Cervical spine injury and radiography in alert, high-risk patients

Controversy exists over the need for cervical spine radiographs in alert, nonintoxicated victims of blunt trauma. We identified 286 patients admitted to a Level II trauma center over a 14-month period who were alert (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] greater than 13) and considered at high risk for cervical spine injury by published criteria. All 5 (1.7%) fractures or ligament disruptions occurred in the group with neck pain or tenderness. Of the study group, 141 (49%) were asymptomatic for cervical injury and nonintoxicated (blood alcohol concentration (BAC) less than 100 mg/dL). Mandatory cervical spine radiography in this group would have resulted in an additional cost of $33,699. Routine cervical spine radiography in alert, nonintoxicated asymptomatic victims of blunt trauma is a costly practice that warrants further examination.     

Injury to the head and face in patients with cervical spine injury

The charts of 81 patients with acute cervical spine fracture and/or subluxation were reviewed to determine the incidence of injury to the soft tissue and bone of the head or face in these patients. Motor vehicle accidents accounted for over 69% of these injuries. Only 33 patients had concomitant soft tissue injury to the head or face, and only five had facial and/or skull fractures. Injuries of the skull and face do not usually accompany cervical fractures, and our findings do not support the restriction of post-traumatic cervical spine radiography in the emergency department to patients with obvious head or facial trauma.     

Cervical spine injuries in blunt trauma patients requiring emergent endotracheal intubation.

Airway management in the blunt trauma patient is complicated by the potential for causing or exacerbating an injury to the cervical cord if an unstable cervical fracture is present. The records of 987 blunt trauma patients who required emergent endotracheal intubation over a 5-year period were retrospectively reviewed to determine the incidence and type of cervical spine injury and the incidence of injury based on airway management. Sixty of the patients (6.1%) had a cervical fracture; 53 were potentially unstable injuries by radiographic criteria. Twenty patients had neurologic deficits prior to intubation. Twenty-six patients with unstable injuries were intubated orally, 25 nasally, and two by cricothyrotomy. One patient developed a neurologic deficit after nasotracheal intubation. Because of a possible selection bias in which severely injured patients were preferentially referred to this trauma center, the true incidence of cervical spine injuries may be lower than the 6.1% we found. The authors conclude that the incidence of serious cervical spine injury in a very severely injured population of blunt trauma patients is relatively low, and that commonly used methods of precautionary airway management rarely lead to neurologic deterioration.     

Cervical injury in head trauma

Criteria for excluding cervical spine injury in patients who have sustained blunt head or neck trauma were prospectively studied at four hospitals in the Chicago area. The authors attempted to define a subset of these adult patients who, based on clinical criteria, could reliably be excluded from cervical spine radiography, thus avoiding unnecessary radiation and saving considerable time and money in their evaluation. Patients fell into four groups: (1) patients who were awake, alert, and had no complaint of neck pain or tenderness on physical examination; (2) patients who were awake, alert, but had complaint of neck pain or tenderness on physical examination laterally over the trapezius muscle only; (3) patients who were awake, alert, but had complaint of central neck pain or tenderness on physical examination over the cervical spine or center of the neck; and (4) patients who were not fully awake or alert, were clinically intoxicated, had other painful or distracting injuries, or had focal neurologic findings. Patients in group 4 had significantly more fractures (21/387) when compared with all other patients (7/478). Patients with central neck pain or tenderness (group 3) had significantly more fractures (7/237) than patients without pain or tenderness or with these findings limited to the trapezius area (0/236). It is clear that patients who have altered mental status, abnormal examination findings, distracting injury, or pain or tenderness over the cervical spine must have cervical spine radiographs.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Utility of flexion–extension radiography for the detection of ligamentous cervical spine injury and its current role in the clearance of the cervical spine

Detecting the presence of injuries to the cervical spine is an important component of the initial assessment of patients sustaining blunt trauma. A small proportion of cervical spine injuries consists of ligamentous disruption. Accurate detection of ligamentous injury is essential as it may result in sequelae including radiculopathy, quadriplegia and death. Flexion–extension (FE) radiography has traditionally been utilised for the detection of ligamentous injury in patients who have been cleared of bony injury. There are controversies surrounding the use of FE for alert patients with neck pain. There are studies that call into question the diagnostic accuracy of FE, the high proportion of inadequate FE images due to muscle spasm and the adverse effects of prolonged cervical collar immobilisation while awaiting FE. Other literature indicates that FE provides no additional diagnostic information following a multi‐detector helical computed tomography. This review evaluates the literature on the utility of FE for the detection of ligamentous injury and explores alternate strategies for clearing the cervical spine of ligamentous injury.     

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.     

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.     

Cervical spine injury in low-impact blunt trauma

Few data are available regarding the incidence of cervical spine injuries following relatively low-impact blunt trauma. This prospective level II trauma center study of low-impact blunt trauma found a 1.30% incidence of cervical spine injury. Impressive differences were found in such parameters as population characteristics, modes of injury, elapsed times to emergency department evaluation, and Revised Trauma Scores between this study group and those reported in prospective level I high-impact blunt trauma series. Cervical spine injury in low-impact blunt trauma is significant and often presents less than dramatically, thus emphasizing a need for maintaining a high index of suspicion at all times.     

Best Practice in Diagnostic Imaging after Blunt Force Trauma Injury to the Cervical Spine: A Systematic Review

IntroductionThe aim of this study was to investigate best practice in evidence-based clinical examinations to determine the diagnostic efficacy of plain radiography, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of a cervical spine injury after blunt force trauma.MethodsA systematic review of recent literature was performed, with the intention of analysing only original research articles focusing on at least two imaging modalities or clinical decision guidelines in relation to blunt force trauma injuries involving the cervical spine. The search used the following databases: ProQuest Central, ScienceDirect, and Scopus. A total of 18 studies were identified as suitable for review; these were further supported by relevant secondary studies.ResultsIt was found that the National Emergency X-Radiology Utilization Study and the Canadian C-Spine Rule are both highly sensitive methods for screening patients after cervical spine injuries. CT was shown to have a higher validity than plain radiography and MRI for the detection of a bony cervical spine injury. MRI is recommended for obtunded or unevaluable patients with suspected neurologic deficit.ConclusionsOverall, the literature appears to suggest that individuals with a suspected high risk of injury after examination using clinical decision rules should undergo a cervical CT examination. For patients who are found to have a low risk of injury after clinical decision guidelines, good-quality plain radiography is recommended as sufficient.     

Prospective evaluation of criteria for obtaining thoracolumbar radiographs in trauma patients

This study examined if use of clinical screening criteria for selective radiography of blunt trauma patients can identify all patients with thoracolumbar (TL) spine injuries. The study was a prospective cohort of patients undergoing TL spine radiographs following blunt trauma. Patients were considered at risk for TL spine injury if they had any of the following clinical criteria: 1) complaints of TL spine pain, 2) TL spine tenderness, 3) a decreased level of consciousness, 4) intoxication with ethanol or drugs, 5) a neurologic deficit, or 6) a painful distracting injury. Patients without any of these findings were considered at low risk for TL spine injury. Severity of mechanism of injury was also recorded. Data sheets were completed prior to TL radiography. Injury status was determined by the final faculty radiologist interpretation of all radiographic studies. A total of 2404 patients were enrolled. TL spine injuries were identified in 152 patients. Of these 152 patients with spine injuries, all 152 (100%, 95% confidence interval 98-100%) were considered high risk by having at least one of the high-risk criteria. These criteria have a specificity of 3.9%, a positive predictive value of 6.6%, and a negative predictive value of 100%. All of the high-risk criteria but intoxication with ethanol or drugs were important as sole predictors of TL spine injury. The use of high-risk clinical screening criteria identified virtually all blunt trauma patients with acute TL spine injuries. These criteria, however, have poor specificity and positive predictive value.     

Evaluation and management of acute cervical spine trauma

The evaluation and management of cervical spine injuries is a core component of the practice of emergency medicine. This article focuses on evaluation and management of blunt cervical spine trauma by the emergency physician. Pertinent anatomy of the cervical spine and specific cervical spine fractures are discussed, with an emphasis on unstable injuries and associated spinal cord pathology. The association of vertebral artery injury with cervical spine fracture is addressed, followed by a review of the most recent literature on prehospital care. Initial considerations in the emergency department, including cervical spine stabilization and airway management, are reviewed. The most current recommendations for cervical spine imaging with regard to indications and modalities are covered. Finally, emergency department management and disposition of patients with spinal cord injuries are reviewed.     

Distracting injuries in patients with vertebral injuries

To describe the prevalence and types of distracting injuries associated with vertebral injuries at all levels of the spine in blunt trauma patients. A prospective cohort study was conducted at an urban Level I trauma center. All patients undergoing radiographic evaluation of the cervical, thoracic, or lumbar vertebrae after blunt trauma were enrolled. Patients had a data collection form completed by the treating physician before radiographic imaging and were evaluated for the following upon initial presentation: tenderness to the cervical, thoracic, or lumbar spine, distracting injuries, altered mental status, alcohol or drug intoxication, or neurological deficits. Patients with distracting injuries as the sole documented indication for vertebral radiographs were reviewed for the types of injuries present. A total of 4698 patients were enrolled in the study. There were 336 (7.2%) patients who had distracting injuries as the sole documented indication for obtaining radiographic studies of the vertebrae. Eight (2.4%, 95% CI 1.0-4.6%) of the 336 patients had 14 acute vertebral injuries including compression fractures (5), transverse process fractures (7), spinous process fracture (1), and cervical spine rotatory subluxation (1). There were 13 thoracolumbar injuries and one cervical spine injury. Distracting injuries in the eight patients with acute vertebral injuries included 13 bony fractures. Distracting injuries in those patients without vertebral injuries included bony fractures (333), lacerations (63), soft tissue contusions (62), head injuries (15), bony dislocations (12), abrasions (11), visceral injuries (8), dental injuries (5), burns (3), ligamentous injuries (3), amputation (1), and compartment syndrome (1). In conclusion, in patients with distracting injuries, bony fractures of any type were important for identifying patients with vertebral injuries. Other types of distracting injuries did not contribute to the sensitivity of the clinical screening criteria in the detection of patients with vertebral injuries.     

Epidemiology of Thoracolumbar Spine Injury in Blunt Trauma

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the prevalence, distribution, and demographics of thoracolumbar (TL) spine injuries following blunt trauma. METHODS: Prospective, cross-sectional study of a consecutive sample of all blunt trauma patients presenting initially to the emergency department (ED) of a Level 1 trauma center and undergoing thoracic and/or lumbar spine radiography from August 1997 to November 1998. The age, sex, and mechanism of injury of each patient as well as location and type of spine injury were recorded for those patients with vertebral fractures, dislocations, or subluxations. RESULTS: Two thousand four hundred four blunt trauma patients were enrolled. Vertebral injuries were identified in 152 individuals (6.3%, 95% CI = 5.4% to 7.4%). Two hundred sixty distinct anatomic levels of injury were identified in these 152 individuals. Of these 260 injuries, 42 (16.2%) occurred at L1, 38 (14.6%) at L2, 29 (11.1%) at L3, and 27 (10.4%) at T12, making these the most commonly injured vertebrae. Injuries were most common (34 patients) in those aged 30-39 years and were least common (12 patients) in those under 18 years. Compression fractures (52%) were the most common injury in the thoracic spine, while transverse process fractures (48%) were the most common injuries in the lumbar spine. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of TL injuries in ED blunt trauma patients undergoing TL radiographs is 6.3%. The most commonly injured area of the TL spine is the thoracolumbar junction.     

Retroperitoneal injuries: pitfalls in diagnosis and management

Retroperitoneal injury caused by penetrating trauma or associated with progressive shock following blunt trauma is usually recognized promptly and managed appropriately. Isolated retroperitoneal injury from blunt trauma, unless accompanied by major hemorrhage or gross hematuria, is often difficult to diagnose and needed treatment may be delayed. Although clinical examination remains the cornerstone of diagnosis, the high incidence of ethanol abuse and/or concurrent head injury in trauma patients has led to increased use of computed tomography in the diagnosis of abdominal trauma. To determine the effect, if any, of CT examination on the diagnosis and management of retroperitoneal trauma, we reviewed our patient experience. During the 16-month period ending in April 1986, 135 patients sustained 177 retroperitoneal injuries (116 by blunt and 19 by penetrating trauma). There were 26 deaths (19% mortality). There were 90 pelvic fractures and 31 lumbar spine fractures, as well as 21 genitourinary, 12 gastrointestinal, five pancreatic, and eight major vascular injuries. Ten patients had isolated retroperitoneal hematomas. We conclude that (1) patients with retroperitoneal injuries and coexisting intraperitoneal injuries should have early operation; (2) isolated retroperitoneal trauma tends to lead to observation unless CT is used as part of the early assessment; and (3) routine use of CT in patients at risk accurately defines the extent of injury and enhances clinical management.     

Evaluation of neck discomfort, neck tenderness, and neurologic deficits as indicators for radiography in blunt trauma victims.

Seventeen of 480 adult blunt trauma victims who sustained cervical spine injuries (CSI) were studied prospectively. In reliable patients, complaints of neck discomfort and tenderness demonstrated sensitivities of 86% and 79%, respectively, for CSI. A positive physical examination, defined as neurologic deficits, or cervical region discomfort or tenderness was noted in 13 of 14 reliable individuals sustaining CSI (sensitivity 93%, specificity 16%, positive predictive value 3.3%, negative predictive value 98.7%). Lack of absolute sensitivity of these studied clinical parameters, either singly or in concert, for CSI suggests that eliminating cervical spine radiography on the basis of the absence of neck discomfort, tenderness, or neurological deficits in reliable blunt trauma victims could result in missed CSI. An enormous prospective data base will be required to definitively address the sensitivity of all clinical parameters currently employed to determine the need for cervical spine radiography in reliable blunt trauma victims.     

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.     

SOFTLY: Comparison of outcomes of rigid versus soft collar during emergency department investigation for potential cervical spine injury in low-risk blunt trauma patients – A pilot study

Objective

Blunt trauma patients with potential cervical spine injury are traditionally immobilised in rigid collars. Recently, this has been challenged. The present study's objective was comparison of the rate of patient-oriented adverse events in stable, alert, low-risk patients with potential cervical spine injuries immobilised in rigid versus soft collars.

Methods

Unblinded, prospective quasi-randomised clinical trial of neurologically intact, adult, blunt trauma patients assessed as having potential cervical spine injury. Patients were randomised to collar type. All other aspects of care were unchanged. Primary outcome was patient-reported discomfort related to neck immobilisation by collar type. Secondary outcomes included adverse neurological events, agitation and clinically important cervical spine injuries (clinical trial registration number: ACTRN12621000286842).

Results

A total of 137 patients were enrolled: 59 patients allocated to a rigid collar and 78 to a soft collar. Most injuries were from a fall <1 m (54%) or a motor vehicle crash (21.9%). Median neck pain score of collar immobilisation was lower in the soft collar group (3.0 [interquartile range 0–6.1] vs 6.0 [interquartile range 3–8.8], P < 0.001). The proportion of patients with clinician-identified agitation was lower in the soft collar group (5% vs 17%, P = 0.04). There were four clinically important cervical spine injuries (two in each group). All were treated conservatively. There were no adverse neurological events.

Conclusions

Use of soft rather than rigid collar immobilisation for low-risk blunt trauma patients with potential cervical spine injury is significantly less painful for patients and results in less agitation. A larger study is needed to determine the safety of this approach or whether collars are required at all.     

Role of Flexion—Extension Radiographs in Blunt Pediatric Cervical Spine Injury

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether flexion-extension cervical spine radiography (FECSR) is abnormal in children who have sustained blunt cervical spine injury (CSI) when standard cervical spine radiography (SCSR) demonstrates no acute abnormalities. METHODS: This was a blinded radiographic review of 129 patients < or = 16 years of age evaluated at an academic pediatric trauma center during July 1990-March 1996. All patients had SCSR (anteroposterior/lateral views) and FECSR performed for a trauma-related event within seven days of injury. RESULTS: Of 46 patients without acute abnormalities on SCSR, one patient (with final clinical diagnosis of "no CSI") had acute abnormalities on FECSR (95% CI = 0.06% to 11.5%). Of 50 patients with isolated loss of lordosis on SCSR, no patient had acute abnormalities on FECSR (95% CI = 0% to 5.8%). The FECSR review revealed no acute abnormalities in 75 of 83 patients (90.4%) with suspicious findings for CSI viewed on SCSR (95% CI = 81.9% to 95.7%). Complications during FECSR were noted in one patient with transient paresthesias (0.8%) (95% CI = 0.02% to 4.2%). CONCLUSIONS: In children who underwent acute radiographic evaluation of blunt cervical spine trauma, FECSR was unlikely to be abnormal when no acute abnormality or isolated loss of lordosis was evident on SCSR. In a subset of patients with suspicious findings for occult CSI on SCSR, FECSR was useful in ruling out ligamentous instability in the acute, posttrauma setting.     

Canadian C-Spine Rule study for alert and stable trauma patients: I. Background and rationale

This paper is Part I of a 2-part series to describe the background and methodology for the Canadian C-Spine Rule study to develop a clinical decision rule for rational imaging in alert and stable trauma patients. Current use of radiography is inefficient and variable, in part because there has been a lack of evidence-based guidelines to assist emergency physicians. Clinical decision rules are research-based decision-making tools that incorporate 3 or more variables from the history, physical examination or simple tests. The Canadian CT Head and C-Spine (CCC) Study is a large collaborative effort to develop clinical decision rules for the use of CT head in minor head injury and for the use of cervical spine radiography in alert and stable trauma victims. Part I details the background and rationale for the development of the Canadian C-Spine Rule. Part II will describe in detail the objectives and methods of the Canadian C-Spine Rule study.     

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.