Does Computed Tomography Rule Out Clinically Significant Cervical Spine Injuries in Patients With Obtunded or Intubated Blunt Trauma?

2012 ◽  
Vol 60 (6) ◽  
pp. 737-738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Kirschner ◽  
Rawle A. Seupaul
2006 ◽  
Vol 72 (9) ◽  
pp. 773-777 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian W. Ong ◽  
Aurelio Rodriguez ◽  
Robert Kelly ◽  
Vicente Cortes ◽  
Jack Protetch ◽  
...  

There are differing recommendations in the literature regarding cervical spine imaging in alert, asymptomatic geriatric patients. Previous studies also have not used computed tomography routinely. Given that cervical radiographs may miss up to 60 per cent of fractures, the incidence of cervical spine injuries in this population and its implications for clinical management are unclear. We conducted a retrospective study of blunt trauma patients 65 years and older who were alert, asymptomatic, hemodynamically stable, and had normal neurologic examinations. For inclusion, patients were required to have undergone computed tomography and plain radiographs. The presence and anatomic location of potentially distracting injuries or pain were recorded. Two hundred seventy-four patients were included, with a mean age of 76 ± 10 years. The main mechanisms of injury were falls (51%) and motor vehicle crashes (41%). Nine of 274 (3%) patients had cervical spine injuries. The presence of potentially distracting injuries above the clavicles was associated with cervical injury when compared with patients with distracting injuries in other anatomic locations or no distracting injuries (8/115 vs 1/159, P = 0.03). There was no association of cervical spine injury with age greater or less than 75 years or with mechanism of injury. The overall incidence of cervical spine injury in the alert, asymptomatic geriatric population is low. The risk is increased with a potentially distracting injury above the clavicles. Patients with distracting injuries in other anatomic locations or no distracting injuries may not need routine cervical imaging.


2010 ◽  
Vol 76 (4) ◽  
pp. 365-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos V.R. Brown ◽  
Kelli H. Foulkrod ◽  
Andrew Reifsnyder ◽  
Eric Bui ◽  
Irene Lopez ◽  
...  

Controversy exists regarding the correlation between CT and MRI for evaluation of the cervical spine. We hypothesize that newer-generation CT scanners will improve diagnostic accuracy and may obviate the need for MRI in patients with a normal CT. We compared the missed injury rate of four-slice CT and 64-slice CT performed to evaluate the cervical spine. We conducted a retrospective study from January 2004 to June 2008 of all blunt trauma patients who underwent both a CT and MRI to evaluate the cervical spine. One hundred six blunt trauma patients underwent both CT and MRI, including 43 with four-slice and 63 with 64-slice CT. CT missed three injuries (3%), all of which were clinically significant ligamentous injuries seen only on MRI. The 64-slice CT missed no injuries (0%), whereas the four-slice CT missed all three (7%) of the ligamentous injuries ( P = 0.03). Older-generation CT scanners miss clinically significant injuries in blunt trauma patients and should not be independently relied on to evaluate the cervical spine. The newer 64-slice CT scan does not appear to miss clinically significant cervical spine injuries and may allow clearance of the cervical spine in blunt trauma patients without the addition of an MRI.


CJEM ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (02) ◽  
pp. 131-135 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hendrik P. Van Zyl ◽  
James Bilbey ◽  
Alan Vukusic ◽  
Todd Ring ◽  
Jennifer Oakes ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Objective: Emergency physicians are expected to rule out clinically important cervical spine injuries using clinical skills and imaging. Our objective was to determine whether emergency physicians could accurately rule out clinically important cervical spine injuries using computed tomographic (CT) imaging of the cervical spine. Method: Fifteen emergency physicians were enrolled to interpret a sample of 50 cervical spine CT scans in a nonclinical setting. The sample contained a 30% incidence of cervical spine injury. After a 2-hour review session, the participants interpreted the CT scans and categorized them into either a suspected cervical spine injury or no cervical spine injury. Participants were asked to specify the location and type of injury. The gold standard interpretation was the combined opinion of two staff radiologists. Results: Emergency physicians correctly identified 182 of the 210 abnormal cases with cervical spine injury. The sensitivity of emergency physicians was 87% (95% confidence interval [CI] 82–91), and the specificity was 76% (95% CI 74–77). The negative likelihood ratio was 0.18 (95% CI 0.12–0.25). Conclusion: Experienced emergency physicians successfully identified a large proportion of cervical spine injuries on CT; however, they were not sufficiently sensitive to accurately exclude clinically important injuries. Emergency physicians should rely on a radiologist review of cervical spine CT scans prior to discontinuing cervical spine precautions.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document