The case for the future role of evidence-based medicine in the management of cervical spine injuries, with or without fractures

Timing of Surgery and Pre-operative Physiological Parameters as Clinical Predictors of Surgical Outcomes in Traumatic Subaxial Cervical Spine Fractures and Dislocations

Objective  To evaluate the risk factors and outcomes in patients surgically treated for subaxial cervical spine injuries with respect of the timing of surgery and preoperative physiological parameters of the patient. Methods  26 patients with sub-axial cervical spine fractures and dislocations were enrolled. Demographic data of patients, appropriate radiological investigation, and physiological parameters like respiratory rate, blood pressure, heart rate, PaO2 and ASIA impairment scale were documented. They were divided pre-operatively into 2 groups. Group U with patients having abnormal physiological parameters and Group S including patients having physiological parameters within normal range. They were further subdivided into early and late groups according to the timing of surgery as U early , U late, S early and S late . All the patients were called for follow-up at 1, 6 and 12 months. Results  56 percent of patients in Group S had neurological improvement by one ASIA grade and a good outcome irrespective of the timing of surgery. Patients in Group U having unstable physiological parameters and undergoing early surgical intervention had poor outcomes. Conclusion  This study concludes that early surgical intervention in physiologically unstable patients had a strong association as a risk factor in the final outcome of the patients in terms of mortality and morbidity. Also, no positive association of improvement in physiologically stable patients with respect to the timing of surgery could be established.

Post-operative Use of Cervical Orthoses for Subaxial Cervical Spine Injuries - a Survey-based Analysis at German Spine Care Centres

INTRODUCTION

There are no evidence-based recommendations for the post-operative treatment and application of soft or rigid cervical collars after operative treatment of injuries of the subaxial cervical spine. Cervical collars can restrict peak range of motion and serve as a reminder to the patient. However, they can also cause pressure ulcers. The aim of this online-based survey among German spine centres was to gain an overview of post-operative treatment and the application of soft or rigid cervical collars after surgical treatment of injuries of the subaxial cervical spine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An online-based survey was conducted among 59 spine centres certified by the German Spine Society. It comprised seven items and the option of adding remarks in the form of open-ended responses.

RESULTS

The return rate was 63% (37 out of 59). Of the 37 analysed spine centres, 51% routinely apply a cervical collar post-operatively, 27% apply a soft and 16% a rigid cervical collar, 8% sequentially apply first a rigid and later a soft cervical collar. Less than half of the spine centres (43%) routinely use no cervical collar. Rigid collars are applied for more than 6 weeks and soft collars up to 6 weeks at some spine centres. Standardised post-operative treatment plans are common. The selection of the post-operative treatment plan depends primarily on the type of injury and method of operation and partly on patient age and bone quality. The satisfaction of German spine centres with the current handling of post-operative treatment of subaxial cervical spine injuries is high.

DISCUSSION

The post-operative treatment of injuries of the subaxial cervical spine at German spine centres is heterogeneous, and the evidence on advantages and disadvantages of the post-operative application of cervical collars is insufficient. Planning and implementation of randomised controlled clinical trials in subaxial cervical spine injuries is challenging.

The Value of Statistics and Evidence-Based Medicine in the Care of Neurosurgical Patients

Science and the art of surgery should be anchored on evidence-based medicine. There is no room in the discipline of neurosurgery for “personal anecdotes/experience,” and the concept of “hero worship.” The construction of evidence-based medicine guidelines is essential in our continued improvement of care for neurosurgical patients.

A T2 Translational Science Modified Delphi Study: Spinal Motion Restriction in a Resource-Scarce Environment

INTRODUCTION

Emerging evidence is guiding changes in prehospital management of potential spinal injuries. The majority of settings related to current recommendations are in resource-rich environments (RREs), whereas there is a lack of guidance on the provision of spinal motion restriction (SMR) in resource-scarce environments (RSEs), such as: mass-casualty incidents (MCIs); low-middle income countries; complex humanitarian emergencies; conflict zones; and prolonged transport times. The application of Translational Science (TS) in the Disaster Medicine (DM) context was used to develop this study, leading to statements that can be used in the creation of evidence-based clinical guidelines (CGs).

OBJECTIVE

What is appropriate SMR in RSEs?

METHODS

The first round of this modified Delphi (mD) study was a structured focus group conducted at the World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine (WADEM) Congress in Brisbane Australia on May 9, 2019. The result of the focus group discussion of open-ended questions produced ten statements that were added to ten statements derived from Fischer (2018) to create the second mD round questionnaire.Academic researchers and educators, operational first responders, or first receivers of patients with suspected spinal injuries were identified to be mD experts. Experts rated their agreement with each statement on a seven-point linear numeric scale. Consensus amongst experts was defined as a standard deviation ≤1.0. Statements that were in agreement reaching consensus were included in the final report; those that were not in agreement but reached consensus were removed from further consideration. Those not reaching consensus advanced to the third mD round.For subsequent rounds, experts were shown the mean response and their own response for each of the remaining statements and asked to reconsider their rating. As above, those that did not reach consensus advanced to the next round until consensus was reached for each statement.

RESULTS

Twenty-two experts agreed to participate with 19 completing the second mD round and 16 completing the third mD round. Eleven statements reached consensus. Nine statements did not reach consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

Experts reached consensus offering 11 statements to be incorporated into the creation of SMR CGs in RSEs. The nine statements that did not reach consensus can be further studied and potentially modified to determine if these can be considered in SMR CGs in RSEs.