We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Unlike in adults, there are currently no standardized, validated guidelines to aid practitioners in clearing the pediatric cervical spine (C-spine). Many pediatric centres in Canada have locally produced, adult-modified guidelines, but the extent to which these or other guidelines are used is unknown.
Objective:
The purpose of this study was to determine if Canadian physicians are using either locally produced or adult C-spine guidelines to clear the C- spines of patients < 16 years of age. The study also characterized the common methods used by physicians to clear pediatric C-spine injuries in terms of clinical examination and radiologic imaging.
Methods:
A 20-question survey was distributed to 240 Canadian pediatric emergency physicians and trauma team leaders using the Dillman Total Design Method.
Results:
The response rate was 68%. The results showed that 61% of physicians currently use guidelines to assist in the clearance of pediatric C-spines. Of those physicians not using guidelines, 85% stated that they would use them if they were available. The clinical criteria most often used to clear pediatric C-spines were a normal neurologic examination (97%) and the absence of C-spine tenderness (95%), intoxication (94%), and distracting injuries (87%).
Conclusions:
Guidelines are commonly used by Canadian physicians when clearing the pediatric C-spine, yet few are validated in children. Those most commonly used are locally developed guidelines, the Canadian C-spine guidelines, or National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) low-risk criteria.
A full understanding of an injury event and the mechanical forces involved should be important for predicting specific anatomical patterns of injury. Yet, information on the mechanism of injury is often overlooked as a predictor for specific anatomical injury in clinical decision-making. We measured the relationship between mechanism of injury and risk for cervical spine fracture.
Methods:
Our case-control study is a secondary analysis of data collected from the Canadian C-Spine Rule (CCR) study. Data were collected from 1996 to 2002 and included patients presenting to the emergency departments of 9 tertiary care centres after sustaining acute blunt trauma to the head or neck. Cases are defined as patients who were categorized in the CCR study with a clinically important cervical spine fracture. Controls had no radiologic evidence of cervical spine injury. Bivariate and multivariate unconditional logistic regression models were used. Results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
Results:
Among the 17 208 patients in the CCR study, 320 (2%) received a diagnosis of a cervical spine fracture. Axial loads, falls, diving incidents and nontraffic motorized vehicle collisions (e.g., collisions involving snowmobiles or all-terrain vehicles) were injury mechanisms that were significantly related to a higher risk of fracture. For motor vehicle collisions, the risk of cervical spine injury increased with the posted speed, being involved in a head-on collision or a rollover, or not wearing a seat belt (p < 0.05). The occurrence of cervical spine fracture was negligible in simple rear-end collisions (1 in 3694 cases; OR 0.015, 95% CI 0.002–0.104]).
Conclusion:
Our study quantitatively demonstrates the relationship between specific mechanisms of injury and the risk of a cervical spine fracture. A full understanding of the injury mechanism would assist providers of emergency health care in assessing risk for injury in trauma patients.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.