Clinical outcomes of magnetic resonance imaging in blunt cervical trauma

Objectives: To determine whether MRI of the cervical spine resulted in a change in management of patients with blunt trauma and normal plain X‐ray (XR)/CT of the cervical spine. Methods: An explicit chart review was conducted of patients seen at a Level 1 trauma centre over a 1 year period. Clinical details were extracted from the charts of patients with blunt trauma who had a normal plain XR and CT scan of the cervical spine and who underwent cervical spine MRI. A comparison of clinical details was made between those with a normal/abnormal MRI secondary to the acute injury. Results: One hundred and thirty‐four patients met entry criteria. Discharge non‐operative management of the cervical spine was associated with a change in management by the MRI result (P < 0.0001) where MRI of the cervical spine occurred a median of 3 days (interquartile range 0–4.5, range 0–137) after the injury. The MRI occurred before discharge 90% of the time in both groups. Operative management occurred in three patients and was delayed until after first outpatient review in two patients. Conclusions: An abnormal MRI after normal plain XR and CT cervical spine studies resulted in a change in non‐operative management at discharge. Early MRI resulted in one patient receiving surgery before discharge. No unstable injuries were detected by MRI that were not evident on plain XR or CT cervical spine.     

Are Plain Radiographs Sufficient to Exclude Cervical Spine Injuries in Low-Risk Adults?

Background

The routine use of clinical decision rules and three-view plain radiography to clear the cervical spine in blunt trauma patients has been recently called into question.

Clinical Question

In low-risk adult blunt trauma patients, can plain radiographs adequately exclude cervical spine injury when clinical prediction rules cannot?

Evidence Review

Four observational studies investigating the performance of plain radiographs in detecting cervical spine injury in low-risk adult blunt trauma patients were reviewed.

Conclusion

The consistently poor performance of plain radiographs to rule out cervical spine injury in adult blunt trauma victims is concerning. Large, rigorously performed prospective trials focusing on low- or low/moderate-risk patients will be needed to truly define the utility of plain radiographs of the cervical spine in blunt trauma.     

What is the clinical significance of chest CT when the chest x-ray result is normal in patients with blunt trauma?

BackgroundComputed tomography (CT) has been shown to detect more injuries than plain radiography in patients with blunt trauma, but it is unclear whether these injuries are clinically significant.Study ObjectivesThis study aimed to determine the proportion of patients with normal chest x-ray (CXR) result and injury seen on CT and abnormal initial CXR result and no injury on CT and to characterize the clinical significance of injuries seen on CT as determined by a trauma expert panel.MethodsPatients with blunt trauma older than 14 years who received emergency department chest imaging as part of their evaluation at 2 urban level I trauma centers were enrolled. An expert trauma panel a priori classified thoracic injuries and subsequent interventions as major, minor, or no clinical significance.ResultsOf 3639 participants, 2848 (78.3%) had CXR alone and 791 (21.7%) had CXR and chest CT. Of 589 patients who had chest CT after a normal CXR result, 483 (82.0% [95% confidence interval [CI], 78.7-84.9%]) had normal CT results, and 106 (18.0% [95% CI, 15.1%-21.3%]) had CTs diagnosing injuries—primarily rib fractures, pulmonary contusion, and incidental pneumothorax. Twelve patients had injuries classified as clinically major (2.0% [95% CI, 1.2%-3.5%]), 78 were clinically minor (13.2% [95% CI, 10.7%-16.2%]), and 16 were clinically insignificant (2.7% (95% CI, 1.7%-4.4%]). Of 202 patients with CXRs suggesting injury, 177 (87.6% [95% CI, 82.4%-91.5%]) had chest CTs confirming injury and 25 (12.4% [95% CI, 8.5%-17.6%]) had no injury on CT.ConclusionChest CT after a normal CXR result in patients with blunt trauma detects injuries, but most do not lead to changes in patient management.     

Cervical spine evaluation in pediatric trauma: A cost-effectiveness analysis

ObjectiveThe emergent evaluation of children with suspected traumatic cervical spine injuries (CSI) remains a challenge. Pediatric clinical pathways have been developed to stratify the risk of CSI and guide computed tomography (CT) utilization. The cost-effectiveness of their application has not been evaluated. Our objective was to examine the cost-effectiveness of three common strategies for the evaluation of children with suspected CSI after blunt injury.MethodsWe developed a decision analytic model comparing these strategies to estimate clinical outcomes and costs for a hypothetical population of 0–17 year old patients with blunt neck trauma. Strategies included: 1) clinical pathway to stratify risk using NEXUS criteria and determine need for diagnostic testing; 2) screening radiographs as a first diagnostic; and 3) immediate CT scanning for all patients. We measured effectiveness with quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and costs with 2018 U.S. dollars. Costs and effectiveness were discounted at 3% per year.ResultsThe use of the clinical pathway results in a gain of 0.04 QALYs and a cost saving of $2800 compared with immediate CT scanning of all patients. Use of the clinical pathway was less costly and more effective than immediate CT scan as long as the sensitivity of the clinical prediction rule was greater than 87% and when the sensitivity of x-ray was greater than 84%.ConclusionA strategy using a clinical pathway to first stratify risk before further diagnostic testing was less costly and more effective than either performing CT scanning or screening cervical radiographs on all patients.     

Incidence of cervical spine injuries in association with blunt head trauma

To establish an incidence of cervical spine injuries in significant blunt head trauma and to evaluate the necessity of using cervical radiography, all consecutive cases of blunt head trauma admitted to the trauma service over a 7-month period were reviewed. Two hundred twenty-eight charts were reviewed for demographic information, circumstance of injury, complaints and physical findings referable to the cervical spine, presenting level of consciousness, severity of head injury, and cervical spine radiographic findings. Only three patients were found to have cervical spine injuries, for an incidence of 1.7%. Of the 122 alert and asymptomatic patients, none had cervical spine injury. The patient population was defined, yet the very low incidence of cervical spine injuries associated with blunt head trauma in this study precludes any identification of predictors. Nevertheless, the results suggest that alert and asymptomatic patients can be spared cervical spine radiography.     

Implementation of a dual cervical spine and blunt cerebrovascular injury assessment pathway for pediatric trauma patients

Background:Pediatric cervical spine (CSI) and blunt cerebrovascular injuries (BCVI) are challenging to evaluate as they are rare but carry high morbidity and mortality. CT scans are the traditional imaging modality to evaluate for CSI/BCVI, but involve radiation exposure and potential future increased risk of malignancy. Therefore, we present results from the implementation of a combined CSI/BCVI pediatric trauma clinical pathway to aid clinicians in their decision-making.Methods:We conducted a 2-year retrospective cohort study analyzing data pre and post implementation of the combined CSI/BCVI pathway. Data was obtained from a level 1 pediatric trauma center and included blunt trauma patients under the age of 14. We evaluated the use of cervical spine computed tomography (CT), CT angiography, and plain radiographs, as well as missed injuries and provider pathway adherence.Results:We included 358 patients: 209 pre-pathway and 149 post-pathway implementation. Patient mean age was 8.9 years and 61% were male (61% males). There were no significant differences in GCS, AIS, and ISS between pre and post pathway groups. Post pathway implementation saw reduced use of cervical spine CT, although this was not clinically significant (33% vs 31%, p = 0.74). However, cervical spine radiography use increased (9% vs 16%, p = 0.03), and there was also an increase in screening for BCVI injuries with higher use of CTA (5% vs 7%, p = 0.52). A total of 12 CSI and 3 BCVI were identified with no missed injuries. Provider adherence to the pathway was modest (54%).ConclusionImplementation of a combined CSI/BCVI clinical pathway for pediatric trauma patients increased screening radiography and did not miss any injuries. However, CT use did not significantly decrease and provider adherence was modest, supporting the need for further implementation analysis and larger studies to validate the pathway's sensitivity and specificity for CSI/BCVI.     

Are computed tomography scans adequate in assessing cervical spine pain following blunt trauma?

Good quality three-view radiographs (anteroposterior, lateral, and open-mouth/odontoid) of the cervical spine exclude most unstable injuries, with sensitivity as high as 92% in adults and 94% in children. The diagnostic performance of helical computed tomography (CT) scanners may be even greater, with reported sensitivity as high as 99% and specificity 93%. Missed injuries are usually ligamentous, and may only be detected with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or dynamic plain radiographs. With improvements in the accessibility of advanced imaging (helical CT and MRI) and with improvements in the resolution of such imaging, dynamic screening is now used less commonly to screen for unstable injuries. This case involves a patient with an unstable cervical spine injury whose cervical subluxation was only detected following use of dynamic radiographs, despite a prior investigation with helical CT. In this way, the use of dynamic radiographs following blunt cervical trauma should be considered an effective tool for managing acute cervical spine injury in the awake, alert, and neurologically intact patient with neck pain.     

放射学检查在颈椎损伤早期诊断价值的研究

评估传统放射学检查方法对颈椎损伤早期诊断价值。对１５２例疑有急性颈椎损伤的成人患者行常规放射学检查即颈椎侧位片、前后位片及枢椎齿状突开口位片检查，并与断层扫描、ＣＴ扫描及ＭＲＩ检查结果进行比较。结果１５２例患者中８７例发生颈椎骨折（占５７．２％）；颈椎侧位片诊断的敏感性、特异性和准确性分别是８４％、７４％和８０％，而颈椎常规放射学诊断的敏感性、特异性和准确性分别为９３％、８０％和８７％。作者认为：颈椎损伤早期应采用颈椎侧位片、前后位片及枢椎齿状突开口位片作为放射学常规检查；对于常规放射学检查或临床表现提示有颈椎损伤者以及根据常规放射学检查难以确定诊断者，应考虑行断层扫描、ＣＴ扫描及ＭＲＩ检查     

Odontoid lateral mass asymmetry: do we over-investigate?

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the necessity for further radiological investigation in patients with suspected traumatic rotatory subluxation of the atlanto-axial complex on plain radiography following acute cervical trauma and outline guidelines for assessment of patients with atlanto-axial asymmetry on plain radiography. Methods: A retrospective review of all patients who had undergone atlanto-axial CT scanning as a result of radiographic C1–C2 asymmetry following cervical spine trauma. The plain x ray and CT images were reviewed retrospectively and correlated with the clinical presentation and outcome. Results and conclusion: Records of 29 patients (16 men, 13 women; age range 21–44 years) were reviewed. All patients were found to have atlanto-odontoid asymmetry on the initial plain x ray. CT images of none of the patients revealed rotatory subluxation. Ten patients (32%) were found to have congenital odontoid lateral mass asymmetry. All patients were treated conservatively without any further intervention. On review, in 19 patients the orientation of the x ray beam in combination with head rotation was found to be at fault. Approximately 1050 trauma cervical spine x rays were taken in the department where this study was conducted over the period 1999–2001. This study identified 10 patients out of a total of 29 as having congenital odontoid lateral mass asymmetry. This represents approximately 1% of the patients attending the emergency department. Thus congenital odontoid lateral mass asymmetry should be considered in the differential diagnosis following acute cervical trauma.     

Trauma radiology: Part V. Imaging of acute cervical spine trauma

Cervical spine injury constitutes a major cause of morbidity resulting from trauma. The consequences of a missed "significant" injury can be devastating for the patient and can create potential medical legal consequences for involved physicians. Multiple imaging modalities can be applied to imaging of the cervical spine after trauma, including radiography, computed tomography (CT), myelography, CT myelography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Controversy exists concerning the appropriate number of radiographic views required for the screening assessment of cervical spine injuries. CT clarifies uncertain radiological findings, identifies subtle fractures in patients with neck pain or with neurological deficits but with normal radiographs, determines details of injury, and assists in operative planning. MRI has virtually replaced myelography and CT myelography in evaluating the traumatized cervical spine. MRI is more accurate than CT with intrathecal contrast in delineating epidural pathology, ligament injury, soft-tissue edema, and cord parenchymal injury. Information derived from MRI guides appropriate management and has value in predicting injury outcome. We consider indications for and relative merits of these various diagnostic modalities, and we describe imaging features of major patterns of cervical spine injury.     

Emergency Physicians' Attitudes toward and Use of Clinical Decision Rules for Radiography

Objectives: 1) To assess Canadian emergency physicians' (EPs') use of and attitudes toward 2 radiographic clinical decision rules that have recently been developed and to identify physician characteristics associated with decision rule use; 2) to determine the use of CT head and cervical spine radiography by EPs and their beliefs about the appropriateness of expert recommendations supporting the routine use of these radiographic procedures; and 3) to determine the potential acceptance of clinical decision rules for CT scan in patients with minor head injury and cervical spine radiography in trauma patients. Methods: A cross-sectional anonymous mail survey of a random sample of 300 members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians using Dillman's Total Design Method for mail surveys. Results: Of 288 eligible physicians, 232 (81%) responded. More than 95% of the respondents stated they currently used the Ottawa Ankle Rules and were willing to consider using the newly developed Ottawa Knee Rule. Physician characteristics related to frequent use of the Ottawa Ankle Rules were younger age, fewer years since graduating from medical school, part time or resident employment status, working in a hospital without a CT scanner, and believing that decision rules are not oversimplified cookbook medicine or too rigid to apply. Eighty-five percent did not agree that all patients with minor head injuries should receive a CT head scan and only 3.5% stated they always refer such patients for CT scan. Similarly, 78.5% of the respondents did not agree that all trauma patients should receive cervical spine radiography and only 13.2% said they always refer such patients for cervical spine radiography. Ninety-seven and 98% stated they would be willing to consider using well-validated decision rules for CT scan of the head and cervical spine radiography, respectively. Fifty-two percent and 67% of the respondents required the proposed CT and C-spine to be 100% sensitive for identifying serious injuries, respectively. Conclusions: Canadian EPs are generally supportive of clinical decision rules and, in particular, have very positive attitudes toward the Ottawa Ankle and Knee Rules. Furthermore, EPs disagree with recommendations for routine use of CT head and cervical spine radiography and strongly support the development of well-validated decision rules for the use of CT head and cervical spine radiography. Most EPs expected the latter rules to be 100% sensitive for acute clinically significant lesions.     

Distracting Painful Injuries Associated with Cervical Spinal Injuries in Blunt Trauma

Distracting painful injuries (DPIs) may mask symptoms of spinal injury in blunt trauma victims and form an important element in a decision instrument used to identify individuals who require cervical spine radiography. OBJECTIVE: To identify the types and frequencies of injuries that actually act as DPIs among blunt trauma patients undergoing cervical spinal radiography. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of consecutive blunt trauma victims presenting to an urban Level 1 regional trauma center between April 1, 1998, and September 30, 1998. Prior to cervical spinal radiography, treating physicians evaluated each patient to determine whether a DPI was present or absent and, if present, what type of injury was sustained. Injuries were categorized as fractures, soft-tissue injuries and lacerations, burns, visceral injuries, crush injuries, or other injuries. RESULTS: Data were collected for 778 patients, between 1 month and 98 years old, of whom 264 (34%) were considered to have DPIs. Physicians were unable to determine the DPI status in 47 (6%) additional cases. Fractures accounted for a majority of DPIs (154, or 58%), 42 (16%) were soft-tissue injuries or lacerations, and 86 (34%) were due to a variety of other entities, including visceral, crush, burn, or other miscellaneous injuries. Among the 37 (5%) patients with an acute cervical spinal injury, 20 (54%) had a DPI, including three (8%) who had DPI as the only indication for cervical radiography. CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of blunt trauma patients are believed by clinicians to have DPIs that can possibly mask the presence of cervical spinal injury. Fractures and trauma to soft tissues are the most common types of DPI.     

Incidence and significance of injuries on secondary CT imaging after initial selective imaging in blunt trauma patients

ObjectiveIt is unclear if additional computerized tomography (CT) imaging is warranted after injuries are identified on CT in blunt trauma patients. The objective of this study was to determine the incidence and significance of injuries identified on secondary CT imaging after identification of injuries on initial CTs in blunt trauma patients.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study at an academic Level 1 trauma center with a two-tiered trauma system. Inclusion criteria: age ≥ 18, level 2 trauma activation, injury identified on initial CT, and secondary CTs ordered. Secondary injuries were categorized as resulting in: no changes, minor changes, or major changes in management.Results537 patients underwent 1179 initial CT scans which identified 744 injuries. There were 1094 secondary CTs which identified 143 additional injuries in 94 (18%) patients. 9 (1.7%) patients had at least one major management change and 64 (12%) had at least one minor management change. Rib fracture(s) was the most common injury on secondary scans [45/143 (32%)]. The major management changes were: tube thoracostomy for pneumothorax (4 patients), blood transfusion for hemoperitoneum (1 patient), surgery for acetabular fracture (1 patient), thoracolumbar brace for spine fracture (2 patients) and angiography for splenic injury (1 patient).ConclusionWhile a significant proportion of patients (18%) had injuries on secondary CT, only 1.7% of patients had a resultant major management change. Future research is warranted to determine the need for additional CT imaging after an initial selective imaging strategy in blunt trauma patients.     

Evaluation of the acute cervical spine: a management algorithm. (Department of Surgery, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY) J Trauma 2000;49:450–456.

A retrospective review was initiated of all trauma patients evaluated in a Level I trauma center the year before and after implementation of a new cervical spine protocol to determine the incidence of missed cervical injuries. An additional 6 months were reviewed to detect any missed injuries late in the study period. During the 2‐year study period, 4,460 patients presented to the emergency room with some form of cervical spine precautions. Blunt trauma comprised 90% of the study population. According to the protocol, approximately 45% required further cervical radiographs after presentation. In the preprotocol year, 77 of 2,217 (3.4%) patients were diagnosed with cervical spine injuries, 16 of 77 (21%) with multiple level injuries, and 25 of 77 (32%) with neurologic compromise. Three of 2,217 patient had missed cervical spine injuries on their initial evaluations. In the postprotocol year, 84 of 2,243 (3.4%) patients had cervical injuries, 25 of 84 (30%) with multiple levels of injuries and 28 of 84 (28%) with neurologic compromise. No patient evaluated during the protocol year was missed. All statistics between the two groups were not significant. Conclude the current protocol by risk stratifying patients on presentation is effective in assessing patients for cervical spine injuries. Comment by Gabor B. Racz, M.D. This is a retrospective review from a Level I trauma center a year before and after implantation of a cervical spine injury protocol. The comparison of outcomes before and after the protocol was rather similar in that the diagnosis of cervical spine injury in 77 of 2,217 patients, or 3.4% and 84 of 2,243 had cervical injuries again 3.4%. Prior to the initiation of the protocol, the first year had three cervical spine injuries missed, which were diagnosed later secondary to continued neck pain on reevaluation. There were no missed cases after the protocol. The evaluation and examination go hand in hand. More emphasis is placed on the clinical exam and plain multiple view x‐ray films and adherence to limiting the rigid collar to 6 h switching over to soft collar and developing more of a confidence in the clinical exam rather than to concentrate on the more expensive and time consuming radiological diagnostic procedures. The cervical algorithm does work and it is impressive that there were no missed injuries. It is recommended that physicians working in a Level I trauma center should go and review the algorithm in detail. The recommended practice is to rely on plain films first if there is persistent pain flexion and extension films and involvement of appropriate consultants in these patients who must be assumed to have cervical spine injury.     

Management of suspected cervical spine injuries--the paediatric perspective

Paediatric cervical spine immobilisation and management is one of the most difficult tasks to master in the paediatric trauma population. The Royal Children's Hospital--Melbourne has admitted 54 patients with diagnosed cervical spine injuries since January 1999. The management of such patients admitted to acute care facilities with suspected cervical spine injuries is inconsistent and at times sub-optimal. Management controversies centre around, application of cervical collars, clearance of the c-spine, patient movement and general care principles. In an endeavour to address these issues, the Royal Children's Hospital Trauma Service, in conjunction with the Emergency Department developed cervical spine guidelines. Teams consulted in the formulation of these guidelines included, Emergency Department, Intensive Care Unit, Orthopaedics, Neurosurgery, Radiology and General Surgery. These guidelines were developed as a clinical tool to guide management and standardise the approach of care for these patients. Specifically, the guidelines address: immobilisation of the paediatric cervical spine; radiology; clearing the cervical spine of injury; suspected or proven cervical spine injury; guidelines for times to fitting Philadelphia collar; ongoing care.     

Outcome of Trauma Patients Immobilized by Emergency Department Staff,but Not by Emergency Medical Services Providers: A Quality Assurance Initiative

Abstract

Background. Prehospital selective cervical spine immobilization (CSI) is a relatively new concept. In our emergency medical services (EMS) system, protocols for selective CSI are widely used; yet, some patients who are brought to the hospital without CSI undergo secondary immobilization and cervical spine imaging in the emergency department (ED). Immobilization in the ED, after a decision not to immobilize by EMS, suggests that either the prehospital assessment is not trusted or the patient has developed new symptoms over time. We undertook a quality assurance initiative to evaluate whether trauma patients brought to the ED without CSI, who then underwent secondary CSI and imaging in the ED, had injuries that were initially missed by EMS selective CSI protocol. Methods. This was a 36-month retrospective data analysis of blunt trauma patients transported directly from the field to the University of New Mexico Hospital level I trauma center by Albuquerque Ambulance Service (AAS) between March 2009 and February 2012. Inclusion criteria were age 18 years and older, transported by AAS without CSI, and cervical spinal imaging done in the ED. Patients were excluded if they were being transported between facilities, were prisoners, and/or refused CSI. A positive finding was defined as any acute abnormality identified by the attending radiologist on the final imaging report. Results. The study included 101 patients who met inclusion criteria. There were no significant missed injuries. Ninety-four of the 101 patients received cervical spinal CT imaging at an estimated cost of $1,570 per scan, not including physician charges. The remaining patients had plain film radiographic imaging. No patients had magnetic resonance imaging. Conclusions. In this retrospective quality assurance initiative, none of 101 patients who underwent secondary CSI and imaging in the ED had a missed acute cervical injury. No patients had any adverse effects or required treatment, yet these patients incurred substantial costs and increased radiation exposure. While our results suggest hospital personnel should have confidence in prehospital decisions regarding CSI, continued surveillance and a large-scale, prospective study are needed to confirm our findings.     

An evidenced-based approach to radiographic assessment of cervical spine injuries in the emergency department

The modern approach to suspected cervical spine injuries is highly dependent on appropriate utilization of radiographic studies. Clinical decision rules have been developed for determination of those most likely to benefit from plain film studies, but there is confusion regarding those who should undergo computed tomography (CT) scanning. This case-based review highlights current available evidence and provides a framework to guide emergency medicine providers in the treatment of patients with trauma to the cervical spine.     

Imaging after head trauma. Who needs what?

Decisions about the optimal imaging strategy in patients after acute head trauma can be based on clinical observations. Low-risk patients do not require radiographic imaging. CT is the procedure of choice for imaging moderate- and high-risk patients after head trauma. Because of its limited ability to guide therapy, plain skull radiography should be used sparingly; it may be useful in equivocal cases of bony injury not detected by CT or in selected moderate-risk patients (especially children under the age of 2 years). MR imaging rivals CT in the detection of intracranial injuries but is more expensive and cumbersome in seriously ill subjects and does not image bony structures. MR imaging is recommended after initial CT if subtle acute nonhemorrhagic and subacute hemorrhagic lesions are suspected, especially in the evaluation of child abuse. Otherwise, MR imaging is rarely needed in the emergency department management of acute head injury patients.     

Review article: Indications for thoracolumbar imaging in blunt trauma patients: A review of current literature

Thoracolumbar spine injury is a common complication of blunt multitrauma and up to one third of fractures are associated with spinal cord dysfunction. Delayed fracture diagnosis increases the risk of neurological complications. While validated screening guidelines exist for traumatic c‐spine injury equivalent guidelines for thoracolumbar screening are lacking. We conducted a literature review evaluating studies of thoracolumbar injury in trauma patients to generate indications for thoracolumbar imaging. We performed MEDLINE and Pubmed searches using MeSH terms “Wounds, Nonpenetrating”, “Spinal Fractures”, “Spinal Injuries” and “Diagnostic Errors”, MeSH/subheading terms “Thoracic Vertebrae/injuries” and “Lumbar Vertebrae/injuries” and keyword search terms “thoracolumbar fractures”, “thoracolumbar injuries”, “thoracolumbar trauma”, “missed diagnoses” and “delayed diagnoses”. Limits and inclusion criteria were defined prior to searching. We evaluated 16 articles; 5 prospective observational studies (1 cohort study) and 11 retrospective observational studies. Predictors of TL injury in prospective studies – high‐risk injury mechanism, distracting injury, impaired cognition, symptoms/signs of vertebral fracture and known cervical fracture – were defined and used to construct a decision algorithm, which in a total of 14189 trauma patients from all eligible studies recommended TL screening in 856(99.1%) of 864 patients with TL fractures and would probably have directed TL imaging in the remaining 8 patients. There is limited low level evidence guiding surveillance TL imaging in adult blunt trauma patients. Despite this, we propose and evaluate an algorithm with a high negative predictive value for TL fractures. This should be incorporated into spinal injury assessment protocols.     

Clinical algorithm for preventing missed diagnoses of occult cervical spine instability after acute trauma: A case report

BACKGROUNDMissed or delayed diagnosis of cervical spine instability after acute trauma can have catastrophic consequences for the patient, resulting in severe neurological impairment. Currently, however, there is no consensus on the optimal strategy for diagnosing occult cervical spine instability. Thus, we present a case of occult cervical spine instability and provide a clinical algorithm to aid physicians in diagnosing occult instability of the cervical spine.CASE SUMMARYA 57-year-old man presented with cervical spine pain and inability to stand following a serious fall from a height of 2 m. No obvious vertebral fracture or dislocation was found at the time on standard lateral X-ray, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Subsequently, the initial surgical plan was unilateral open-door laminoplasty (C3-7) with alternative levels of centerpiece mini-plate fixation (C3, 5, and 7). However, the intraoperative C-arm fluoroscopic X-rays revealed significantly increased intervertebral space at C5-6, indicating instability at this level that was previously unrecognized on preoperative imaging. We finally performed lateral mass fixation and fusion at the C5-6 level. Looking back at the preoperative images, we found that the preoperative T2 MRI showed non-obvious high signal intensity at the C5-6 intervertebral disc and posterior interspinous ligament.CONCLUSIONMRI of cervical spine trauma patients should be carefully reviewed to detect disco-ligamentous injury, which will lead to further cervical spine instability. In patients with highly suspected cervical spine instability indicated on MRI, lateral X-ray under traction or after anesthesia and muscle relaxation needs to be performed to avoid missed diagnoses of occult cervical instability.