scholarly journals A clinical decision rule for cervical spine CT in head or neck trauma patients

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 192-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takeshi Inagaki ◽  
Akio Kimura ◽  
Akiyoshi Hagiwara ◽  
Ryo Sasaki ◽  
Takuro Shimbo
CJEM ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (06) ◽  
pp. 344-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julien Payrastre ◽  
Suneel Upadhye ◽  
Andrew Worster ◽  
Daren Lin ◽  
Kamyar Kahnamoui ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTObjective:To derive and internally validate a clinical decision rule that will rule out major thoracic injury in adult blunt trauma patients, reducing the unnecessary use of chest computed tomographic (CT) scans.Methods:Data were retrospectively obtained from a chart review of all trauma patients presenting to a Canadian tertiary trauma care centre from 2005 to 2008, with those from April 2006 to March 2007 being used for the validation phase. Patients were included if they had an Injury Severity Score > 12 and chest CT at admission or a documented major thoracic injury noted in the trauma database. Patients with penetrating injury, a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score ≤ 8, paralysis, or age < 16 years were excluded.Results:There were 434 patients in the derivation group and 180 in the validation group who met the inclusion criteria. Using recursive partitioning, five clinical variables were found to be particularly predictive of injury. When these variables were normal, no patients had a major thoracic injury (sensitivity 100% [95% CI 98.4–100], specificity 46.9% [95% CI 44.2–46.9], and negative likelihood ratio 0.00 [95% CI 0.00–0.04]). The five variables were oxygensaturation (< 95% on room air or < 98% on any supplemental oxygen),chest radiograph, respiratoryrate ≥ 25, chestauscultation, and thoracicpalpation (SCRAP). In the validation group, the same five variables had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 96.2–100%), a specificity of 44.7% (95% CI 39.5–44.7%), and negative likelihood ratio of 0.00 (95% CI 0.00–0.10).Conclusions:In major blunt trauma with a GCS score > 8, the SCRAP variables have a 100% sensitivity for major thoracic injury in this retrospective study. These findings need to be prospectively validated prior to use in a clinical setting.


CJEM ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 639-647 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kasim Abdulaziz ◽  
Jamie Brehaut ◽  
Monica Taljaard ◽  
Marcel Émond ◽  
Marie-Josée Sirois ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundThere are a number of screening tools to predict return to the emergency department (ED) in elderly trauma patients, but none exist to specifically screen for functional decline after a minor injury. The objective of this study was to identify outcome measures for a possible future clinical decision rule to be used in the ED to identify previously independent patients at high risk of functional decline at six months post minor injury.MethodsAfter a rigorous development process, a survey instrument was administered to a random sample of 178 emergency physicians using the Dillman’s Tailored Design Method.ResultsOf 156 eligible surveys, we received 81 completed surveys (response rate 51.9%). Considering all 14 activities of daily living (ADL) items, 90% of physicians deemed a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in function to be at least three points on the 28-point Older Americans Resources and Services (OARS) ADL Scale as clinically significant. A tool with a sensitivity of 93% to detect patients at risk of functional decline at six months post injury would meet or exceed the sensitivity deemed to be required by 90% of physicians. The majority of emergency physicians do not assess elderly injured patients for the majority of the tasks.ConclusionsA drop of three points on the 28-point OARS ADL Scale would be deemed clinically important by the vast majority of emergency physicians. Further, a sensitivity of 93% for a clinical decision tool would satisfy the MCID requirements of the vast majority of emergency physicians. There appears to be a gap between physician knowledge and actual practice. We intend to use these findings in the development of a clinical decision rule to identify high-risk elderly trauma patients.


2004 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 635-641 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory Guldner ◽  
Jonathan Babbitt ◽  
Mike Boulton ◽  
Thomas O' Callaghan ◽  
Rehema Feleke ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (10) ◽  
pp. 614-618
Author(s):  
Takeshi Inagaki ◽  
Akio Kimura ◽  
Go Makishi ◽  
Shigeru Tanaka ◽  
Noriko Tanaka

ObjectivePrevious cervical spine imaging decision rules have been based on positive findings on plain X-ray and are limited by lack of specificity, age restrictions and complicated algorithms. We previously derived and validated a clinical decision rule (Rule 1) for detecting cervical spine injury (CSI) on CT in a single-centre study. This recommended CT for patients with (1) GCS score <14, (2) GCS 14–15 and posterior cervical tenderness or neurological deficit, (3) age ≥60 years and fall down stairs, or (4) age <60 and injured in a motorcycle collision or fallen from height. This study assessed the accuracy and reliability of this rule and refined the rule.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, dual-centre study at two Japanese EDs between August 2012 and March 2014. Patients with head or neck injury ≥16 years of age were included. Clinical data were collected from medical records. Imaging was at the discretion of the treating physician. CSI was diagnosed as a fracture or dislocation seen on CT; patients who were not imaged were followed for 14 days. We analysed the sensitivity and specificity of Rule 1 and refined it post hoc using recursive partitioning.Results1192 patients were enrolled. 927 completed follow-up. Of these, 584 (63.0%) underwent CT imaging and 38 had CSI. Sensitivity and specificity of Rule 1 were 92.1% (95% CI 79.2% to 97.3%) and 58.6% (95% CI 55.4% to 61.9%). A second rule (Rule 2) was derived recommending CT for those with any of the following: GCS <14, cervical tenderness, neurological deficit or mechanism of injury (fall down stairs, motorcycle collision or fall from height) without age limits. Sensitivity and specificity were 100% (95% CI 90.8% to 100%) and 51.9% (95% CI 48.6% to 55.2%), respectively.ConclusionsOur initial CT decision rule had lower sensitivity than in our initial validation study. A refined decision rule based on GCS, neck tenderness, neurological deficit and mechanism of injury showed excellent sensitivity with a small loss of specificity. Rule 2 will now need validation in an independent cohort.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
Shankar Gopinat

Acute cervical facet fractures are increasingly being detected due to the use of cervical spine CT imaging in the initial assessment of trauma patients. For displaced cervical facet fractures with dislocations and subluxations, early surgery can decompress the spinal cord and stabilize the spine. For patients with non-displaced cervical facet fractures, the challenge in managing these patients is the determination of spinal stability. Although many of the patients with non-displaced cervical facet fractures can be managed with a cervical collar, the imaging needs to be analyzed carefully since certain fracture patterns may be better managed with early surgical stabilization.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document