What Defines a Distracting Injury in Cervical Spine Assessment?

PECARN prediction rule for cervical spine imaging of children presenting to the emergency department with blunt trauma: a multicentre prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Cervical spine injuries in children are uncommon but potentially devastating; however, indiscriminate neck imaging after trauma unnecessarily exposes children to ionising radiation. The aim of this study was to derive and validate a paediatric clinical prediction rule that can be incorporated into an algorithm to guide radiographic screening for cervical spine injury among children in the emergency department.

METHODS

In this prospective observational cohort study, we screened children aged 0-17 years presenting with known or suspected blunt trauma at 18 specialised children's emergency departments in hospitals in the USA affiliated with the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN). Injured children were eligible for enrolment into derivation or validation cohorts by fulfilling one of the following criteria: transported from the scene of injury to the emergency department by emergency medical services; evaluated by a trauma team; and undergone neck imaging for concern for cervical spine injury either at or before arriving at the PECARN-affiliated emergency department. Children presenting with solely penetrating trauma were excluded. Before viewing an enrolled child's neck imaging results, the attending emergency department clinician completed a clinical examination and prospectively documented cervical spine injury risk factors in an electronic questionnaire. Cervical spine injuries were determined by imaging reports and telephone follow-up with guardians within 21-28 days of the emergency room encounter, and cervical spine injury was confirmed by a paediatric neurosurgeon. Factors associated with a high risk of cervical spine injury (>10%) were identified by bivariable Poisson regression with robust error estimates, and factors associated with non-negligible risk were identified by classification and regression tree (CART) analysis. Variables were combined in the cervical spine injury prediction rule. The primary outcome of interest was cervical spine injury within 28 days of initial trauma warranting inpatient observation or surgical intervention. Rule performance measures were calculated for both derivation and validation cohorts. A clinical care algorithm for determining which risk factors warrant radiographic screening for cervical spine injury after blunt trauma was applied to the study population to estimate the potential effect on reducing CT and x-ray use in the paediatric emergency department. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05049330.

FINDINGS

Nine emergency departments participated in the derivation cohort, and nine participated in the validation cohort. In total, 22 430 children presenting with known or suspected blunt trauma were enrolled (11 857 children in the derivation cohort; 10 573 in the validation cohort). 433 (1·9%) of the total population had confirmed cervical spine injuries. The following factors were associated with a high risk of cervical spine injury: altered mental status (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] score of 3-8 or unresponsive on the Alert, Verbal, Pain, Unresponsive scale [AVPU] of consciousness); abnormal airway, breathing, or circulation findings; and focal neurological deficits including paresthesia, numbness, or weakness. Of 928 in the derivation cohort presenting with at least one of these risk factors, 118 (12·7%) had cervical spine injury (risk ratio 8·9 [95% CI 7·1-11·2]). The following factors were associated with non-negligible risk of cervical spine injury by CART analysis: neck pain; altered mental status (GCS score of 9-14; verbal or pain on the AVPU; or other signs of altered mental status); substantial head injury; substantial torso injury; and midline neck tenderness. The high-risk and CART-derived factors combined and applied to the validation cohort performed with 94·3% (95% CI 90·7-97·9) sensitivity, 60·4% (59·4-61·3) specificity, and 99·9% (99·8-100·0) negative predictive value. Had the algorithm been applied to all participants to guide the use of imaging, we estimated the number of children having CT might have decreased from 3856 (17·2%) to 1549 (6·9%) of 22 430 children without increasing the number of children getting plain x-rays.

INTERPRETATION

Incorporated into a clinical algorithm, the cervical spine injury prediction rule showed strong potential for aiding clinicians in determining which children arriving in the emergency department after blunt trauma should undergo radiographic neck imaging for potential cervical spine injury. Implementation of the clinical algorithm could decrease use of unnecessary radiographic testing in the emergency department and eliminate high-risk radiation exposure. Future work should validate the prediction rule and care algorithm in more general settings such as community emergency departments.

FUNDING

The Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Health Resources and Services Administration of the US Department of Health and Human Services in the Maternal and Child Health Bureau under the Emergency Medical Services for Children programme.

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.

Routine pelvic X-rays in asymptomatic hemodynamically stable blunt trauma patients: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There is no consensus on how pelvic X-rays should be ordered selectively in blunt trauma patients which may save time, reduce radiation exposure and costs. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the need for routine pelvic X-rays in awake, respiratory and hemodynamically (HD) stable blunt trauma patients without signs of pelvic fracture. Criteria to identify patients who could safely forgo pelvic X-ray were evaluated.

METHODS

A literature search was performed for prospective comparative cohort studies. Inclusion criteria were: blunt force trauma, hemodynamically and respiratory stable and awake patients, physical examination (PE) for pelvic fractures was adequately described, and the reliability of negative PE findings could be evaluated. Primary outcome was the negative predictive value (NPV) of PE for all and for clinically relevant pelvic fractures. Additionally sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated.

RESULTS

Ten studies were included; yielding a total of 11,423 patients. The NPV of PE for all pelvic fractures ranged from 0.96 to 1.00 with a median of 0.996. Combining studies, total NPV was 0.991. For clinically relevant fractures, the NPV of PE ranged from 0.996 to 1.00 with a median of 1.00. In patients with negative findings during PE, 0.9% had fractures, and 0.1% had clinically relevant fractures, none requiring surgical management.

CONCLUSIONS

In awake, hemodynamically and respiratory stable blunt trauma patients, PE could identify those patients who could safely forgo pelvic X-ray. Selective ordering of pelvic X-ray may lead to a decrease in patient work-up time, lower radiation exposure, and reduce costs. A decision making flow chart is proposed..

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.

The characteristics and pre-hospital management of blunt trauma patients with suspected spinal column injuries: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Pre-hospital spinal immobilisation by emergency medical services (EMS) staff is currently the standard of care in cases of suspected spinal column injuries. There is, however, a lack of data on the characteristics of patients who received spinal immobilisation during the pre-hospital phase and on the adverse effects of immobilisation. The objectives of this study were threefold. First, we determined the pre-hospital characteristics of blunt trauma patients with suspected spinal column injuries who were immobilised by EMS staff. Second, we assessed the choices made by EMS staff regarding spinal immobilisation techniques and reasons for immobilisation. Third, we researched the possible adverse effects of immobilisation.

DESIGN

A retrospective observational study in a cohort of blunt trauma patients.

STUDY METHOD

Data of blunt trauma patients with suspected spinal column injuries were collected from one EMS organisation between January 2008 and January 2013. Coded data and free text notes were analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 1082 patients were included in this study. Spinal immobilisation was applied in 96.3 % of the patients based on valid pre-hospital criteria. In 2.1 % of the patients immobilisation was not based on valid criteria. Data of 1.6 % patients were missing. Main reasons for spinal immobilisation were posterior midline spinal tenderness (37.2 % of patients) and painful distracting injuries (13.5 % of patients). Spinal cord injury (SCI) was suspected in 5.7 % of the patients with posterior midline spinal tenderness. A total of 15.8 % patients were immobilised using non-standard methods. The reason for departure from the standard method was explained for 3 % of these patients. Reported adverse effects included pain (n = 10, 0.9 %,); shortness of breath (n = 3, 0.3 %); combativeness or anxiety (n = 6, 0.6 %); and worsening of pain when supine (n = 1, 0.1 %).

CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION

Spinal immobilisation was applied in 96.3 % of all included patients based on pre-hospital criteria. We found that consensus among EMS staff on how to interpret the criterion 'distracting injury' was lacking. Furthermore, the adverse effects of spinal immobilisation were incompletely documented in pre-hospital care reports. To provide validated information on potential symptoms of SCI, a uniform EMS scoring system for motoric assessment should be developed.

Heterogeneity in cervical spine assessment in paediatric trauma: A survey of physicians' knowledge and application at a paediatric major trauma centre

OBJECTIVE

Evidence-based decision-making tools are widely used to guide cervical spine assessment in adult trauma patients. Similar tools validated for use in injured children are lacking. A paediatric-specific approach is appropriate given important differences in cervical spine anatomy, mechanism of spinal injury and concerns over ionising radiation in children. The present study aims to survey physicians' knowledge and application of cervical spine assessment in injured children.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of physicians actively engaged in trauma care within a paediatric trauma centre was undertaken. Participation was voluntary and responses de-idenitified. The survey comprised 20 questions regarding initial assessment, imaging, immobilisation and perioperative management. Physicians' responses were compared with available current evidence.

RESULTS

Sixty-seven physicians (28% registrars, 17% fellows and 55.2% consultants) participated. Physicians rated altered mental state, intoxication and distracting injury as the most important contraindications to cervical spine clearance in children. Fifty-four per cent considered adequate plain imaging to be 3-view cervical spine radiographs (anterior-posterior, lateral and odontoid), whereas 30% considered CT the most sensitive modality for detecting unstable cervical spine injuries. Physicians' responses reflected marked heterogeneity regarding semi-rigid cervical collars and what constitutes cervical spine 'clearance'. Greater consensus existed for perioperative precautions in this setting.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians actively engaged in paediatric trauma care demonstrate marked heterogeneity in their knowledge and application of cervical spine assessment. This is compounded by a lack of paediatric-specific evidence and definitions, involvement of multiple specialties and staff turnover within busy departments. A validated decision-making tool for cervical spine assessment will represent an important advance in paediatric trauma.

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.

Imaging in the NEXUS-negative patient: when we break the rule

BACKGROUND

In spite of general acceptance and validation of NEXUS (National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study) in the clearance of cervical spine (C-spine) immobilized patients, clinicians often elect to image NEXUS-negative patients in clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine which variables (patient age, mechanism of injury, provider level of training, provider self-reported motivation) contribute to the decision of emergency medicine providers to image NEXUS-negative patients.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational study of patients with blunt trauma and risk for C-spine injury who did not meet "trauma team activation" criteria. Providers at one high-volume emergency department (ED) prospectively recorded NEXUS criteria, as well as rationale for imaging NEXUS-negative patients. Researchers then retrospectively queried the electronic medical record for patient age, mechanism of injury, and results of diagnostic imaging. Study data were analyzed with χ(2) and descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Three hundred patients were enrolled; 169 patients received C-spine imaging, of whom 53 were NEXUS-negative. There was no difference in imaging of NEXUS-negative patients as a factor of medical provider level of training (P=0.42). Of NEXUS-negative patients receiving imaging, 51 (96%) were older than 65 years, and 52 were being evaluated for a fall on level ground. Imaging revealed 7 positive findings. Two of these injuries were in NEXUS-negative patients.

CONCLUSION

Regardless of level of training, providers in our ED often imaged patients who met NEXUS low-risk criteria. This was mot common in geriatric patients who presented after falls. This digression from NEXUS led to the diagnosis of significant injuries in 2 patients which would otherwise have been missed.

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.

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.

Diagnostic imaging of cervical spine injuries following blunt trauma: a review of the literature and practical guideline

Patients with a (potential) cervical spine injury can be subdivided into low-risk and high-risk patients. With a detailed history and physical examination the cervical spine of patients in the "low-risk" group can be "cleared" without further radiographic examinations. X-ray imaging (3-view series) is currently the primary choice of imaging for patients in the "low-risk" group with a suspected cervical spine injury after blunt trauma. For patients in the "high-risk"group because of its higher sensitivity a computed tomography scan is primarily advised or, alternatively, the cervical spine is immobilised until the patient can be reliably questioned and examined again. For the imaging of traumatic soft tissue injuries of the cervical spine magnetic resonance imaging is the technique of choice.

`Clearing' the cervical spine in conscious trauma patients

This is a systematic review of published evidence regarding management of the cervical spine in conscious and co-operative trauma patients. We examine the literature in the following sections: clinical evaluation of the cervical spine; use of plain radiography; use of additional radiographic views; use of computed tomography; use of magnetic resonance imaging. Finally we consider the elderly and paediatric populations, particularly where there are significant differences compared to the general adult population. This paper also reviews the literature regarding non-medical assessment of the cervical spine. We conclude that there are well-validated decision rules available to guide the clinician, and that each imaging strategy has distinct advantages and disadvantages. Familiarity with these issues provides a sound basis for safe and effective decision-making.

Assessment of neck pain and its associated disorders: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders

STUDY DESIGN

Best evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVE

To critically appraise and synthesize the literature on assessment of neck pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The published literature on assessment of neck pain is large and of variable quality. There have been no prior systematic reviews of this literature.

METHODS

The Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders conducted a critical review of the literature (published 1980-2006) on assessment tools and screening protocols for traumatic and nontraumatic neck pain.

RESULTS

We found 359 articles on assessment of neck pain. After critical review, 95 (35%) were judged scientifically admissible. Screening protocols have high predictive values to detect cervical spine fracture in alert, low-risk patients seeking emergency care after blunt neck trauma. Computerized tomography (CT) scans had better validity (in adults and elderly) than radiographs in assessing high-risk and/or multi-injured blunt trauma neck patients. In the absence of serious pathology, clinical physical examinations are more predictive at excluding than confirming structural lesions causing neurologic compression. One exception is the manual provocation test for cervical radiculopathy, which has high positive predictive value. There was no evidence that specific MRI findings are associated with neck pain, cervicogenic headache, or whiplash exposure. No evidence supports using cervical provocative discography, anesthetic facet, or medial branch blocks in evaluating neck pain. Reliable and valid self-report questionnaires are useful in assessing pain, function, disability, and psychosocial status in individuals with neck pain.

CONCLUSION

The scientific evidence supports screening protocols in emergency care for low-risk patients; and CT-scans for high-risk patients with blunt trauma to the neck. In nonemergency neck pain without radiculopathy, the validity of most commonly used objective tests is lacking. There is support for subjective self-report assessment in monitoring patients' course, response to treatment, and in clinical research.

Assessment of neck pain and its associated disorders: results of the Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders

STUDY DESIGN

Best evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVE

To critically appraise and synthesize the literature on assessment of neck pain.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The published literature on assessment of neck pain is large and of variable quality. There have been no prior systematic reviews of this literature.

METHODS

The Bone and Joint Decade 2000-2010 Task Force on Neck Pain and Its Associated Disorders conducted a critical review of the literature (published 1980-2006) on assessment tools and screening protocols for traumatic and nontraumatic neck pain.

RESULTS

We found 359 articles on assessment of neck pain. After critical review, 95 (35%) were judged scientifically admissible. Screening protocols have high predictive values to detect cervical spine fracture in alert, low-risk patients seeking emergency care after blunt neck trauma. Computerized tomography (CT) scans had better validity (in adults and elderly) than radiographs in assessing high-risk and/or multi-injured blunt trauma neck patients. In the absence of serious pathology, clinical physical examinations are more predictive at excluding than confirming structural lesions causing neurologic compression. One exception is the manual provocation test for cervical radiculopathy, which has high positive predictive value. There was no evidence that specific MRI findings are associated with neck pain, cervicogenic headache, or whiplash exposure. No evidence supports using cervical provocative discography, anesthetic facet, or medial branch blocks in evaluating neck pain. Reliable and valid self-report questionnaires are useful in assessing pain, function, disability, and psychosocial status in individuals with neck pain.

CONCLUSION

The scientific evidence supports screening protocols in emergency care for low-risk patients; and CT-scans for high-risk patients with blunt trauma to the neck. In nonemergency neck pain without radiculopathy, the validity of most commonly used objective tests is lacking. There is support for subjective self-report assessment in monitoring patients' course, response to treatment, and in clinical research.