26
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cervical spine clearance after blunt trauma: current state of the art

      review-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          • No definite consensus exists for the clearance of the cervical spine (C-spine) after blunt trauma, despite many validated algorithms, recommendations and guidelines. We intend to answer the most relevant questions with which physicians are confronted when clearing C-spines after blunt trauma in emergency departments (EDs). To exclude significant C-spine injuries we designed an algorithm to be compatible with clinical practice, to simplify patient management and avoid unrewarding evaluation.

          • We conducted an exploratory PubMed search including articles published from January 2000 to October 2018. Keywords used were “cervical spine”, “injury”, “clearance”, “Canadian C-spine Rule”, “CCR” and “national emergency x-radiography utilization study”. Clinical and experimental studies were included in a detailed review.

          • We based our literature review on 33 articles. While answering fundamental triage questions from daily clinical practice, the current literature is discussed in detail. We designed an algorithm for the C-spine clearance suitable for any trauma centre with a high-quality multiplanar reconstruction computerized tomography (CT) scan continuously available.

          • The high sensitivity of the Canadian C-spine Rule (CCR) prevents missing C-spine injuries while limiting the amount of unnecessary radiologic examinations. Plain radiographs were fully abandoned for C-spine clearance. A negative CT scan is sufficient to clear the majority of C-spine injuries and allows for collar removal. In case of motor symptoms or radio-clinical discrepancy, the advice of a specialized spine surgeon must be requested. Magnetic resonance imaging must not be routinely used. Neck pain despite negative imaging is not a reason to delay removal of stiff cervical collars.

          Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:253-259. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.190047

          Related collections

          Most cited references39

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Guidelines for the management of acute cervical spine and spinal cord injuries: 2013 update.

            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The Canadian C-spine rule versus the NEXUS low-risk criteria in patients with trauma.

            The Canadian C-Spine (cervical-spine) Rule (CCR) and the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) Low-Risk Criteria (NLC) are decision rules to guide the use of cervical-spine radiography in patients with trauma. It is unclear how the two decision rules compare in terms of clinical performance. We conducted a prospective cohort study in nine Canadian emergency departments comparing the CCR and NLC as applied to alert patients with trauma who were in stable condition. The CCR and NLC were interpreted by 394 physicians for patients before radiography. Among the 8283 patients, 169 (2.0 percent) had clinically important cervical-spine injuries. In 845 (10.2 percent) of the patients, physicians did not evaluate range of motion as required by the CCR algorithm. In analyses that excluded these indeterminate cases, the CCR was more sensitive than the NLC (99.4 percent vs. 90.7 percent, P<0.001) and more specific (45.1 percent vs. 36.8 percent, P<0.001) for injury, and its use would have resulted in lower radiography rates (55.9 percent vs. 66.6 percent, P<0.001). In secondary analyses that included all patients, the sensitivity and specificity of CCR, assuming that the indeterminate cases were all positive, were 99.4 percent and 40.4 percent, respectively (P<0.001 for both comparisons with the NLC). Assuming that the CCR was negative for all indeterminate cases, these rates were 95.3 percent (P=0.09 for the comparison with the NLC) and 50.7 percent (P=0.001). The CCR would have missed 1 patient and the NLC would have missed 16 patients with important injuries. For alert patients with trauma who are in stable condition, the CCR is superior to the NLC with respect to sensitivity and specificity for cervical-spine injury, and its use would result in reduced rates of radiography. Copyright 2003 Massachusetts Medical Society
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Computed tomography versus plain radiography to screen for cervical spine injury: a meta-analysis.

              To compare the test performance of plain radiography and computed tomography (CT) in the detection of patients with cervical spine injuries following blunt traumatic events among those patients determined to require screening radiography. We conducted a MEDLINE search for articles published from January 1995 through June 2004, manually reviewed bibliographies, and hand searched four journals. Studies were included if they contained data on the performance of both plain radiography and CT in the detection of patients with blunt cervical spine injuries. Both authors screened titles and abstracts identified by the search and seven of the 712 articles met all inclusion criteria. Both authors independently abstracted data from these seven studies and disagreements were resolved by mutual agreement. Patient entry criteria were highly variable for each study and there were no randomized controlled trials. For identifying patients with cervical spine injury, the pooled sensitivity for cervical spine plain radiography was 52% (95% CI 47, 56%) and for CT was 98% (95% CI 96, 99%). The test for heterogeneity suggests that significant differences exist between studies in the measurement of the sensitivity for plain radiography (p = 0.07). Due to limitations of the gold standard tests in each study, a calculation of a combined specificity was not possible. Despite the absence of a randomized controlled trial, ample evidence exists that CT significantly outperforms plain radiography as a screening test for patients at very high risk of cervical spine injury and thus CT should be the initial screening test in those patients with a significantly depressed mental status. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that cervical spine CT should replace plain radiography as the initial screening test for less injured patients who are at low risk for cervical spine injury but still require a screening radiographic examination.

                Author and article information

                Journal
                EFORT Open Rev
                EFORT Open Rev
                EFORT Open Reviews
                British Editorial Society of Bone and Joint Surgery
                2058-5241
                May 2020
                6 April 2020
                : 5
                : 4
                : 253-259
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Switzerland
                [2 ]Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences (NDORMS), University of Oxford, UK
                Author notes
                [*]Michaël Moeri, Geneva University Hospitals, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland. Email: michael.moeri@ 123456hcuge.ch ; dr.michael.moeri@ 123456gmail.com
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0272-6385
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8864-792X
                Article
                10.1302_2058-5241.5.190047
                10.1302/2058-5241.5.190047
                7197104
                32373348
                14c1bdd7-96d7-41b6-816d-4c22aa4f00ef
                © 2020 The author(s)

                This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) licence ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed.

                History
                Categories
                Spine
                9
                Algorithm
                Cervical Spine
                Collar
                C-Spine Clearance
                Diagnostics
                Trauma

                algorithm,cervical spine,collar,c-spine clearance,diagnostics,trauma

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                Related Documents Log