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.