The Use of Clinical Cervical Spine Clearance in Trauma Patients: A Literature Review

Bed tilt and ramp positions are associated with increased first-pass success of adult endotracheal intubation in the emergency department: A registry study

OBJECTIVE

Successful endotracheal intubation in the ED requires optimum body positioning. In patients with obesity, the ramp position was suggested to achieve better intubating conditions. However, limited data are available on the airway management practices for patients with obesity in Australasian EDs. The aim of this study was to identify current patient positioning practices during endotracheal intubation and its association with first-pass success (FPS) at intubation and adverse event (AE) rates in obese and non-obese populations.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from the Australia and New Zealand ED Airway Registry (ANZEDAR) between 2012 and 2019 were analysed. Patients were categorised into two groups according to their weight: <100 kg (non-obese) or ≥100 kg (obese). Four position categories were investigated; supine, pillow or occipital pad, bed tilt and ramp or head-up with relation to FPS and complication rate using logistic regression modelling.

RESULTS

A total of 3708 intubations from 43 EDs were included. Overall, the non-obese cohort had a greater FPS rate (85.9%) compared to the obese group (77.0%). The bed tilt position had the highest FPS rate (87.2%), whereas the supine position had the lowest (83.0%). AE rates were highest in the ramp position (31.2%) compared to all other positions (23.8%). Regression analysis showed ramp, or bed tilt positions and a consultant-level intubator were associated with higher FPS. Obesity, in addition to other factors, was independently associated with lower FPS.

CONCLUSION

Obesity was associated with lower FPS, which could be improved through performing a bed tilt or ramp positioning.

Immobilization in Emergency Medical Service - Are CSR and NEXUS-Criteria Considered? A Matched-Pairs Analysis Between Trauma Patients Treated by Onsite EMS Physicians and Patients Treated by Tele-EMS Physicians

Background

The NEXUS-low-risk criteria (NEXUS) and Canadian C-spine rule (CSR) are clinical decision tools used for the prehospital spinal clearance in trauma patients, intending to prevent over- as well as under immobilization. Since 2014, a holistic telemedicine system is part of the emergency medical service (EMS) in Aachen (Germany). This study aims to examine whether the decisions to immobilize or not by EMS- and tele-EMS physicians are based on NEXUS and the CSR, as well as the guideline adherence concerning the choice of immobilization device.

Methods

A single-site retrospective chart review was undertaken. Inclusion criteria were EMS physician and tele-EMS physician protocols with traumatic diagnoses. Matched pairs were formed, using age, sex and working diagnoses as matching criteria. The primary outcome parameters were the criteria documented as well as the immobilization device used. The evaluation of the decision to immobilize based on the criteria documented was defined as secondary outcome parameter.

Results

Of a total of 247 patients, 34% (n = 84) were immobilized in the EMS physician group and 32.79% (n = 81) in the tele-EMS physician group. In both groups, less than 7% NEXUS or CSR criteria were documented completely. The decision to immobilize or not was appropriately implemented in 127 (51%) in the EMS-physician and in 135 (54, 66%) in the tele-EMS physician group. Immobilization without indication was performed significantly more often by tele-EMS physicians (6.88% vs 2.02%). A significantly better guideline adherence was found in the tele-EMS physician group, preferring the vacuum mattress (25, 1% vs 8.9%) over the spineboard.

Conclusion

It could be shown that NEXUS and CSR are not applied regularly, and if so, mostly inconsistently with incomplete documentation by both EMS- and tele-EMS physicians. Regarding the choice of the immobilization device a higher guideline adherence was shown among the tele-EMS physicians.

Factors which affect the application and implementation of a spinal motion restriction protocol by prehospital providers in a low resource setting: A scoping review

·

There is a need for a patient-centred approach to the prehospital spinal management approach, which considers the associated risks, available personnel and limited resources.

·

There is limited evidence supporting the use of the NEXUS and CCR decision tools in the prehospital setting.

·

Prehospital spinal motion restriction decision tools should focus on reducing unnecessary spinal motion restriction and its associated adverse effects

·

Developing a decision tool with more context-specific prehospital instructions for selective spinal motion restriction is of value.

Introduction

The safety and effectiveness of prehospital clinical c-spine clearance or spinal motion restriction (SMR) decision support tools are unclear. The present study aimed to examine the available literature on clinical cervical spine clearance and selective SMR decision support tools to identify possible barriers to implementation, safety, and effectiveness when used by emergency medical service (EMS) practitioners.

Method

We performed a focused scoping review of published literature on the prehospital use of clinical c-spine clearance and SMR decision tools in adult blunt trauma patients. The Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, Turning Research into Practice and EBSCOhost online databases were searched (February 2021). The type of decision support tool and facilitators and barriers to its use were extracted from each included publication in accordance with a modified descriptive-analytical framework. Extracted data were subjected to thematic analysis.

Results

Following screening, forty-two articles were included in this scoping review. No studies conducted specifically in low resource settings were found. The majority of articles (57%) evaluated the use of specific SMR decision support tools, such as the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) and the Canadian C-spine Rule (CCR). Potential facilitators of safe and effective use were identified in 60%, and potential barriers to safe and effective use in 55% of included articles. Only one study evaluated the CCR when used by EMS practitioners, making it difficult to determine its appropriateness for implementation in the prehospital setting.

Conclusion

This is the first scoping review, to our knowledge, that has attempted to identify the possible barriers and facilitators to their implementation, safety, and effectiveness when used by EMS practitioners. Key issues identified included terminology, guideline compliance and implementation, and a lack of context-specific evidence. These may provide important considerations for future guideline development.

Extrication techniques of entrapped car crash victims: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

to summarize the extrication techniques of entrapped car crash victims with potential spinal injury.

METHOD

a literature review study, of scoping review type, using the MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and gray literature data sources, without time frame, with studies that addressed extricating techniques extrication of entrapped car crash victims.

RESULTS

a total of 33 studies were included that enabled identifying and summarizing the different types of extrication and respective devices for extrication of entrapped car crash victims, indicated according to injury assessment and the victim's clinical condition. All pointed to the need for techniques to maintain neutral alignment and prevent spine twists.

CONCLUSION

this study indicated that injury assessment with an emphasis on the victim's clinical condition provides a coherent decision-making regarding the technique and device to be used. However, carrying out other comparative studies between existing techniques may help in the decision-making process more assertively.

Cervical Spine Clearance in Trauma Patients with an Unreliable Physical Examination

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to describe and compare the timing of cervical spine clearance in trauma patients with an unreliable physical examination.

METHODS

We prospectively included adult trauma patients admitted with a cervical collar and an unreliable clinical examination (as defined by the NEXUS criteria) at two level 1 trauma centers: one in the USA (US) and one in Denmark (DK). We excluded patients with cervical spine injuries requiring a collar or surgery as treatment and patients with a collar placed after hospital arrival. The primary outcome was time from emergency department (ED) arrival to collar removal. Secondary outcomes included time to CT of the cervical spine (CTCS). At the US trauma center, an institutional protocol allowing cervical spine clearance exclusively by CTCS was in place. At the Danish trauma center, cervical spine clearance was based on a clinical evaluation by an orthopedic surgeon, usually after CTCS.

RESULTS

A total of 113 patients were included (US: n = 56; DK: n = 57). The median age was 47 years, and 68% were males. The main reasons for an unreliable physical examination were a Glasgow Coma Scale score below 14 (35%), distracting injuries (26%), cervical spine tenderness (13%) and intoxication (13%). The injury severity score at the US trauma center was higher than at the DK trauma center (median: 17 vs. 11, p = 0.03). Both time to CTCS (median: 41 vs. 18 min, p < 0.0001) and time to collar removal (median: 1042 vs. 49 min, p < 0.0001) were significantly greater at the US trauma center.

CONCLUSIONS

Time to collar removal was significantly greater in a trauma center utilizing a cervical spine clearance protocol based on CTCS. As patients may develop complications related to the collar, future studies should clarify how early removal can be implemented without increasing the risk of morbidity.