Accuracy of visual determination of neutral position of the immobilized pediatric cervical spine

Pediatric trauma population spine immobilization during resuscitation: A call for improved guidelines

INTRODUCTION

This review aims to evaluate current practices regarding spine immobilization in pediatric trauma patients to evaluate their efficacy, reliability, and impact on clinical outcomes to guide future research and improved evidence-based practice guidelines.

METHODS

PubMed, ProQuest, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane were queried for studies pertaining to spinal immobilization practices in pediatric trauma patients. Articles were separated into studies that explored both the efficacy and clinical outcomes of spine immobilization. Outcomes evaluated included frequency of spinal imaging, self-reported pain level, emergency department length of stay (ED-LOS), and ED disposition.

RESULTS

Six articles were included, with two studies examining clinical outcomes and 4 studies evaluating the efficacy and reliability of immobilization techniques. Immobilized children were significantly more likely to undergo cervical spine imaging (OR 8.2, p < 0.001), be admitted to the floor (OR 4.0, p < 0.001), be taken to the ICU or OR (OR 5.3, p < 0.05) and reported a higher median pain score. Older children were significantly more likely to be immobilized. No immobilization techniques consistently achieved neutral positioning, and patients most often presented in a flexed position. Lapses in immobilization occurred in 71.4% of patients.

CONCLUSION

Immobilized pediatric patients underwent more cervical radiographs, and had higher hospital and ICU admission rates, and higher mean pain scores than those without immobilization. Immobilization was inconsistent across age groups and often resulted in lapses and improper alignment. Further research is needed to identify the most appropriate immobilization techniques for pediatric patients and when to use them.

Head position classification of medical imaging studies: an assessment and development of a protocol

OBJECTIVES

To determine the optimal approach to reliably classify head position of head and neck medical imaging studies as flexion, neutral or extension for use in craniofacial and orthodontic research.

METHODS AND MATERIAL

A prospective study scanned six participants in flexed, neutral and extended head positions. Additionally, a retrospective dataset of 46 CT studies were visually classified into six categories: flexion, neutral-flexion, neutral, neutral-extension, extension and flexion-extension. 14 landmarks were placed in the head and neck region of all studies to calculate 17 head position angle and distance measurements. Assessment of head position classification was performed for each measure, as well as all measures together using GUIDE forest.

RESULTS

No single measure was sufficient to reliably classify head position in both retrospective and prospective imaging studies. Therefore, this study developed a head position protocol that considers multiple measures using two hybrid predictive models, to classify head position. Compared to visual assessment of head position, this protocol classified the imaging studies into the four head position categories with 82% neutral sensitivity and 100% neutral precision where the three neutral groups (neutral-flexion, neutral and neutral-extension) were grouped together.

CONCLUSION

This study established a novel head position classification protocol that uses multiple measures accounting for both head and neck positions to reliably classify head positions in imaging studies as: flexion, neutral or extension. Given the limitation that no single measure reliably classified head position, this protocol is strongly recommended to researchers who need to account for head position to reach valid conclusions.

Difficulty breathing: agreement of paramedic and emergency physician diagnoses

OBJECTIVE

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of paramedics treating patients who have called an ambulance for "difficulty breathing."

METHODS

A retrospective study of all ambulance call reports generated by one ambulance over a one-year period with the dispatch complaint of "difficulty breathing" taken to the hospital. The paramedic diagnosis on the call report was compared with the emergency department (ED) physician diagnosis, which was used as the "gold standard."

RESULTS

A total of 244 ambulance reports were reviewed. For patients complaining of "difficulty breathing," paramedics achieved 86.4% sensitivity and 86.6% specificity for diagnosing cardiac disease, 71.4% sensitivity and 93.6% specificity for respiratory disease, and 82.1% sensitivity and 91% specificity for other disease processes. There was an interrater agreement of 81.1% between paramedic and ED physician, producing a kappa of 0.71, interpreted as good, approaching excellent, agreement.

CONCLUSION

Paramedics are able to identify the disease process category in patients dispatched as having "difficulty breathing," with a moderate degree of accuracy.

A comparison of the head and cervical posture between the self-balanced position and the Frankfurt method

Head and cervical posture evaluation has been a concern for many years, not only because of the purported relationship that exists between head and cervical posture in the presence of temporomandibular disorders, neck pain and headache, but also because of the biomechanical relationship between the head and cervical spine and dentofacial structures. Many methods have been suggested in an attempt to establish the best way to evaluate the position of the head using teleradiographs and cephalometric analysis. However, there is still no agreement as to which procedure is the best. The objective of this study was to evaluate the differences that exist between craniocervical measurements in lateral teleradiographs when comparing the position of the head in the self-balanced position to the position of the head using the Frankfurt method (Frankfurt plane parallel to the floor). Sixty-eight subjects who sought dental treatment in community health centres in Talca, Chile participated in this study. Rocabado analysis was used to measure the craniocervical variables. The Cobb analysis was used to measure cervical lordosis. A paired student t-test was used to evaluate the differences between both procedures, using an alpha of 0.05 and a power of 0.90. The use of the cephalostat changed only the craniocervical angle (P < 0.001). However, this change was minimal. No changes related to gender and age were found. More studies are needed to determine the variation between different procedures and to define a good procedure for evaluating head posture.