Projected paediatric cervical spine imaging rates with application of NEXUS, Canadian C-Spine and PECARN clinical decision rules in a prospective Australian cohort

Imaging Outcomes of MRI After CT in Pediatric Spinal Trauma: A Single-center Experience

BACKGROUND

Imaging has an essential role in the diagnostic workup of suspected pediatric spinal trauma. The most suitable imaging method is still being debated and needs to be considered regarding the patient, injury, and local resources. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is often performed after computed tomography (CT) in case of neurological symptoms or suspected ligamentous disruption. However, it is unclear if the MRI yields significant additional value after CT if the spinal cord injury is not suspected and if the MRI could be used as the sole imaging modality in an emergency department. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic value of emergency MRI after CT in suspected spinal trauma in children and adolescents.

METHODS

The imaging data and medical records of patients 17 years of age and younger with emergency spinal CT and MRI over 8 years were retrospectively reviewed. The primary study outcome was the diagnostic accuracy of the 2 imaging modalities in detecting surgically treated spinal injuries.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 100 patients. Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated all 7 surgically treated injuries, although one of the injuries was initially missed with CT. Magnetic resonance imaging revealed more injuries, but none of the injuries visible on CT required surgical fixation. Magnetic resonance imaging was able to exclude unstable injuries in patients who had highly suspicious or unequivocal findings on CT.

CONCLUSIONS

Magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography were both highly accurate in detecting unstable pediatric spinal injuries requiring surgical treatment. Magnetic resonance imaging seems not to reveal additional unstable injuries after adequately interpreted spinal CT.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III-retrospective observational study.

Prehospital use of spinal precautions by emergency medical services in children and adolescents

OBJECTIVES

Limited evidence exists to guide the management of children with possible spinal injuries in the prehospital setting. As a first step to address this, we set out to describe the epidemiology and management of children <18 years presenting with possible cervical spinal injuries to EMS in Victoria, Australia.

METHODS

Retrospective case record review of all children with concerns of head or neck trauma and/or documented cervical spine collar use presenting to the statewide Ambulance Victoria (AV) EMS service, Victoria, Australia, between 1 July 2019 and 30 June 2020. Demographic, clinical features, mechanism of injury and spinal immobilisation practices were extracted.

RESULTS

2100 children were included; 61% were male and the median age was 13 years (interquartile range: 9-15). Over half of the children were transported to suburban (32.2%) and rural/regional (22.9%) EDs, with 37.5% taken to designated trauma centres. The most common mechanisms of injury were sports/activity, motor vehicle accidents and falls in 35.4%, 27.9% and 26.3%, respectively. Spinal precaution use was recorded in 93.7% of cases; cervical collar use was the most common procedure recorded (87.1%). Younger age groups were less likely to have spinal precautions initiated; 51% of children aged 0-3 years, compared to 96.3% of children aged 12 and older (odds ratio = 23.8; 95% confidence interval = 14.5-37; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Prehospital spinal precautions were initiated commonly in children, with use increasing with age, and most were transported to suburban, regional and rural hospitals, not trauma centres. These data will inform the integration of emerging paediatric-specific evidence into prehospital guidelines to risk stratify children.

CT in pediatric trauma patients

The decision as to whether to perform a computed tomography (CT) examination in severe pediatric trauma poses a challenge. The therapeutic benefit of computed tomography in injured children is lower compared to adults, while the potential negative effects of ionizing radiation may be higher. Thus, the threshold for CT should be higher. Centers that less frequently treat pediatric cases tend to conduct more whole-body CT examinations than dedicated pediatric trauma centers, indicating a clinical overestimation of injury severity with subsequently unnecessary imaging due to inexperience. On the other hand, a CT scan that is not performed but is actually necessary can also have negative consequences if an injury is detected with a delay. An injured child presents a challenging situation for all involved healthcare providers, and thus requires a structured approach to decision-making.Selective literature review of the benefits and risks of CT in injured children, as well as indications for whole-body and region-specific CT imaging.This article provides an overview of current guidelines, recent insight into radiation protection and the benefits of CT in injured children, and evidence-based decision criteria for choosing the appropriate modality based on the mechanism of injury and the affected body region. · Whole-body CT has less of an influence on treatment decisions and mortality in severely injured children than in adults.. · For radiation protection reasons, the indication should be determined more conservatively in children than in adult trauma patients.. · The indication for CT should ideally be determined separately for each region of the body.. · Ultrasound and MRI are a good alternative for the primary diagnostic workup in many situations.. · Appelhaus S, Schönberg SO, Weis M. CT in pediatric trauma patients. Fortschr Röntgenstr 2024; DOI 10.1055/a-2341-7559.

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.

Diagnosis and treatment of cervical spine injuries in children

Cervical spine injuries in children are a common reason for emergency room visits, while bone, ligament or spinal cord cervical lesions are relatively rare (1-1.5% of severe trauma in children) and mainly involve the upper cervical spine. The main causes are sports injuries, accidents at home and traffic accidents. Clinical triage is needed to avoid unnecessary radiation exposure from imaging. We propose a protocol to optimize the diagnosis and treatment. In children, conservative treatment using rigid immobilization (cervical collar or halo-vest) is the preferred option in stable and/or minimally displaced injuries. Frequent clinical and radiological monitoring is required to ensure the patient's condition does not deteriorate due to inappropriate or poorly tolerated treatment. In these cases, surgical treatment can be proposed as second-line treatment. Internal fixation is indicated as the first-line treatment if the injury is unstable or a neurological deficit is present. The fixation methods must be adapted to the pediatric population by taking into account the vertebral volume and residual growth potential. Intraoperative CT scans or neuronavigation can make the surgical procedure safer and easier. Clinical, radiographic and CT scan monitoring should continue until the end of growth in a child who underwent surgical treatment to quickly detect any mechanical complications or sagittal imbalance due to poor craniocervical or cervicothoracic alignment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Disparities in computed tomography utilization for pediatric blunt trauma: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing pediatric and non-pediatric trauma centers

Pediatric blunt trauma is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, and computed tomography (CT) imaging is vital for accurate evaluation and management. Pediatric trauma centers (PTCs) have selective CT practices, while non-PTCs may differ, resulting in potential variations in CT utilization. The objective of this study is to delineate disparities in CT utilization for pediatric blunt trauma patients between PTCs and non-PTCs. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following established guidelines, searching PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to March 3, 2023. All studies examining CT utilization in the management of pediatric (aged < 21 years) blunt trauma and specifying the type of trauma center(s) were included, and data were extracted and analyzed using STATA software version 17.0. An analysis of 30 studies revealed significant variations in CT scan utilization among pediatric blunt trauma patients across different types of trauma centers. PTCs exhibited lower pooled rates of abdominopelvic CT scans (35.4% vs. 44.9%, p < 0.01), cranial CT scans (36.9% vs. 42.9%, p < 0.01), chest CT scans (14.5% vs. 25.4%, p < 0.01), and cervical spine CT scans (23% vs. 45%, p < 0.01) compared to adult or mixed trauma centers (ATCs/MTCs). PTCs had a pooled rate of 54% for receiving at least one CT scan, while ATCs/MTCs had a higher rate of 69.3% (p < 0.05). The studies demonstrated considerable heterogeneity. These findings underscore the need to conduct further research to understand the reasons for the observed variations and to promote appropriate imaging usage, minimize radiation exposure, and encourage collaboration between pediatric and adult trauma centers.

Clinical outcome following magnetic resonance imaging as first-line imaging in low-impact pediatric spine trauma: a single-center retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Pediatric spinal trauma is rare, but the consequences of a missed injury can be devastating. Medical imaging is often needed in addition to physical examination. Conventional radiographs are widely recommended, but their negative predictive value is limited. Computed tomography (CT) is more sensitive but has a higher radiation dose. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has superior soft tissue contrast and lacks ionizing radiation, but it is more expensive and time-consuming. Thus, the debate regarding the most suitable imaging method is still ongoing.

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the ability of MRI to exclude injuries requiring surgical treatment as a first-line imaging method in low-impact pediatric spine trauma.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the medical records and imaging data of children (under 18 years old) who had suspected spinal trauma and were scanned using MRI in our emergency radiology department over a period of 8 years. We assessed the ability of MRI to detect unstable injuries by searching for later occurrences of primarily missed injuries requiring surgery.

RESULTS

Of 396 patients (median age 12 years, range 0-17), 114 (29%) had MRI findings suggesting an acute injury. Bony injuries were detected in 78 patients (20%) and ligamentous or other soft tissue injuries in 82 patients (21%). In the subgroup of 376 patients (median age 12 years, range 0-17) with at least 6 months of clinical follow-up, no missed injuries demanding surgical intervention or immobilization occurred after spinal MRI as  first-line imaging. No adverse events related to MRI or anesthesia occurred.

CONCLUSION

MRI can detect injuries requiring surgical treatment as a first-line imaging method in suspected low-impact pediatric spinal trauma and is safe to use in this selected population.

Can you see with CT? Is cervical spine computed tomographic imaging sufficient in pediatric trauma?

BACKGROUND

Traumatic cervical spine injury (CSI) is fundamentally different in children, and imaging recommendations vary; however, prompt diagnosis is necessary.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study, evaluating children who presented after traumatic injury from 7/1/2012 to 12/31/2019 receiving a cervical spine CT. Evaluation of the incidence and clinical significance of CSI undetected on CT subsequently diagnosed on MRI was conducted. Additionally, all with CSI underwent image review to evaluate for potential overlooked, but visible pathology.

RESULTS

1487 children underwent a cervical spine CT, revealing 52 with CSI. 237 underwent MRI due to an abnormal CT or continued clinical concern. Ultimately, three were discovered to have clinically significant CSI missed on CT. In all cases, retrospective review demonstrated a retroclival hematoma when soft tissue windows were formatted in sagittal and coronal views.

CONCLUSIONS

A normal CT may be sufficient to rule-out clinically significant CSI. However, the presence of a retroclival hematoma must be evaluated.