Case Report: Identifying Andersson-Like Lesions in Diffuse Idiopathic Skeletal Hyperostosis

Andersson lesions (ALs) in ankylosing spondylitis (AS) pose a severe risk to the stability of ankylosed spine, which might result in significant deterioration of spinal cord function after traumatic or inflammatory causes. Herein, erosive discovertebral lesions in diffuse idiopathic skeletal hyperostosis (DISH) presented important clinical similarities to AL in AS, but failed to completely recognize unstable spinal lesions. Therefore, we pioneered to identify spinal discovertebral lesions similar to Andersson-like lesions (ALLs) in DISH, followed by the characterization and summarization of the etiology, radiology, laboratory results, clinical symptoms, and treatment strategies for AL in AS with ALL in DISH. By characterizing the ALL in DISH cases, we showed that the ALL was mainly traumatic and established at the junction of focal stress between two adjacent ossified level arms. Erosive discovertebral ALLs were formed after trivial stress of direct impact and could be subdivided into transdiscal, transvertebral, and discovertebral types radiologically. Patients who presented with ALL frequently suffered from consistent back pain clinically and experienced a decrease in motion ability that could reflect skeletal stability, which received treatment effectiveness after conservative external spinal immobilization or further surgical internal fixation, indicating the significance of recognizing ALL in the ankylosed DISH spine to further maintain spinal stability in order to prevent catastrophic neurologic sequelae. Our work highlighted the clinical relevance of ALL in DISH in comparison with AL in AS, which provided broader insight to identify ALL in DISH, thus facilitating early intervention against DISH deterioration.

The Functional Outcome of Patients Following Spinal Injury in Asia Metropolitans: Does the Prehospital Spine Immobilization Matter?

Prehospital spinal immobilization is a widely used procedure in the emergency medical service (EMS) system worldwide, while the incidence of patients with spinal injury (SI) is relatively low, and unnecessary prehospital spinal immobilization is associated with patient complications. This study aimed to determine the association between prehospital spine immobilization and favorable functional outcomes at hospital discharge among trauma patients with SI. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Pan-Asia Trauma Outcomes Study (PATOS) registry data from January 1, 2016, to November 30, 2018. A total of 759 patients with SI were enrolled from 43,752 trauma patients in the PATOS registry during the study period. The subjects had a median age of 58 years ( Q1−Q3,41−72), and 438 (57.7%) patients had prehospital spine immobilization. Overall, prehospital spinal immobilization was not associated with favorable functional outcomes at discharge in multivariable logistic regression (aOR, 1.06; 95%CI 0.62−1.81, p = 0.826). However, in the subgroup of cervical SI, prehospital spinal immobilization was associated with favorable functional outcomes at discharge (aOR, 3.14; 95%CI 1.04−9.50; p = 0.043). Therefore, we suggest that paramedics should be more careful when determining cervical SI and using prehospital immobilization.

Ten Myths about Medical Emergencies and Medical Kits

ABSTRACTWilderness medicine is plagued by myths and dogmatic teachings not supported by evidence. This article focuses particularly on those teachings and tools that would be most likely used in archaeological fieldwork. It lays out 10 of the most common and concerning myths taught in wilderness medicine and wilderness emergency medical services, both in terms of first aid and preparation of medical kits. The myths described are provide a structure for the main purpose of the article: to explain interventions and medical kit contents that are more evidence based and supported by modern understandings of wilderness medicine and fieldwork risk management. The list of top 10 myths includes (1) the use of medications other than epinephrine for anaphylaxis and (2) the availability and proper use of epinephrine auto-injectors, (3) the use of suction devices and tourniquets for snakebites, (4) the use of spinal immobilization for neck injuries, (5) the identification and treatment of heat illnesses, (6) the use of CPR in remote areas, (7) the appropriateness of dislocation reduction in remote areas, (8) the use and choice of tourniquets for arterial bleeding, (9) the initial definition and management of drowning patients, and (10) wound management myths.

The Effects of Positional Change on Hemodynamic Parameters in Spinal Immobilization

Introduction: The use of a long backboard and cervical collar are commonly recommended by international guidelines for spinal immobilization, but both devices may cause several side effects. In a recent study, it was reported that spinal immobilization at 20° eliminated the decrease in pulmonary function secondary to spinal immobilization performed at 0°. Spinal immobilization at 20° is a new recommendation, but other potential effects need to be explored before it can be implemented in clinical use. Study Objective: Hemodynamic observation is important in the management of trauma patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of spinal immobilization at a 20° position instead of 0° on hemodynamic parameters. Methods: This study included 53 healthy volunteers who underwent spinal immobilization in the supine position (00) and in an elevated position (200). Systolic arterial pressure (SAP), diastolic arterial pressure (DAP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR), left ventricular outflow tract velocity time integral (LVOT-VTI), left ventricular stroke volume (LVSV), cardiac output (CO), inferior vena cava diameter inspiration (IVC diameter insp), IVC diameter expiration (IVC diameter exp), and inferior vena cava collapsibility index (IVC-CI) were measured at the 0th and 30th minutes of spinal immobilization in both positions. The data were compared for demonstrating the efficiency of both positions in spinal immobilization. Results: A statistically significant difference was found in the parameters of the IVC diameter (exp), IVC diameter (insp), LVOT-VTI, LVSV, and CO through the measurements starting in the 0th minute of the transition from 0° to 20° (P <.001). Delta values (∆) of hemodynamic parameters (∆IVC diameter [exp], ∆IVC diameter [insp], ∆LVOT-VTI, ∆SV, ∆CO, ∆IVC-CI, ∆MAP, ∆SAP, ∆DAP, and ∆HR) were similar in spinal immobilization at 0° and 20°. Conclusion: The findings obtained from this study illustrate that spinal immobilization at 20° does not cause clinically significant hemodynamic changes in healthy subjects compared to spinal immobilization at 0°.

Spinal Immobilization in Disasters: A Systematic Review

In response to the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR; Niel, Belgium) release of an updated recommendation related to out-of-hospital spinal immobilization (SI) practice in 2015, a systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist of English-language studies published from January 2000 through July 2019 on the use of SI in resource-scarce environments (RSEs). Studies meeting the following criteria were included in the analysis: peer-reviewed statistical studies or reports detailing management of potential traumatic spinal injury in RSE, civilian, and military environments; as well as consensus clinical guidelines, academic center, or professional association protocols or policy statements detailing management of potential traumatic spinal injury in RSE, civilian, and military environments; statistical analysis; and subsequent management of spinal injuries after mass-casualty incidents, in complex humanitarian events or conflict zones, low-to middle-income countries, or prolonged transport times published by government and non-government organizations. Studies excluded from consideration were those not related to a patient with a potential traumatic spinal injury after a mass-casualty incident, in complex humanitarian event or conflict zones, in low-to middle-income countries, or with prolonged transport times.There were one thousand twenty-nine (1029) studies initially identified. After removal of duplicates, nine hundred-nineteen (919) were screened with eight hundred sixty-three (863) excluded. The remaining fifty-six (56) received further review with fourteen (14) selected studies achieving inclusion. The reviewed articles comprised six (6) types of studies and represented research from institutions in seven (7) different countries (Israel, United States, Haiti, Wales, Pakistan, China, and Iran). Thirteen (13) references were case reports/narrative reviews, policy statements, retrospective observational studies, narrative literature reviews, scoping reviews, and one systematic review. The majority of literature describing spinal cord injury was predominantly associated with earthquakes and blast-related disasters. There were no SI evidence-based clinical guidelines (EBG) in RSE. Information was obtained that could be used to formulate statements in a modified Delphi study to present to experts to obtain consensus SI EBG in RSE.

Spinal Immobilization in the Trauma Room – a Survey-Based Analysis at German Level I Trauma Centers

Background Spinal immobilization is a standard procedure in daily out-of-hospital emergency care. Homogenous recommendations concerning the immobilization of trauma patients during the first therapy in the emergency department do not exist. The aim of the current study was the analysis of the existing strategies concerning spinal immobilization in German level I trauma centers by an internet-based survey. Materials and Methods The current study is a survey-based analysis of the current strategies concerning spinal immobilization in all 107 level I trauma centers in Germany. The internet-based survey consists of 6 items asking about immobilization in the emergency department. Results The return rate was 47.7%. In 14 (28.6%) level I trauma centers the patients remained immobilized on the immobilization tool used by the professional emergency care providers. In 19 (38.8%) level I trauma centers the patients were transferred to a stretcher with a soft positioning mattress on it. Patient transfer to a spineboard or to a TraumaMattress was performed in 11 (22.4%) and 7 (14.3%) level I trauma centers, respectively. Trauma patients were never transferred to a vacuum mattress. Cervical spine protection was most of the time performed by a cervical collar (n = 48; 98.0%). In general, the surveyʼs participants were mainly satisfied (mean = 84/100) with the current strategy of spinal immobilization. The satisfaction was best if the spineboard is used. Discussion Patient positioning during initial emergency therapy in the emergency department of German level I trauma centers is highly heterogenous. Besides complete full body immobilization, also the lack of any immobilization was reported by the surveyʼs participants.