Clinical predictors of unstable cervical spinal injury in multiply injured patients

Cervical spine injury: analysis and comparison of patients by mode of transportation

BACKGROUND

Cervical spine injury (CSI) studies have identified different factors contributing to CSI, but none compares the incidence and pattern of injury of patients arriving at the Emergency Department (ED) by private vehicle (PV).

OBJECTIVE

We compared the characteristics and injury patterns in CSI patients who were transported to the ED via Emergency Medical Services (EMS) versus PV.

METHODS

We conducted a three-hospital retrospective review of patients with CSI from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2007. We excluded transfers and follow-up visits. Using a standardized data collection form, we reviewed demographics, mode of transport, mechanism of injury, imaging results, injury type and level, and neurologic deficits. Means and proportions were compared using t-tests and chi-squared as appropriate.

RESULTS

Of 1174 charts identified, 718 met all study criteria; 671 arrived by EMS and 47 by PV. There was no difference between groups in age or gender. Ground-level fall was more likely in PV patients (32%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 20-46% vs. 6%, 95% CI 4-9%), whereas motor vehicle collision was less likely (32%, 95% CI 20-46% vs. 67%, 95% CI 63-70%). PV patients more often sustained a stable injury (66%, 95% CI 52-78% vs. 40%, 95% CI 36-44%), and were more often triaged to a lower-acuity area (25%, 95% CI 15-40% vs. 4%, 95% CI 3-6%). The incidence of neurologic deficit was similar (32%, 95% CI 20-46% vs. 24%, 95% CI 21-28%), though more PV patients had spinal cord injury without radiographic abnormality (21%, 95% CI 12-35% vs. 5%, 95% CI 4-7%).

CONCLUSION

A small proportion of patients with CSI present to the ED by PV. Although most had stable injuries, a surprising number had unstable injuries with neurologic deficits, and were triaged to lower-acuity areas in the ED.

Risk factors for cervical spine injury

INTRODUCTION

The early recognition of cervical spine injury remains a top priority of acute trauma care. Missed diagnoses can lead to exacerbation of an existing injury and potentially devastating consequences. We sought to identify predictors of cervical spine injury.

METHODS

Trauma registry records for blunt trauma patients cared for at a Level I Trauma Centre from 1997 to 2002 were examined. Cervical spine injury included all cervical dislocations, fractures, fractures with spinal cord injury, and isolated spinal cord injuries. Univariate and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were calculated to identify potential risk factors. Variables and two-way interaction terms were subjected to multivariate analysis using backward conditional stepwise logistic regression.

RESULTS

Data from 18,644 patients, with 55,609 injuries, were examined. A total of 1255 individuals (6.7%) had cervical spine injuries. Motor Vehicle Collision (MVC) (odds ratio (OR) of 1.61 (1.26, 2.06)), fall (OR of 2.14 (1.63, 2.79)), age <40 (OR of 1.75 (1.38-2.17)), pelvic fracture (OR of 9.18 (6.96, 12.11)), Injury Severity Score (ISS) >15 (OR of 7.55 (6.16-9.25)), were all significant individual predictors of cervical spine injury. Neither facial fracture nor head injury alone were associated with an increased risk of cervical spine injury. Significant interactions between pelvic fracture and fall and pelvic fracture and head injury were associated with a markedly increased risk of cervical spine (OR 19.6 (13.1, 28.8)) and (OR 27.2 (10.0-51.3)).

CONCLUSIONS

MVC and falls were independently associated with cervical spine injury. Pelvic fracture and fall and pelvic fracture and head injury, had a greater than multiplicative interaction and high risk for cervical spine injury, warranting increased vigilance in the evaluation of patients with this combination of injuries.

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.

National athletic trainers' association position statement: acute management of the cervical spine-injured athlete

OBJECTIVE

To provide certified athletic trainers, team physicians, emergency responders, and other health care professionals with recommendations on how to best manage a catastrophic cervical spine injury in the athlete.

BACKGROUND

The relative incidence of catastrophic cervical spine injury in sports is low compared with other injuries. However, cervical spine injuries necessitate delicate and precise management, often involving the combined efforts of a variety of health care providers. The outcome of a catastrophic cervical spine injury depends on the efficiency of this management process and the timeliness of transfer to a controlled environment for diagnosis and treatment.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations are based on current evidence pertaining to prevention strategies to reduce the incidence of cervical spine injuries in sport; emergency planning and preparation to increase management efficiency; maintaining or creating neutral alignment in the cervical spine; accessing and maintaining the airway; stabilizing and transferring the athlete with a suspected cervical spine injury; managing the athlete participating in an equipment-laden sport, such as football, hockey, or lacrosse; and considerations in the emergency department.

Prevalence of cervical spinal injury in trauma

Object

Diagnosis of cervical spinal injury (CSI) is an essential aspect of the trauma evaluation. This task is especially difficult in patients who are not clinically able to be evaluated (unevaluable) because of distracting painful injuries, intoxication, or concomitant head injury. For this population, the appropriate use of advanced imaging techniques for cervical spinal clearance remains undetermined. This study was undertaken to estimate the prevalence of unstable CSI, particularly among patients in whom clinical evaluation is impossible or unreliable.

Methods

Estimates of the prevalence of CSI in populations consisting of all trauma patients, alert patients only, and clinically unevaluable patients only were determined by variance-weighted pooling of data from 65 publications (281,864 patients) that met criteria for review.

Results

The overall prevalence of CSI among all trauma patients was 3.7%. The prevalence of CSI in alert patients was 2.8%, whereas unevaluable patients were at increased risk of CSI with a prevalence of 7.7% (p = 0.007). Overall, 41.9% of all CSI cases were considered to exhibit instability.

Conclusions

Trauma patients who are clinically unevaluable have a higher prevalence of CSI than alert patients. Knowledge of the prevalence and risk of such injuries may help establish an evidence-based approach to the detection and management of clinically occult CSI.

Distribution of Spinal and Associated Injuries in Multiple Trauma Patients

Injury to the spinal column and cord are often part of life-threatening multiple trauma. Epidemiological data could help to establish an evidence-based assessment and therapy of these patients. We present a retrospective chart analysis of 590 multiple traumatized patients admitted within a 4-year-period. Patients suffering from injuries of the spinal column were analysed regarding mechanism and distribution of their injuries to all body regions. Thirty-one percent (n = 183) of polytraumatized patients displayed a spine injury. Distribution analysis showed peaks in the cervical spine and the thoraco-lumbar junction. The risk of relevant associated injuries is mainly influenced from anatomical vicinity to the injured spinal segment. Injuries to the spinal column are frequent in the multiple trauma patients population. Diagnosed injuries to distinct body regions should make the trauma team suspicious of injury to the nearby spinal column. Appropriate treatment includes thorough assessment of all injuries to clarify the damage and carry on special protection of these spinal regions preventing from deterioration.

Application of clinical criteria for ordering radiographs to detect cervical spine fractures

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to determine if spinal-immobilized patients met clinical criteria for x-rays and which clinical criteria were associated with cervical fractures.

METHODS

This was a prospective, observational analysis of clinical findings and radiograph results for patients transported to the emergency department in spinal immobilization by emergency medical services. The presence of altered mentation, distracting injury, cervical spine tenderness, neck pain, neurologic deficit, and palpable deformity was recorded for each subject.

RESULTS

Of the 2044 subjects enrolled in the study, 1367 subjects received radiographs and 50 had cervical spine fractures. Sixty percent of subjects met some clinical criteria for radiograph ordering. Cervical spine tenderness and neurologic deficit were the only clinical criteria statistically associated with fractures. All subjects with fractures met 1 or more of the clinical criteria for radiographs.

CONCLUSION

Cervical spine radiographs were ordered for a significant number of patients who did not meet the clinical criteria. However, omission of any one of the criterion other than palpable deformity would have potentially resulted in a missed fracture. Strictly following the criteria would have significantly reduced the number of cervical spine radiographs taken.

Detected and overlooked cervical spine injury in comatose victims of trauma: report from the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study

Object

This study was undertaken to determine whether a clinically useful rule could be formulated for identifying the presence of traumatic brain injury (TBI) in patients who are at exceptionally low risk of cervical spine injury.

Methods

The Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study database was searched for cases of TBI in which the admission Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score was less than or equal to 8. Cases of cervical injury were identified based on diagnostic codes. Associations between cervical injury and various clinical variables were tested using chi-square analysis. The probability of cervical injury was modeled using logistic regression. Decision tree models were constructed. Statistical determinants of overlooked cervical injury were examined.

The prevalence of cervical injury among 41,142 cases of TBI was 8%. Mechanism of injury, thoracolumbosacral (TLS) fracture, age, limb fracture, admission GCS score, hypotension, and facial fracture were associated with cervical injury and were incorporated into the following logistic regression model: probability = 1 / (1 + exp[4.248 − 0.417 × mechanism −0.264 ×age −0.678 ×TLS −0.299 ×limb −0.218 ×GCS −0.231 ×hypotension −0.157 ×facial]).

The results of applying this model provided a rule for cervical spine clearance applicable to 28% of the cases with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97.0%. Decision tree analysis yielded a rule applicable to 24% of the cases with an NPV of 98.2%. The prevalence of overlooked cervical injury in all individuals with severe TBI was 0.3%; the prevalence of overlooked cervical injury in patients with cervical injury was 3.9%. Overlooked cervical injury was less common in patients with associated TLS fractures (odds ratio 0.453, 95% confidence interval 0.245–0.837).

Conclusions

This analysis identified no acceptable rule to justify relaxing vigilance in the search for cervical injury in patients with severe TBI. Provider vigilance and consequent rates of overlooked cervical injury can be affected by environmental cues and presumably by other behavioral and organizational factors.

[Evidence based diagnostic procedures for the determination of suspected blunt cervical spine injuries. Development of an algorithm]

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to present existing publications, describing various diagnostic procedures as well as considering the evidence supporting them, to develop a recommendation for diagnosis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We reviewed relevant publications between 1966 and 2004 by a systemic literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, National Guideline Clearinghouse, Cochrane Library as well as a manual reference search. Keywords were cervical spine, cervical vertebrae, spinal, spinal cord, injury, trauma, fracture, dislocation, imaging, radiography, flexion, extension, fluoroscopy, computed tomography, computed scanning, and magnetic resonance imaging. The selected search results were then classified into levels of evidence.

RESULTS

From among a total of 10,000 publications, 137 relevant publications were stringently reviewed. The level of evidence is on the whole limited due to deficit data; therefore, only class II-III recommendations are possible. We developed an algorithm for the diagnostic approach to suspected trauma of the cervical spine. This clinical algorithm displays the complex diagnosis of cervical spine injury in a clear and logically structured process.

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic algorithm for cervical spine injury meets the presently required standards and maximizes care for the newly injured. The development, which can be followed using evidence-based medicine, is transparent and therefore aids the decision process when choosing an adequate diagnostic procedure.

Potential cervical spine injury and difficult airway management for emergency intubation of trauma adults in the emergency department--a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Emergency airway management for trauma adults is practised by physicians from a range of training backgrounds and with differing levels of experience. The indications for intubation and technique employed are factors that vary within EDs and between hospitals.

OBJECTIVES

To provide practical evidence based guidance for airway management in trauma resuscitation: first for the trauma adult with potential cervical spine injury and second the management when a difficult airway is encountered at intubation.

SEARCH STRATEGY AND METHODOLOGY

Full literature search for relevant articles in Medline (1966-2003), EMBASE (1980-2003), and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Relevant articles relating to adults and written in English language were appraised. English language abstracts of foreign articles were included. Studies were critically appraised on a standardised data collection sheet to assess validity and quality of evidence. The level of evidence was allocated using the methods of the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.

Detected and overlooked cervical spine injury among comatose trauma patients: from the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study

OBJECT

A rule for identifying patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) who are at exceptionally low risk of cervical spine injury might be clinically useful. The goal in this study was to research case records to determine whether such a rule would be practicable.

METHODS

The Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study database was used to find patients with TBI in whom Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores at admission were 8 or less. Cases of cervical spine injury were identified from diagnostic codes. Associations between these injuries and a variety of clinical variables were tested using chi-square analysis. The probability of a cervical spine injury in these patients was modeled by logistic regression. Decision tree models were constructed and statistical determinants of overlooked cervical spine injury were examined. The prevalence of cervical spine injury among 41,142 cases of TBI was 8%. The mechanism of injury, presence of thoracolumbosacral (TLS) spinal, limb and/or facial fracture, patient age, GCS score at admission, and the presence of hypotension were all factors associated with cervical spine injury. These were incorporated into the following logistic regression model: probability of cervical spine injury = 1/(1 + exp[4.030 - 0.417*mechanism - 0.264*age - 0.678*TLS - 0.299*limb + 0.218*GCS score - 0.231*hypotension - 0.157*facial]). This model yielded a rule for clearance of 28% of cases, with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 97%. Decision tree analysis yielded an easily stated rule for clearance of 24% of cases, with an NPV of 98.2%. The prevalence of overlooked cervical spine injury among all patients with severe TBI was 0.3%; the prevalence of overlooked cervical spine injury among patients in whom it was later diagnosed was 3.9%. Overlooked cervical spine injury was less common among patients with associated TLS fractures (odds ratio 0.453, 95% confidence interval 0.245-0.837).

CONCLUSIONS

No acceptable rule for relaxation of vigilance in the search for cervical spine injury among patients with severe TBI has been identified. Levels of provider vigilance and consequent rates of overlooked cervical spine injury can be affected by environmental cues and presumably by other behavioral and organizational factors.

Cervical spine clearance: a review

Ethical concerns have hindered any randomised control blinded studies on the imaging required to assess the cervical spine in an unconscious trauma patient. The issue has been contentious for many years and has resulted in burgeoning but inconclusive guidance. MRI and multislice CT technology have made rapid advances, but the literature is slower to catch up. Never the less there appears to be an emerging consensus for the multiply injured patient. The rapid primary clinical survey should be followed by lateral cervical spine, chest and pelvic radiographs. If a patient is unconscious then CT of the brain and at least down to C3 (and in the USA down to D1) has now become routine. The cranio-cervical scans should be a maximum of 2 mm thickness, and probably less, as undisplaced type II peg fractures, can be invisible even on 1 mm slices with reconstructions. If the lateral cervical radiograph and the CT scan are negative, then MRI is the investigation of choice to exclude instability. Patients with focal neurological signs, evidence of cord or disc injury, and patients whose surgery require pre-operative cord assessment should be imaged by MRI. It is also the investigation of choice for evaluating the complications and late sequela of trauma. If the patient is to have an MRI scan, the MR unit must be able to at least do a sagittal STIR sequence of the entire vertebral column to exclude non-contiguous injuries, which, since the advent of MRI, are now known to be relatively common. Any areas of oedema or collapse then require detailed CT evaluation. It is important that cases are handled by a suitably skilled multidisciplinary team, and avoid repeat imaging due to technical inadequacies. The aim of this review is to re-examine the role of cervical spine imaging in the context of new guidelines and technical advances in imaging techniques.

Neglected spinal injuries

Neglected spinal injuries secondary to overlooked diagnosis may result in serious medical and medicolegal problems. These are not uncommon but are reported infrequently in the medical literature. I studied the incidence, causes, and consequences of neglected spinal injuries and recommendations for prevention and treatment by reviewing the literature found in a Medline search. Overlooked spinal injuries are most frequently seen in unconscious or intoxicated patients and in polytrauma patients with distracting remote injuries. These are 4.5 times more frequent in the cervical spine compared with the thoracolumbar spine. The most common cause is failure to obtain radiographs. Other causes include a failure to recognize the injury or the fact that the initial studies may fail to show the injuries. Use of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging scans as screening tests may be good ways to diagnose these injuries, but their use is limited by cost and availability. The most serious consequence of overlooked spinal injuries is progressive neural deficit. More frequently they result in progressive deformity and persistent pain requiring surgical intervention that most likely could have been avoidable, often with an unsatisfactory outcome. Untreated or inadequately treated spinal injuries with late presentation are more often seen in the developing world. Unfortunately, reports on these cases are published rarely. Their brief report in the current study is based on search of nonindexed medical journals using in Internet search engine and personal communications.

Schockraummanagement bei Verletzungen der Wirbels�ule im Rahmen eines Polytraumas

Injuries to the spine are often part of life-threatening multiple trauma. In this review diagnostics and emergency room management were investigated in order to formulate effective recommendations for the emergency strategy. Clinical trials were systematically collected (MEDLINE, Cochrane, and hand searches) and classified into evidence levels (1 to 5 according to the Oxford system). The patient's history and clinical symptoms have low rates for specificity and positive predictive value, whereas their negative predictive value and sensitivity are high between 90 and 100%, respectively. CT imaging reaches higher rates for sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values in comparison to conventional radiographic series. The patient's history should be asked and clinical investigation should be done in any case. Imaging diagnostics preferably as multislice spiral CT should be performed after stabilization of the patient's general condition and before admission to the intensive care unit.

Clearing the cervical spine after polytrauma: implementing unified management for unconscious victims in the intensive care unit

Determining the best method for excluding cervical spine injury while a polytrauma victim is unconscious remains a controversial topic despite a number of published guidelines. A structured questionnaire demonstrated major differences between intensivists, neurosurgeons, orthopaedic surgeons and spinal surgeons with regard to the imaging modalities requested, the perception of their performance, the relative risks of missed injuries and the complications of immobilisation. Unconscious victims of polytrauma often come under the care of several subspecialties, with the direct consequence that management can be contradictory and lack standardisation. Advanced Trauma Life Support and Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma guidelines can reinforce and even contribute to non-standardised care. Having performed this clinician survey, we have now developed a multidisciplinary management protocol appropriate for Northern Ireland.

Clearing the cervical spine in unconscious polytrauma victims, balancing risks and effective screening

Cervical spine injury occurs in 5-10% of cases of blunt polytrauma. A missed or delayed diagnosis of cervical spine injury may be associated with permanent neurological sequelae. However, there is no consensus about the ideal evaluation and management of the potentially injured cervical spine and, despite the publication of numerous clinical guidelines, this issue remains controversial. In addition, many studies are limited in their application to the obtunded or unconscious trauma victim. This review will provide the clinician managing unconscious trauma victims with an assessment of the actual performance of clinical examination and imaging modalities in detecting cervical spine and isolated ligamentous injury, a review of existing guidelines in light of the available evidence, relative risk estimates and a proposed management scheme.

Development of an evidence-based guideline for imaging in cervical spine trauma

Cervical spine trauma is a common reason for presentation to an emergency department. However, less than 5% of patients who have suffered possible neck injury actually have an injury requiring medical treatment. Nevertheless, the consequences, both for the patient and the doctor, of a missed injury are well recognized by emergency department medical staff. This results in the vast majority of these patients receiving some form of diagnostic imaging. We describe the development of an evidence-based imaging guideline for use in the patient who has suffered cervical spine trauma. The guideline aims to help clinicians determine, at the bedside, when it is appropriate to use imaging and which imaging modality should be used first. Correct utilization of the guideline should lead to a reduction in the number of imaging tests required to reach a diagnosis without adverse patient outcomes.

Spinal injuries

The pre-hospital care of patients with suspected spinal injuries involves early immobilisation of the whole spine and the institution of measures to prevent secondary injury from hypoxia, hypoperfusion or further mechanical disruption. Early ventilation and differentiation of haemorrhagic from neurogenic shock are the key elements of pre-hospital resuscitation specific to spinal injuries. Falls from a significant height, high-impact speed road accidents, blast injuries, direct blunt or penetrating injuries near the spine and other high energy injuries should all be regarded as high risk for spinal injury but clinical examination should determine whether the patient requires full, limited or no spinal immobilisation. Although there is little conclusive evidence in the literature that supports pre-hospital clinical clearance of the spine, the similarities between pre-hospital immobilisation decisions and in-hospital radiography decisions are such that it is likely that clinical clearance will be effective for selected patients. This decision can be made at the scene provided the patient has no evidence of: Altered level of consciousness or mental status Intoxication Neurological symptoms or signs A distracting painful injury (e.g. chest injuries, long bone fracture) Midline spinal pain or tenderness. Where there is evidence to support spinal immobilisation, then the full range of devices and techniques should be considered. In the remote or operational environment where pre-hospital times are prolonged, full immobilisation, analgesia and re-assessment may allow localisation of the injury and a reduction in the degree of immobilisation. Common reasons for missing significant spinal injuries include failing to consider the possibility of spinal injuries in patients who are either unconscious, intoxicated or uncooperative (54,55). The application of the decision rule discussed here will ensure that no clinically significant spinal injuries are missed in pre-hospital care.

Radiographic assessment of the cervical spine in symptomatic trauma patients

STANDARDS

A three-view cervical spine series (anteroposterior, lateral, and odontoid views) is recommended for radiographic evaluation of the cervical spine in patients who are symptomatic after traumatic injury. This should be supplemented with computed tomography (CT) to further define areas that are suspicious or not well visualized on the plain cervical x-rays.

GUIDELINES

There is insufficient evidence to support treatment guidelines.

OPTIONS

It is recommended that cervical spine immobilization in awake patients with neck pain or tenderness and normal cervical spine x-rays (including supplemental CT as necessary) be discontinued after either a) normal and adequate dynamic flexion/extension radiographs, or b) a normal magnetic resonance imaging study is obtained within 48 hours of injury. Cervical spine immobilization in obtunded patients with normal cervical spine x-rays (including supplemental CT as necessary) may be discontinued a) after dynamic flexion/extension studies performed under fluoroscopic guidance, or b) after a normal magnetic resonance imaging study is obtained within 48 hours of injury, or c) at the discretion of the treating physician.

Radiographic assessment of the cervical spine in asymptomatic trauma patients

STANDARDS

Radiographic assessment of the cervical spine is not recommended in trauma patients who are awake, alert, and not intoxicated, who are without neck pain or tenderness, and who do not have significant associated injuries that detract from their general evaluation.

Clearance of the cervical spine in multitrauma patients: the role of advanced imaging

The cervical spine is injured in 3% of major trauma patients. Radiographic clearance for injury must be provided efficiently and accurately. There are numerous choices for clearance that are now in clinical practice: lateral radiograph only, 3-view or 5-view cervical-spine (c-spine) series, flexion-extension radiographs, computed tomography (CT) with multiplanar reformations, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). This article reviews the literature on methods of c-spine clearance, and emphasizes the pitfalls of each modality. Although lateral radiographs detect 60% to 80% of c-spine fractures, a significant number of fractures are not visible, even when three views of the spine are obtained. The sensitivity of plain radiographs can be improved by attention to several subtle features, which are discussed. Flexion-extension radiographs in the acute setting have an unacceptably high false-negative and false-positive rate. CT detects 97% to 100% of fractures, but its accuracy in detection of purely ligamentous injuries has not been documented. Furthermore, CT is limited in patients with severe degenerative disease. MRI is highly sensitive in the detection of ligamentous injury, but not all cases of injury may cause instability. MRI is also much less sensitive than CT to fractures of the posterior elements of the spine, and to injuries of the craniocervical junction. The causes of missed cervical spine injury and delayed instability are discussed and shown in this article. An algorithm for the use of advanced imaging is proposed.

Can an out-of-hospital cervical spine clearance protocol identify all patients with injuries? An argument for selective immobilization

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the sensitivity of the Fresno/Kings/Madera emergency medical services (EMS) selective spine immobilization protocol in identifying patients with potential cervical injuries. We also sought to determine whether the protocol was safe in the out-of-hospital setting.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients discharged from 5 trauma-receiving hospitals in Fresno County with the diagnosis of cervical spine injury between July 1, 1990, and June 30, 1996. All of these patients transported to the hospital by EMS personnel were selected for the study group. Medical records of those patients not immobilized were further investigated to identify protocol violations or deficiencies.

RESULTS

There were 861 patients with significant cervical injuries during this time span. EMS personnel brought 504 patients to the hospital, of which 495 arrived in cervical spine immobilization. Of the remaining 9 patients, 2 refused immobilization, and 2 could not be immobilized; 3 injuries were missed by the protocol criteria, and 2 injuries were missed because of protocol violations. Of these last 5 patients, 1 patient had an adverse outcome, 2 injuries were considered unstable, 4 patients were older than 67 years, and one patient was 9 months old.

CONCLUSION

The Fresno/Kings/Madera EMS selective spine immobilization protocol is 99% (95% CI, 97.7% to 99.7%) sensitive in identifying patients with cervical injuries for immobilization. Those patients not identified were at extremes of age. These results suggest that selective immobilization may be safely applied in the out-of-hospital setting but should be used with caution at extremes of age.

Imaging of acute cervical spine trauma

Over the past 15 years there have been dramatic changes in the approach to imaging acute cervical spine trauma. This article addresses the current thoughts and controversies regarding the most appropriate techniques to evaluate the patient with cervical spine trauma, with an emphasis on the role of computed axial tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The issue of clinical versus radiographic evaluation of low-risk patients is also discussed.

Evaluation of unstable cervical spine injury: a 6-year experience

BACKGROUND

The diagnosis of the unstable cervical spine, and its subsequent management can be difficult and a missed cervical spine injury can obviously have devastating consequences.

METHODS

This study describes a 6-year experience with these injuries and presents an algorithm for their evaluation. The case records of 100 consecutive patients who underwent an operative procedure for an unstable cervical spine injury were reviewed.

RESULTS

The population and injury characteristics were similar to that of previous studies. The process of evaluation of the spine was robust but failed to identify two unstable ligamentous injuries not detected on initial radiologic examination. Ten patients whose injuries were missed at other hospitals were identified by using this system.

CONCLUSION

A systematic, well-structured approach to the potentially injured cervical spine allows safe and effective diagnosis and management of these patients. Failure to adhere to basic principles will result in missed unstable cervical spine injuries.

Clearing the cervical spine of adult victims of trauma

Images

Evaluation of the patient with spinal trauma and back pain: an evidence based approach

The evaluation of spinal trauma and neck or back pain remains one of the most important and most common assessments in emergency medicine. This article provides an overview of an evidence based approach to this situation, and argues that appropriate use of imaging studies can reduce waste and better mitigate devastating outcomes to the patient.

The effect of introducing guidelines for cervical spine radiographs in the accident and emergency department

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of guidelines for x ray requests on requests for cervical spine x rays.

SETTING

Accident and emergency (A&E) department of tertiary referral centre.

METHODS

Guidelines for all x ray requests were introduced in the (A&E) department of the Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh in February 1992. The effect of the guidelines on requests for cervical spine x rays was assessed by retrospective review of all such x rays taken over two 30 d periods, before and after the introduction of the guidelines. Junior staff had been in post for 3 months during both periods assessed. Films were reviewed for quality by a consultant radiologist.

RESULTS

Guidelines reduced the number of inappropriate requests significantly; however, 26% of requests were still unnecessary. The standard of radiography improved but 49% of x rays remained inadequate, usually because the C7/T1 level was not demonstrated on the lateral view. The A&E doctors correctly interpretated the radiographs in 95% of examinations.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidelines reduce inappropriate x ray requests. Further improvements can be expected with continued education.

Selective indications for thoracic and lumbar radiography in blunt trauma

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine indications for thoracolumbar radiography.

DESIGN

Case series with prospective data collection.

SETTING

Level I trauma center.

PARTICIPANTS

Blunt-trauma victims more than 12 years old who underwent routine thoracic and lumbar radiography according to institutional protocol. Patients were classified as group 1, not able to be evaluated clinically (Glasgow Coma Scale score of less than 13, intoxication, intubation, or cervical neurologic deficit); and group 2, able to be evaluated clinically.

RESULTS

Twenty-four of 319 patients sustained 25 thoracic or lumbar fractures. Seven of 136 group 1 patients and 17 of 183 group 2 patients had fractures. Eight of 17 patients with pain and 9 of 17 with tenderness had fractures (P = .001). No group 2 patients without pain, tenderness, thoracic or lumbar neuro-deficit, or major distracting injury, including cervical fracture, had fractures. The negative predictive value of pain and tenderness was 95%. Five of 46 patients with spinal fractures at any level had multiple fractures.

CONCLUSION

Blunt-trauma victims who cannot be evaluated clinically should undergo thoracolumbar radiography. Routine radiography may be unnecessary in asymptomatic patients who can be evaluated clinically and who do not have neurologic deficits or distracting injuries. Spinal fracture at any level mandates complete spinal radiography.