Dataset Information

Consensus Recommendations on the Prehospital Care of the Injured Athlete With a Suspected Catastrophic Cervical Spine Injury.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Sports participation is among the leading causes of catastrophic cervical spine injury (CSI) in the United States. Appropriate prehospital care for athletes with suspected CSIs should be available at all levels of sport. The goal of this project was to develop a set of best-practice recommendations appropriate for athletic trainers, emergency responders, sports medicine and emergency physicians, and others engaged in caring for athletes with suspected CSIs.

Methods

A consensus-driven approach (RAND/UCLA method) in combination with a systematic review of the available literature was used to identify key research questions and develop conclusions and recommendations on the prehospital care of the spine-injured athlete. A diverse panel of experts, including members of the National Athletic Trainers' Association, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, and the Sports Institute at UW Medicine participated in 4 Delphi rounds and a 2-day nominal group technique meeting. The systematic review involved 2 independent reviewers and 4 rounds of blinded review.

Results

The Delphi process identified 8 key questions to be answered by the systematic review. The systematic review comprised 1544 studies, 49 of which were included in the final full-text review. Using the results of the systematic review as a shared evidence base, the nominal group technique meeting created and refined conclusions and recommendations until consensus was achieved.

Conclusions

These conclusions and recommendations represent a pragmatic approach, balancing expert experiences and the available scientific evidence.

SUBMITTER: Mills BM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7319738 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study designGlobal cross-sectional survey.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to validate the AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification by examining the perceived injury severity by surgeon across AO geographical regions and practice experience.Summary of background dataPrevious subaxial cervical spine injury classifications have been limited by subpar interobserver reliability and clinical applicability. In an attempt to create a universally validated scheme with prognostic value, AO Spine established a subaxial cervical spine injury classification involving four elements: injury morphology, facet injury involvement, neurologic status, and case-specific modifiers.MethodsA survey was sent to 272 AO Spine members across all geographic regions and with a variety of practice experience. Respondents graded the severity of each variable of the classification system on a scale from zero (low severity) to 100 (high severity). Primary outcome was to assess differences in perceived injury severity for each injury type over geographic regions and level of practice experience.ResultsA total of 189 responses were received. Overall, the classification system exhibited a hierarchical progression in subtype injury severity scores. Only three subtypes showed a significant difference in injury severity score among geographic regions: F3 (floating lateral mass fracture, P = 0.04), N3 (incomplete spinal cord injury, P = 0.03), and M2 (critical disk herniation, P = 0.04). When stratified by surgeon experience, pairwise comparison showed only two morphological subtypes, B1 (bony posterior tension band injury, P = 0.02) and F2 (unstable facet fracture, P = 0.03), and one neurologic subtype (N3, P = 0.02) exhibited a significant difference in injury severity score.ConclusionThe AO Spine Subaxial Cervical Spine Injury Classification System has shown to be reliable and suitable for proper patient management. The study shows this classification is substantially generalizable by geographic region and surgeon experience, and provides a consistent method of communication among physicians while covering the majority of subaxial cervical spine traumatic injuries.Level of Evidence: 4.

Project description:Background ?Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a global public health problem. In Colombia, it is estimated that 70% of deaths from violence and 90% of deaths from road traffic accidents are TBI related. In the year 2014, the Ministry of Health of Colombia funded the development of a clinical practice guideline (CPG) for the diagnosis and treatment of adult patients with severe TBI. A critical barrier to the widespread implementation was identified-that is, the lack of a specific protocol that spans various levels of resources and complexity across the four treatment phases. The objective of this article is to present the process and recommendations for the management of patients with TBI in various resource environments, across the treatment phases of prehospital care, emergency department (ED), surgery, and intensive care unit. Methods ?Using the Delphi methodology, a consensus of 20 experts in emergency medicine, neurosurgery, prehospital care, and intensive care nationwide developed recommendations based on 13 questions for the management of patients with TBI in Colombia. Discussion ?It is estimated that 80% of the global population live in developing economies where access to resources required for optimum treatment is limited. There is limitation for applications of CPGs recommendations in areas where there is low availability or absence of resources for integral care. Development of mixed methods consensus, including evidence review and expertise points of good clinical practices can fill gaps in application of CPGs. BOOTStraP (Beyond One Option for Treatment of Traumatic Brain Injury: A Stratified Protocol) is intended to be a practical handbook for care providers to use to treat TBI patients with whatever resources are available. Results ?Stratification of recommendations for interventions according to the availability of the resources on different stages of integral care is a proposed method for filling gaps in actual evidence, to organize a better strategy for interventions in different real-life scenarios. We develop 10 algorithms of management for building TBI protocols based on expert consensus to articulate treatment options in prehospital care, EDs, neurological surgery, and intensive care, independent of the level of availability of resources for care.