.

Results

Of 50 patients with positive signs and symptoms, 4 (8%) had positive X-rays while only 1 out of 324 (0.3%) with no associated signs and symptoms had positive X-ray findings.

Conclusions

The clinical examination is 80% sensitive and 73.98% specific in detecting true cervical spine injuries as compared to C-spine X-rays in alert and awake patients with blunt trauma.

Use of flexion and extension radiographs of the cervical spine to rule out acute instability in patients with negative computed tomography scans

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the usefulness of flexion and extension radiographs of the cervical spine as a screening tool for the acute evaluation of ligamentous injury in cases of awake blunt trauma in patients with a negative cervical computed tomography scan.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective study of consecutive patient series.

SETTING

Level I trauma center.

PATIENTS

All patients admitted to an academic Level I trauma center over 12 months who sustained a blunt force injury and underwent flexion-extension radiography during hospitalization.

INTERVENTION

The flexion-extension radiographs were interpreted for adequacy and pathology by two independent reviewers who were blinded to patient outcome and the original radiologic interpretation. Adequacy of radiographs was assessed using four criteria: 1) complete visualization of the cervical spine from the occiput to the superior end plate of the first thoracic vertebra; 2) adequate range of flexion and extension was defined as motion greater than 30° from the neutral position; 3) supplementation with a swimmer's view if the cervicothoracic junction was poorly visualized; and 4) no evidence of rotational deformity on neutral, flexion, or extension views. Radiographs were thus deemed either "adequate" or "inadequate." Acute instability was defined as listhesis of greater than 3.5 mm or 11° of relative angulation. Radiologists' interpretation of all studies was noted and any clinical or radiographic evidence of instability on follow-up within 3 months of discharge was also recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 311 patients were included in the study. The intraobserver reliability for the four fixed criteria for adequacy of flexion and extension radiographs was excellent. Only 97 (31%) flexion and extension radiographs were deemed adequate. Two hundred fourteen (69%) patient radiographs were deemed inadequate but were interpreted as normal by the radiologists. Not a single radiograph was identified with evidence of acute instability (true-positive = 0). One hundred seventy-one (55%) of patients had follow-up within 3 months of discharge from the hospital of which one (0.5%) patient developed signs of instability necessitating surgery. The sensitivity was 0%, specificity 99%, positive predictive value 0%, and negative predictive value 31%.

CONCLUSION

Flexion and extension radiographs do not appear to be clinically useful in assessing acute instability in patients hospitalized with blunt trauma with negative computed tomography scans.

Decreased use of cervical spine clearance in blunt trauma: the implication of the injury mechanism and distracting injury

BACKGROUND

Cervical spine injury (CSI) can be ruled out based on clinical examination and no X-ray is required if patient is awake, alert, and examinable. This is known as a clinical clearance (CC). Clinicians have decreased the use and reliance of CC and relied more upon X-ray, especially now that computerized tomography (CT) is fast and readily available. The objective of this study was to identify clinical factors, in particular, the injury mechanism and the distracting injuries, which may be associated with CSI. The knowledge may help to improve the use of CC.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the records of all blunt trauma patients who were awake, alert, and examinable, with a Glasgow Coma Scale of 14-15, and who were admitted to our Level 1 Trauma Center during January 1 to December 31, 2005. We excluded patients who presented with gross neurological deficit or who died within 72 h. From the chart review, we collected the demographics; the injury severity score (ISS); the injury mechanism; the presence of distracting injuries (DI) which were defined as bony fractures (divided into upper body, lower body, or both); and the radiographs obtained. Patients who did not receive CC underwent a 3-view plain film X-ray, with or without CT scan. We then divided the group into those with CSI (Case) and those without (Control). We compared the two group variables and performed a multiple logistic regression analysis to identify clinical factors associated with CSI. Statistical significance was accepted with p-value <0.05.

RESULTS

Of the 985 patients evaluated, only 179 (18%) received CC. The remaining did not receive CC and went on to have radiographs. Of these, 76 were diagnosed CSI (Case). On a univariate analysis, the ISS, a motor vehicle collision (MVC) with rollover; MVC with rollover and ejection, the absence of DI, and a lower-body DI were significantly associated with CSI. However, on a multivariate analysis, only an MVC with rollover (odds ratio [OR], 2.326; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.36-3.97) and a lower-body distracting injury (OR, 0.20; 95% CI, 0.07-0.55) were significantly associated with CSI.

CONCLUSION

The injury mechanism of MVC with rollover may prevent clinicians from utilizing CC, while the presence of a lower-body DI should not. A future and prospective study is needed to better understand the role of the injury mechanism and the distracting injury in relation to CSI.

Controversies in "clearing" trauma to the cervical spine

Clearance of the traumatic cervical spine is a subject affecting most healthcare professionals dealing with trauma patients. There is a host of often contradictory literature making it hard for an interested reader to come to their own informed opinion based on the current evidence. This review aims to outline the relevant literature for the clearance of the traumatic cervical spine with the particular aim of highlighting the contradictions, controversies and unanswered questions still besetting this important subject. A brief, subjective opinion for a combined clinical and imaging protocol for clearance of the traumatic cervical spine is given.

Clinical Examination and its Reliability in Identifying Cervical Spine Fractures

BACKGROUND

The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) guidelines recommend that cervical spine (c-spine) radiographic evaluation is unnecessary in the awake, alert blunt trauma patient who is not intoxicated, has no distracting injuries, and demonstrates no tenderness over the c-spine or neurologic deficits. The purpose of this study was to compare the reliability of the clinical examination (CE) with that of computed tomography in identifying the presence of c-spine fractures.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated 534 blunt trauma patients between February 2004 and January 2005. Positive CE was defined as complaints of neck pain, external trauma of the c-spine or neurologic deficit, tenderness or abnormalities to palpation over the cervical spine. Computed tomography was used to define the accuracy of CE.

RESULTS

There were 52 patients with, and 482 patients without, c-spine fractures. Forty of the 52 patients with fractures were accurately identified by CE for a sensitivity of 76.9% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 95.7%. In the group with an initial Glasgow Coma Score of 15, 16 of 24 patients with fractures were accurately identified for a sensitivity of 66.7% and an NPV of 96.5%. In the subset of patients who by EAST guidelines would not require any radiographic evaluation, there were 17 fractures and 10 were accurately identified by clinical examination. The sensitivity in this group was 58.8% with an NPV of 96.4%. Four of the seven missed injuries required intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial suggests that with a normal Glasgow Coma Score, CE cannot be relied upon to rule out c-spine fracture. CE is unreliable to diagnose or exclude a cervical spine fracture.

Prospective evaluation of a critical care pathway for clearance of the cervical spine using the bolster and active range-of-motion flexion/extension techniques

BACKGROUND

Clearance of the cervical spine after blunt trauma remains controversial in patients with normal radiologic evaluation.

METHODS

Blunt trauma patients with midline boney cervical tenderness and plain films that disclose no abnormalities and computed tomography (CT) scans were entered into a care pathway for spinal clearance using the Bolster or active range-of-motion (AROM) flexion/extension techniques. The quality of films between the two techniques was then compared.

RESULTS

In all, 159 patients entered the pathway with 14 patients (9%) unable to complete the examination secondary to pain. The Bolster was used in 129 patients (89%) and AROM was used in 16 (11%). The total range of motion was significantly better with AROM at 51.4 +/- 19.4 degrees of motion compared with 32.0 +/- 13.0 degrees with the Bolster (p < or = 0.05). The most distal level visualized was not different between groups with 6.6 +/- 0.8 cervical vertebrae visualized on average in the Bolster group and 6.8 +/- 0.7 in the AROM group. Positive findings occurred in five patients (3.4%) in the Bolster group.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of occult cervical injury in patients with boney cervical pain despite normal plain films and CT scans in this study was 3.4%. The AROM technique has better total range of motion than the Bolster, although results of the Bolster technique remain within acceptable standards. The present care pathway appears to be an effective screening tool for evaluation of this population of patients. Additional evaluation of the obtunded patient is necessary before broad implementation of this technique.

Falls from height: spine, spine, spine!

BACKGROUND

Falls from a height are a major cause of morbidity and hospital cost. Spinal injury is frequently associated with falls from height, but reliable predictive factors have not been identified. Diagnostic evaluation of the spine is complex and debated. Our objective was to characterize spinal injury after falls from height and identify predictive factors of spinal injuries.

STUDY DESIGN

Medical records of patients with falls from height>10 feet admitted in a Level I trauma center during a period of 66 months were reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent risk factors of spinal injuries.

RESULTS

Of 414 patients, 127 (31%) suffered 277 spinal injuries. Multiple spinal injuries at different levels were found in 62 (49%) patients; in 19 (15%) spinal injuries were at noncontinuous levels. The only independent predictor of spinal injury was alcohol intoxication (odds ratio=3.305; 95% CI, 1.75-6.242; p<0.001) but the number of intoxicated patients was low and the predictive ability weak. Level of falls from height did not correlate with likelihood of spinal injury. Twenty-four of 107 (22%) patients with spinal injuries and a reliable clinical examination had no symptoms related to the spine; all but 2 had distracting injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal injury is frequent among survivors of falls from height>10 feet. Because of the absence of reliable predictors of spinal injury, the possibility of multiple noncontinuous fractures, and the presence of distracting injuries clouding the clinical presentation, aggressive evaluation of the entire spine is warranted.

Detection of Cervical Spine Injuries in Alert, Asymptomatic Geriatric Blunt Trauma Patients: Who Benefits from Radiologic Imaging?

There are differing recommendations in the literature regarding cervical spine imaging in alert, asymptomatic geriatric patients. Previous studies also have not used computed tomography routinely. Given that cervical radiographs may miss up to 60 per cent of fractures, the incidence of cervical spine injuries in this population and its implications for clinical management are unclear. We conducted a retrospective study of blunt trauma patients 65 years and older who were alert, asymptomatic, hemodynamically stable, and had normal neurologic examinations. For inclusion, patients were required to have undergone computed tomography and plain radiographs. The presence and anatomic location of potentially distracting injuries or pain were recorded. Two hundred seventy-four patients were included, with a mean age of 76 ± 10 years. The main mechanisms of injury were falls (51%) and motor vehicle crashes (41%). Nine of 274 (3%) patients had cervical spine injuries. The presence of potentially distracting injuries above the clavicles was associated with cervical injury when compared with patients with distracting injuries in other anatomic locations or no distracting injuries (8/115 vs 1/159, P = 0.03). There was no association of cervical spine injury with age greater or less than 75 years or with mechanism of injury. The overall incidence of cervical spine injury in the alert, asymptomatic geriatric population is low. The risk is increased with a potentially distracting injury above the clavicles. Patients with distracting injuries in other anatomic locations or no distracting injuries may not need routine cervical imaging.

[Evidence based diagnostic procedures for the determination of suspected blunt cervical spine injuries. Development of an algorithm]

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to present existing publications, describing various diagnostic procedures as well as considering the evidence supporting them, to develop a recommendation for diagnosis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We reviewed relevant publications between 1966 and 2004 by a systemic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, National Guideline Clearinghouse, Cochrane Library as well as a manual reference search. Keywords were cervical spine, cervical vertebrae, spinal, spinal cord, injury, trauma, fracture, dislocation, imaging, radiography, flexion, extension, fluoroscopy, computed tomography, computed scanning, and magnetic resonance imaging. The selected search results were then classified into levels of evidence.

RESULTS

From among a total of 10,000 publications, 137 relevant publications were stringently reviewed. The level of evidence is on the whole limited due to deficit data; therefore, only class II-III recommendations are possible. We developed an algorithm for the diagnostic approach to suspected trauma of the cervical spine. This clinical algorithm displays the complex diagnosis of cervical spine injury in a clear and logically structured process.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic algorithm for cervical spine injury meets the presently required standards and maximizes care for the newly injured. The development, which can be followed using evidence-based medicine, is transparent and therefore aids the decision process when choosing an adequate diagnostic procedure.

Spinal Clearance in the Difficult Trauma Patient: A Role for Screening MRI of the Spine

Identifying spinal injuries in trauma patients with altered mental status can be difficult. CT scanning and clinical examination are the basis of our spinal clearance, but screening “trauma protocol” spinal MRI is used to exclude occult injuries. We sought to evaluate the sensitivity of CT scanning for spinal injuries compared with our MRI protocol. Ninety-seven patients underwent MRI cervical spine trauma protocol during 2004. Twenty-nine patients were obtunded, 29 had neurologic symptoms, and 39 had spine pain. MRI confirmed the initial CT findings without new injuries in 83 cases. MRI reclassified fractures as degenerative changes in 12 cases. In 2 cases, the MRI identified new injuries: one a stable partial ligament tear, the second a T7 Chance fracture with ligamental disruption requiring operative fixation. There was no morbidity or mortality documented in obtaining the MRI studies. Overall negative predictive value of CT scanning of the spine was 98 per cent, the positive predictive value was 78 per cent, and the sensitivity and specificity was 94 per cent and 91 per cent, respectively. CT scanning of the cervical and axial spine is sensitive for spinal trauma but not specific. MRI trauma protocol should be reserved for cases when initial CT scanning is suggestive of traumatic injury.

The management and treatment of cervical spine injuries

This is a burst fracture of the ring of C1 (Figure 10). This fracture is caused by a compressive downward force that is transmitted evenly through the occipital condyles to the superior articular surfaces of the lateral masses of C1. This process displaces the masses laterally and causes fractures of the anterior and posterior arches, along with possible disruption of the transverse ligament. Quadruple fracture of all four aspects of the C1 ring occurs.

Clinical evaluation of the spine in the intoxicated blunt trauma patient

The objective of the current study was to evaluate the accuracy of the clinical examination of the spine following blunt trauma in intoxicated patients. Methods included a retrospective review of all cases of blunt trauma presenting to an urban level I trauma centre over 1 year. Data was analysed separately for the clinical examination of the cervical spine (CS) and for the thoracic and lumbar spine (T + LS). Two hundred and sixteen cases of blunt trauma secondary to MVC (n = 143) or falls (n = 73) were retained for analysis. In intoxicated patients, sensitivities and specificities for CS tenderness were 60.0 and 64.3% (radiological abnormality) and 100 and 68.6% (operative stabilization), respectively. With respect to the T + LS in intoxicated patients; sensitivities and specificities for T + LS tenderness and radiological abnormality were 80.0 and 71.4% and for the ability of the clinical examination to pick up unstable T + LS fractures requiring operative stabilization 100 and 72.0%, respectively. Intoxicated blunt trauma patients may be able to have spine fractures requiring operative stabilization excluded using physical examination of the spine at presentation to the trauma center.

Cervical spine clearance: a review

Ethical concerns have hindered any randomised control blinded studies on the imaging required to assess the cervical spine in an unconscious trauma patient. The issue has been contentious for many years and has resulted in burgeoning but inconclusive guidance. MRI and multislice CT technology have made rapid advances, but the literature is slower to catch up. Never the less there appears to be an emerging consensus for the multiply injured patient. The rapid primary clinical survey should be followed by lateral cervical spine, chest and pelvic radiographs. If a patient is unconscious then CT of the brain and at least down to C3 (and in the USA down to D1) has now become routine. The cranio-cervical scans should be a maximum of 2 mm thickness, and probably less, as undisplaced type II peg fractures, can be invisible even on 1 mm slices with reconstructions. If the lateral cervical radiograph and the CT scan are negative, then MRI is the investigation of choice to exclude instability. Patients with focal neurological signs, evidence of cord or disc injury, and patients whose surgery require pre-operative cord assessment should be imaged by MRI. It is also the investigation of choice for evaluating the complications and late sequela of trauma. If the patient is to have an MRI scan, the MR unit must be able to at least do a sagittal STIR sequence of the entire vertebral column to exclude non-contiguous injuries, which, since the advent of MRI, are now known to be relatively common. Any areas of oedema or collapse then require detailed CT evaluation. It is important that cases are handled by a suitably skilled multidisciplinary team, and avoid repeat imaging due to technical inadequacies. The aim of this review is to re-examine the role of cervical spine imaging in the context of new guidelines and technical advances in imaging techniques.

Imaging of acute cervical spine injuries: review and outlook

Advances in imaging technology have been successfully applied in the emergency trauma setting with great benefit providing early, accurate and efficient diagnoses. Gaps in the knowledge of imaging acute spinal injury remain, despite a vast wealth of useful research and publications on the role of CT and MRI. This article reviews in a balanced manner the main questions that still face the attending radiologist by embracing the current and evolving concepts to help define and provide answers to the following; Imaging techniques -- strengths and weaknesses; what are the implications of a missed cervical spine injury?; who should be imaged?; how should they be imaged?; spinal immobilisation -- help or hazard?; residual open questions; what does all this mean?; and what are the implications for the radiologist? Although there are many helpful guidelines, the residual gaps in the knowledge base result in incomplete answers to the questions posed. The identification of these gaps in knowledge however should act as the initiating stimulus for further research. All too often there is a danger that the performance and productivity of the imaging modalities is the main research focus and not enough attention is given to the two fundamental prerequisites to the assessment of any imaging technology -- the clinical selection criteria for imaging and the level of expertise of the appropriate clinician interpreting the images.

Clearing the cervical spine after polytrauma: implementing unified management for unconscious victims in the intensive care unit

Determining the best method for excluding cervical spine injury while a polytrauma victim is unconscious remains a controversial topic despite a number of published guidelines. A structured questionnaire demonstrated major differences between intensivists, neurosurgeons, orthopaedic surgeons and spinal surgeons with regard to the imaging modalities requested, the perception of their performance, the relative risks of missed injuries and the complications of immobilisation. Unconscious victims of polytrauma often come under the care of several subspecialties, with the direct consequence that management can be contradictory and lack standardisation. Advanced Trauma Life Support and Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma guidelines can reinforce and even contribute to non-standardised care. Having performed this clinician survey, we have now developed a multidisciplinary management protocol appropriate for Northern Ireland.

Clearing the cervical spine in unconscious polytrauma victims, balancing risks and effective screening

Cervical spine injury occurs in 5-10% of cases of blunt polytrauma. A missed or delayed diagnosis of cervical spine injury may be associated with permanent neurological sequelae. However, there is no consensus about the ideal evaluation and management of the potentially injured cervical spine and, despite the publication of numerous clinical guidelines, this issue remains controversial. In addition, many studies are limited in their application to the obtunded or unconscious trauma victim. This review will provide the clinician managing unconscious trauma victims with an assessment of the actual performance of clinical examination and imaging modalities in detecting cervical spine and isolated ligamentous injury, a review of existing guidelines in light of the available evidence, relative risk estimates and a proposed management scheme.

Can nurses, working in the emergency department, independently clear cervical spines?: a review of the literature

The prompt clearance of a patient's cervical spine is extremely beneficial both to the patients and the department however correct guidelines and education must be established before this can be undertaken safely. This paper examines whether nurses given the appropriate training and education using appropriate diagnostic and clinical criteria can safely, effectively clear cervical spines without consulting a medical practitioner. The paper explores the use of the Nexus Guidelines [J.R. Hoffman, W.R. Mower, A.B. Wolfson, New England Journal of Medicine 343 (2) (2000) 94-99] as a clinical prediction tool and presents evidence for its use.

Development of an evidence-based guideline for imaging in cervical spine trauma

Cervical spine trauma is a common reason for presentation to an emergency department. However, less than 5% of patients who have suffered possible neck injury actually have an injury requiring medical treatment. Nevertheless, the consequences, both for the patient and the doctor, of a missed injury are well recognized by emergency department medical staff. This results in the vast majority of these patients receiving some form of diagnostic imaging. We describe the development of an evidence-based imaging guideline for use in the patient who has suffered cervical spine trauma. The guideline aims to help clinicians determine, at the bedside, when it is appropriate to use imaging and which imaging modality should be used first. Correct utilization of the guideline should lead to a reduction in the number of imaging tests required to reach a diagnosis without adverse patient outcomes.

Radiographic clearance of blunt cervical spine injury: plain radiograph or computed tomography scan?

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the roles of cervical spine radiographs (CSR) and computed tomography of the cervical spine (CTC) in the exclusion of cervical spine injury for adult blunt trauma patients.

METHODS

At the authors' institution, all adult blunt trauma patients with physical findings of posterior midline neck tenderness, altered mental status, or neurologic deficit are considered at risk of cervical spine injury and undergo both CSR and CTC for evaluation of the cervical spine. The TRACS database at level 1 of the trauma center at this institution was queried for all blunt trauma patients from November 2000 to October 2001. Patient injury severity score (ISS), Glascow Coma Score (GCS), age, gender, CSR results, CTC results, and treatment data were analyzed.

RESULTS

The review included 3,018 blunt trauma patients with appropriate data. For 1,199 of these patients (779 men and 420 women) (40%) at risk for cervical spine injury, both CSR and CTC were performed for cervical spine evaluation. The average age of these patients was 39.4 years (range, 18-89 years). The average GCS was 13 and the average ISS was 8.4 in this study population. In 116 (9.5%) of these patients, a cervical spine injury (fracture or subluxation) was detected. The injury was identified on both CSR and CTC in 75 of these patients. In the remaining 41 patients (3.2%), the CSR results were negative, but injury was detected by CTC. All these injuries missed by CSR required treatment. For this group with false-negative CSR, the average GCS was 12 and the average ISS was 14.6. There were no missed cervical spine injuries among the patients with negative CTC results.

CONCLUSION

No identifiable factors predicted false-negative CSR. There does not appear to be any role for CSR screening in this setting. The data from this study add to the growing body of evidence that CTC should replace CSR for the evaluation of the cervical spine in blunt trauma.

Cervical spine injuries to children under 11: should we use radiography more selectively in their initial assessment?

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of cervical spine radiography in injured children under 11 years old, and suggest improvements.

METHODS

Retrospective survey of radiographs and accident and emergency records for children examined during a one year period in a large teaching hospital.

RESULTS

No cervical spine fractures occurred in this age group during the year. The recorded clinical findings did not always justify radiography.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical examination appears undervalued by those assessing injured children and is poorly recorded. Radiography can be used more selectively. Initial assessment using a single lateral projection can be followed in doubtful cases by cross sectional imaging.

The usefulness of a modified adult protocol for the clearance of paediatric cervical spine injury in the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

To determine if the use of a modified adult protocol that uses cervical spine imaging on presentation for the assessment of cervical spine injury in children improves clinical outcome.

METHODS

This is a case series study on all consecutive trauma patients presenting from April to July 2000 inclusive to the ED of a major paediatric trauma hospital. Children presenting to the ED with potential cervical spine injury (CSI) were identified using standard selection criteria. Patient demographics, mechanism of injury, method and time of presentation, associated injuries, radiological investigation and clinical outcome were recorded. The major outcome measures for this study were: time to clearance of the cervical spine, length of stay in the ED and admission to an in-hospital bed. Data were analysed for compliance to the protocol, this being the standard assessment pathway of cervical spine clearance used by our trauma service.

RESULTS

The trauma registry identified 1721 trauma presentations during the 4-month study period; 208 presentations representing 200 children with potential CSI were entered into the study. Males represented 72.5% of the study population, having a mean age of 8.32 years, although 29% were less than 5 years of age. The majority of presentations (69%) occurred outside of normal working hours. In 17.8% of cases the cervical spine was cleared based on clinical assessment alone, half less than 5 years of age. Compliance to the protocol occurred in 78% of presentations. However, when examined by age group, children 5 years of age or above were 1.5 times more likely to comply with the protocol as compared with younger children. Adequate plain imaging was not obtained in 18% of presentations, this group almost exclusively less than 5 years of age. There were no missed injuries and no short or long-term neurological sequelae reported during this study. There were no differences in time to clearance, length of stay and admission rate between compliant and non-compliant groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Modified adult protocols for cervical spine clearance offer guidance in managing the majority of children suffering blunt trauma. However, we recommend caution in rigidly applying such protocols, especially to children of young age.

Severity of Cervical Spine Ligamentous Injury Correlates with Mechanism of Injury, Not with Severity of Blunt Head Trauma

Clearance of the cervical spine (CS) in obtunded trauma patients in an intensive care unit is problematic. Patients with no osseous injuries have potential unstable extradural supportive soft tissue injury. Evaluation of the supporting structures involves dynamic fluoroscopy or MRI both of which have inherent risks and convenience issues. Defining which of these patients are at highest risk for severe supportive structure injury may improve resource utilization for CS clearance. The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical factors that may predict the probability of CS supportive soft tissue injury in patients with traumatic brain injury. Patients who sustained traumatic brain injury with intracranial pathology, absence of CS osseous injury, and a limited cervical spine MRI within 72 hours of injury were included. Potential clinical predictors included the severity of the traumatic brain injury defined by the Abbreviated Injury Severity Score for the cerebrum and initial Glasgow Coma Scale, the Injury Severity Score (ISS), mechanism of injury, and high versus low-velocity mechanism. Severity of soft tissue/ligament injury was graded by MRI findings. One hundred twenty-five patients met the study criteria; 81 had negative MRI findings and in 44 the MRI study was positive for potentially unstable injuries. High-velocity mechanisms of injury and ISS—not the severity of the traumatic brain injury or initial Glasgow Coma Scale score—were statistically significant predictors of severe CS supportive soft tissue injuries. Obtunded blunt trauma patients who have been involved in high-velocity-mechanism incidents and have high ISS are at greatest risk for extradural supportive soft tissue CS injuries. These patients should either remain in CS immobilization until clinical evaluation can be completed or undergo further evaluation of their supportive soft tissue structures by MRI or fluoroscopic flexion/extension.

Spinal injuries

The pre-hospital care of patients with suspected spinal injuries involves early immobilisation of the whole spine and the institution of measures to prevent secondary injury from hypoxia, hypoperfusion or further mechanical disruption. Early ventilation and differentiation of haemorrhagic from neurogenic shock are the key elements of pre-hospital resuscitation specific to spinal injuries. Falls from a significant height, high-impact speed road accidents, blast injuries, direct blunt or penetrating injuries near the spine and other high energy injuries should all be regarded as high risk for spinal injury but clinical examination should determine whether the patient requires full, limited or no spinal immobilisation. Although there is little conclusive evidence in the literature that supports pre-hospital clinical clearance of the spine, the similarities between pre-hospital immobilisation decisions and in-hospital radiography decisions are such that it is likely that clinical clearance will be effective for selected patients. This decision can be made at the scene provided the patient has no evidence of: Altered level of consciousness or mental status Intoxication Neurological symptoms or signs A distracting painful injury (e.g. chest injuries, long bone fracture) Midline spinal pain or tenderness. Where there is evidence to support spinal immobilisation, then the full range of devices and techniques should be considered. In the remote or operational environment where pre-hospital times are prolonged, full immobilisation, analgesia and re-assessment may allow localisation of the injury and a reduction in the degree of immobilisation. Common reasons for missing significant spinal injuries include failing to consider the possibility of spinal injuries in patients who are either unconscious, intoxicated or uncooperative (54,55). The application of the decision rule discussed here will ensure that no clinically significant spinal injuries are missed in pre-hospital care.

Spinal injury: optimising the imaging options

There have been numerous documented attempts in formulating risk-based guidelines for the exclusion of spinal injury using conventional radiography. Although the advent of computed tomography (CT) (including spiral and multi-slice) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) confirmed the known limitations of conventional radiography, there is still a requirement to define optional use of these modalities in a trauma setting. This chapter addresses these issues by reviewing the literature and provides a synopsis of the current thinking in the appropriate sections (adult, paediatric, symptomatic, asymptomatic, etc.) in the quest of finding out the correct answers on how best to exclude/confirm spinal trauma.

[Value of cervical plain radiography in unconscious trauma patient]

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of cervical spine standard radiographs, performed in emergency, and compared with entire cervical helical CT with multiplanar reconstructions as reference.

STUDY DESIGN

Open prospective study.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a six months prospective study including all patients over 15 years of age and unconscious (Glasgow Coma Scale < or = 12). Each patient underwent standard radiographs as well as helical CT of the entire cervical spine. Three senior surgeons and one senior radiologist evaluated the standard radiographs quality. The interpretation was performed by 7 different groups of judges. Two radiologists interpreted the helical CT. For each group, the sensibility, the specificity and the count of correct diagnosis for the standard radiographs were evaluated. The results of the correct diagnosis of each group were then compared to determine the most performant group.

RESULTS

Fifty-one patients were included. Helical CT diagnosed spine injuries in 11 patients. The quality of standard radiographs was poor with less than 10% judged correct and 90% of the C7-D1 junction not visible. In the best group (radiologist), the sensibility was 50%, the specificity was 85% and the count of correct diagnosis was 78%. For the correct diagnosis, senior radiologist was significantly better than anaesthetist students, radiologist students and emergency physicians.

CONCLUSION

The diagnostic value of standard radiographs was weak whatever the physician. Therefore, helical CT of the entire cervical spine is absolutely necessary and must be performed during the initial evaluation, if the haemodynamic conditions are required.

Practical points in evaluation and resuscitation of the injured child

The ultimate goal of resuscitation of an injured child is delivery of oxygen to intracellular organelles in order to maintain aerobic metabolism. This can be obtained by following ATLS protocols with immediate attention to the "ABCDE's" and compulsive reevaluation of the adequacy of resuscitation maneuvers. After stabilization, seriously injured children should be transferred to trauma centers with established pediatric trauma programs utilizing preexisting transfer agreements and protocols. Pediatric trauma is indeed a team endeavor, requiring the coordinated expertise and teamwork of prehospital EMS providers, trauma team members, and the pediatric trauma and rehabilitation centers. With careful and compulsive communication and coordination, injured children can be returned to their families in better mental and physical condition than pre-injury with reasonable expectation of a full and productive life.