Article

Factors Associated With Cervical Spine Injury in Children After Blunt Trauma

Department of Pediatrics, Division of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis Children's Hospital, One Children's Place, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.
Annals of emergency medicine (Impact Factor: 4.33). 10/2010; 58(2):145-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2010.08.038
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Cervical spine injuries in children are rare. However, immobilization and imaging for potential cervical spine injury after trauma are common and are associated with adverse effects. Risk factors for cervical spine injury have been developed to safely limit immobilization and radiography in adults, but not in children. The purpose of our study is to identify risk factors associated with cervical spine injury in children after blunt trauma.
We conducted a case-control study of children younger than 16 years, presenting after blunt trauma, and who received cervical spine radiographs at 17 hospitals in the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) between January 2000 and December 2004. Cases were children with cervical spine injury. We created 3 control groups of children free of cervical spine injury: (1) random controls, (2) age and mechanism of injury-matched controls, and (3) for cases receiving out-of-hospital emergency medical services (EMS), age-matched controls who also received EMS care. We abstracted data from 3 sources: PECARN hospital, referring hospital, and out-of-hospital patient records. We performed multiple logistic regression analyses to identify predictors of cervical spine injury and calculated the model's sensitivity and specificity.
We reviewed 540 records of children with cervical spine injury and 1,060, 1,012, and 702 random, mechanism of injury, and EMS controls, respectively. In the analysis using random controls, we identified 8 factors associated with cervical spine injury: altered mental status, focal neurologic findings, neck pain, torticollis, substantial torso injury, conditions predisposing to cervical spine injury, diving, and high-risk motor vehicle crash. Having 1 or more factors was 98% (95% confidence interval 96% to 99%) sensitive and 26% (95% confidence interval 23% to 29%) specific for cervical spine injury. We identified similar risk factors in the other analyses.
We identified an 8-variable model for cervical spine injury in children after blunt trauma that warrants prospective refinement and validation.

0 Followers
 · 
178 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Study objective Although many adult algorithms for evaluating cervical spine injury use computed tomography (CT) as the initial screening modality, this may not be appropriate in low-risk children, considering radiation risks. We determine the optimal initial evaluation strategy for cervical spine injury in pediatric blunt trauma. Methods We constructed a decision analysis tree for a hypothetical population of patients younger than 19 years with blunt trauma, using 3 strategies: clinical stratification, screening radiographs followed by focused CT if the radiograph result was positive, and CT. For the model inputs, we used the current literature to determine the probabilities of cervical spine injury and estimate the long-term risks of malignancy after CT, as well as test characteristics of radiographic imaging. We used published utilities and conducted 1- and 2-way sensitivity analyses to determine the optimal strategy for evaluation of pediatric cervical spine injury. Results In our model of a population with blunt trauma, the expected value of a clinical stratification strategy was the highest of the 3 strategies, making it the overall preferred management. One-way sensitivity analysis of several contributing factors revealed that the only independent factor that altered the dominant strategy was the sensitivity of clinical clearance criteria, lowering the threshold at which screening-radiograph strategy is optimal. Within the patient population considered as having non-negligible risk by clinical stratification and thus requiring imaging, the preferred imaging modality was screening radiograph/focused CT. The probability of cervical spine injury above which CT became the preferred strategy was 24.9%. Conclusion The model highlights that clinical clearance and screening radiographs in a hypothetical trauma pediatric population are preferred strategies, whereas CT scanning is rarely the initial optimal evaluation.
    Annals of Emergency Medicine 10/2014; 65(3). DOI:10.1016/j.annemergmed.2014.09.002 · 4.33 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives. To measure inter-rater agreement of overall clinical appearance of febrile children aged less than 24 months and to compare methods for doing so. Study Design and Setting. We performed an observational study of inter-rater reliability of the assessment of febrile children in a county hospital emergency department serving a mixed urban and rural population. Two emergency medicine healthcare providers independently evaluated the overall clinical appearance of children less than 24 months of age who had presented for fever. They recorded the initial ‘gestalt’ assessment of whether or not the child was ill appearing or if they were unsure. They then repeated this assessment after examining the child. Each rater was blinded to the other’s assessment. Our primary analysis was graphical. We also calculated Cohen’s κ, Gwet’s agreement coefficient and other measures of agreement and weighted variants of these. We examined the effect of time between exams and patient and provider characteristics on inter-rater agreement. Results. We analyzed 159 of the 173 patients enrolled. Median age was 9.5 months (lower and upper quartiles 4.9–14.6), 99/159 (62%) were boys and 22/159 (14%) were admitted. Overall 118/159 (74%) and 119/159 (75%) were classified as well appearing on initial ‘gestalt’ impression by both examiners. Summary statistics varied from 0.223 for weighted κ to 0.635 for Gwet’s AC2. Inter rater agreement was affected by the time interval between the evaluations and the age of the child but not by the experience levels of the rater pairs. Classifications of ‘not ill appearing’ were more reliable than others. Conclusion. The inter-rater reliability of emergency providers’ assessment of overall clinical appearance was adequate when described graphically and by Gwet’s AC. Different summary statistics yield different results for the same dataset.
    11/2014; 2:e651. DOI:10.7717/peerj.651
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to compare the benefit of neck computed tomography (CT) of identifying important cervical spine injuries (CSIs) with its harm of radiation exposure and cancer risk. A PubMed search for published studies relating to CSI in trauma, cervical spine imaging, CT, and cancer risk was conducted. Article abstracts were reviewed, and selected published studies relating to the study objective were retrieved. Of 100,000 trauma patients, neck CT scans were obtained in 3,767 to 26,785 patients. Of 100,000 patients with trauma on whom a neck CT scan was performed, a CSI was identified in 2,470 to 33,898 patients. Clinically important CSI ranged from 4,724 to 27,119 per 100,000 CT scans. For every 100,000 neck CT scans performed, additional cancer cases occur in a low end estimate of a thyroid cancer cases to a high end estimate of 100 male and 700 female cancer cases. In females, cancer risks are higher than in males, and these are closer to, but still less than, the incidence of clinically important CSI found by CT. CT's benefit of identifying important CSIs in the published studies exceeds its cancer harm risk. However, at their extremes, the numbers are disturbingly close. Limiting neck CT scanning to a higher-risk group would increase the gap between benefit and harm, whereas performing CT routinely on low-risk cases approaches a point where its harm equals or exceeds its benefit. Systematic review, level IV.
    Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 01/2015; 78(1):126-31. DOI:10.1097/TA.0000000000000465 · 1.97 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
130 Downloads
Available from
May 26, 2014