Dataset Information

Screening via CT angiogram after traumatic cervical spine fractures: narrowing imaging to improve cost effectiveness. Experience of a Level I trauma center.

ABSTRACT: Screening for vertebral artery injury (VAI) following cervical spine fractures is routinely performed across trauma centers in North America. From 2002 to 2007, the total number of neck CT angiography (CTA) studies performed in the Medicare population after trauma increased from 9796 to 115,021. In the era of cost-effective medical care, the authors aimed to evaluate the utility of CTA screening in detecting VAI and reduce chances of posterior circulation strokes after traumatic cervical spine fractures.A retrospective review of all patients presenting with cervical spine fractures to Northeast Ohio's Level I trauma institution from 2002 to 2012 was performed.There was a total of 1717 cervical spine fractures in patients presenting to Northeast Ohio's Level I trauma institution between 2002 and 2012. CTA screening was performed in 732 patients, and 51 patients (0.7%) were found to have a VAI. Fracture patterns with increased odds of VAI were C-1 and C-2 combined fractures, transverse foramen fractures, and subluxation of adjacent vertebral levels. Ten posterior circulation strokes were identified in this patient population (0.6%) and found in only 4 of 51 cases of VAI (7.8%). High-risk fractures defined by Denver Criteria, VAI, and antiplatelet treatment of VAI were not independent predictors of stroke.Cost-effective screening must be reevaluated in the setting of blunt cervical spine fractures on a case-by-case basis. Further prospective studies must be performed to elucidate the utility of screening for VAI and posterior circulation stroke prevention, if identified.

SUBMITTER: Lockwood MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5506775 | biostudies-other | 2016 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo design and validate a fully automated computer system for the detection and anatomic localization of traumatic thoracic and lumbar vertebral body fractures at computed tomography (CT).Materials and methodsThis retrospective study was HIPAA compliant. Institutional review board approval was obtained, and informed consent was waived. CT examinations in 104 patients (mean age, 34.4 years; range, 14-88 years; 32 women, 72 men), consisting of 94 examinations with positive findings for fractures (59 with vertebral body fractures) and 10 control examinations (without vertebral fractures), were performed. There were 141 thoracic and lumbar vertebral body fractures in the case set. The locations of fractures were marked and classified by a radiologist according to Denis column involvement. The CT data set was divided into training and testing subsets (37 and 67 subsets, respectively) for analysis by means of prototype software for fully automated spinal segmentation and fracture detection. Free-response receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed.ResultsTraining set sensitivity for detection and localization of fractures within each vertebra was 0.82 (28 of 34 findings; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68, 0.90), with a false-positive rate of 2.5 findings per patient. The sensitivity for fracture localization to the correct vertebra was 0.88 (23 of 26 findings; 95% CI: 0.72, 0.96), with a false-positive rate of 1.3. Testing set sensitivity for the detection and localization of fractures within each vertebra was 0.81 (87 of 107 findings; 95% CI: 0.75, 0.87), with a false-positive rate of 2.7. The sensitivity for fracture localization to the correct vertebra was 0.92 (55 of 60 findings; 95% CI: 0.79, 0.94), with a false-positive rate of 1.6. The most common cause of false-positive findings was nutrient foramina (106 of 272 findings [39%]).ConclusionThe fully automated computer system detects and anatomically localizes vertebral body fractures in the thoracic and lumbar spine on CT images with a high sensitivity and a low false-positive rate.

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:ObjectiveSpine injury is highly prevalent in patients with poly-trauma, but data on the co-occurrence of spine trauma in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) are scarce. In this study, we used the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) database to assess the prevalence, characteristics, and outcomes of patients with TBI and a concurrent traumatic spinal injury (TSI).MethodsData from the European multi-center CENTER-TBI study were analyzed. Adult patients with TBI (≥18 years) presenting with a concomitant, isolated TSI of at least serious severity (Abbreviated Injury Scale; AIS ≥3) were included. For outcome analysis, comparison groups of TBI patients with TSI and systemic injuries (non-isolated TSI) and without TSI were created using propensity score matching. Rates of mortality, unfavorable outcomes (Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended; GOSe < 5), and full recovery (GOSe 7-8) of all patients and separately for patients with only mild TBI (mTBI) were compared between groups at 6-month follow-up.ResultsA total of 164 (4%) of the 4,254 CENTER-TBI core study patients suffered from a concomitant isolated TSI. The median age was 53 [interquartile range (IQR): 37-66] years and 71% of patients were men. mTBI was documented in 62% of cases, followed by severe TBI (26%), and spine injuries were mostly cervical (63%) or thoracic (31%). Surgical spine stabilization was performed in 19% of cases and 57% of patients were admitted to the ICU. Mortality at 6 months was 11% and only 36% of patients regained full recovery. There were no significant differences in the 6-month rates of mortality, unfavorable outcomes, or full recovery between TBI patients with and without concomitant isolated TSI. However, concomitant non-isolated TSI was associated with an unfavorable outcome and a higher mortality. In patients with mTBI, a negative association with full recovery could be observed for both concomitant isolated and non-isolated TSI.ConclusionRates of mortality, unfavorable outcomes, and full recovery in TBI patients with and without concomitant, isolated TSIs were comparable after 6 months. However, in patients with mTBI, concomitant TSI was a negative predictor for a full recovery. These findings might indicate that patients with moderate to severe TBI do not necessarily exhibit worse outcomes when having a concomitant TSI, whereas patients with mTBI might be more affected.

Dataset Information

Screening via CT angiogram after traumatic cervical spine fractures: narrowing imaging to improve cost effectiveness. Experience of a Level I trauma center.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets