[Parameters influencing the preclinical application of cervical collars]

The Immo Traffic Light System as a Decision-Making Tool for Prehospital Spinal Immobilization

BACKGROUND

Spinal injuries are difficult injuries to assess yet can be associated with significant neurological damage. To avoid secondary damage, immobilization is considered state of the art trauma care. The indication for spinal immobilization must be assessed, however, for potential complications as well as its advantages and disadvantages.

METHODS

This systematic review addressing the question of the correct indication for spinal immobilization in trauma patients was compiled on the basis of our previously published analysis of possible predictors from the Trauma Registry of the German Society for Trauma Surgery. A Delphi procedure was then used to develop suggestions for action regarding immobilization based on the results of this review.

RESULTS

The search of the literature yielded 576 publications. The 24 publications included in the qualitative analysis report of 2 228 076 patients. A decision tool for spinal immobilization in prehospital trauma care was developed (Immo traffic light system) based on the results of the Delphi procedure. According to this system, severely injured patients with blunt trauma, severe traumatic brain injury, peripheral neurological symptoms, or spinal pain requiring treatment should be immobilized. Patients with a statistically increased risk of spinal injury as a result of the four cardinal features (fall >3m, severe trunk injury, supra clavicular injury, seniority [age >65 years]) should only have their spinal motion restricted after weighing up the pros and cons. Isolated penetrating trunk injuries should not be immobilized.

CONCLUSION

High-quality studies demonstrating the benefit of prehospital spinal immobilization are still lacking. Decision tools such as the Immo traffic light system can help weigh up the pros and cons of immobilization.

Epidemiology and predictors of traumatic spine injury in severely injured patients: implications for emergency procedures

PURPOSE

This study aimed to identify the prevalence and predictors of spinal injuries that are suitable for immobilization.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study drawing from the multi-center database of the TraumaRegister DGU^®, spinal injury patients ≥ 16 years of age who scored ≥ 3 on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) between 2009 and 2016 were enrolled.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 145,833 patients enrolled was 52.7 ± 21.1 years. The hospital mortality rate was 13.9%, and the mean injury severity score (ISS) was 21.8 ± 11.8. Seventy percent of patients had no spine injury, 25.9% scored 2-3 on the AIS, and 4.1% scored 4-6 on the AIS. Among patients with isolated traumatic brain injury (TBI), 26.8% had spinal injuries with an AIS score of 4-6. Among patients with multi-system trauma and TBI, 44.7% had spinal injuries that scored 4-6 on the AIS. Regression analysis predicted a serious spine injury (SI; AIS 3-6) with a prevalence of 10.6% and cervical spine injury (CSI; AIS 3-6) with a prevalence of 5.1%. Blunt trauma was a predictor for SI and CSI (OR 4.066 and OR 3.640, respectively; both p < 0.001) and fall > 3 m for SI (OR 2.243; p < 0.001) but not CSI (OR 0.636; p < 0.001). Pre-hospital shock was predictive for SI and CSI (OR 1.87 and OR 2.342, respectively; both p < 0.001), and diminished or absent motor response was also predictive for SI (OR 3.171) and CSI (OR 7.462; both p < 0.001). Patients over 65 years of age were more frequently affected by CSI.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to the clinical symptoms of pain, we identify '4S' [spill (fall) > 3 m, seniority (age > 65 years), seriously injured, skull/traumatic brain injury] as an indication for increased attention for CSIs or indication for spinal motion restriction.

[Influence of the trauma mechanism on cervical spine injuries]

BACKGROUND

The influence of trauma-related kinematics on the injury pattern of the cervical spine is currently not considered in the available classification systems, only the force vector. Whether the strength of the trauma has an additional influence on the number and complexity of the injuries and whether this can be classified, has not yet been finally investigated.

OBJECTIVE

What influence do different kinematics apart from the traumatic force vector have on injuries of the cervical spine?

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Based on the AOSpine classification system for the upper and subaxial cervical spine, data from 134 trauma patients from a first level trauma center were retrospectively analyzed. Analogue to the S3 guidelines on polytrauma, patients were assigned to six trauma groups and the injuries were classified on the basis of computed tomography (CT) cross-sectional imaging.

RESULTS

A higher trauma energy had a significant impact on the number of cervical spine injuries (p = 0.005). In low velocity accidents C2 was the most frequently injured vertebra (51%; p = 0.022) and high velocity accidents showed more C7 fractures (37%; p = 0.017). Furthermore, upper cervical spine injuries occurred more often in low energy trauma and older female patients (e.g. falling from a standing position). Subaxial cervical spine involvement was found significantly more often in high velocity accidents and younger male patients (p = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

Exact knowledge of the trauma mechanism is helpful in the primary treatment of an injured person. Injury patterns can be better estimated and the appropriate diagnostics can be initiated. The results underline the importance of immediate cervical spine immobilization even after minor trauma. In high velocity trauma, patients more often suffer from lower cervical spine injuries, especially C7. Due to the accumulation of multilevel spinal injuries in high velocity trauma, radiographic imaging of the whole spine is advisable.