Cervical spine clearance protocols in Level I, II, and III trauma centers in California

Spine J. 2015 Mar 1;15(3):398-404. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2014.12.142. Epub 2014 Dec 27.

Abstract

Background context: Cervical spine clearance protocols were developed to standardize the clearance of the cervical spine after blunt trauma and prevent secondary neurologic injuries. The degree of incorporation of evidence-based guidelines into protocols at trauma centers in California is unknown.

Purpose: To evaluate the cervical spine clearance protocols in all trauma centers of California.

Study design: An observational cross-sectional study.

Patient sample: Included from Level I, II, III trauma centers in California.

Outcome measures: The self-reported outcomes of each trauma center's cervical spine clearance protocols were assessed.

Methods: Level I (n=15), II (n=30), and III (n=11) trauma centers in California were contacted. Each available protocol was reviewed for four scenarios: clearing the asymptomatic patient, the initial imaging modality used in patients not amenable to clinical clearance, and the management strategies for patients with persistent neck pain with a negative computed tomography (CT) scan and those who are obtunded. Results were compared with the 2009 Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) cervical spine clearance guidelines.

Results: The response rate was 96%. Sixty-three percent of California's trauma centers (Level I, 93%; Level II, 60%; Level III, 27%) had written cervical spine clearance protocols. For asymptomatic patients, 83% of Level I and 61% of Level II centers used National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study criteria with/without painless range of motion. For those requiring imaging, 67% of Level I and 56% of Level II centers stated a CT scan should be the first line of imaging. For obtunded patients and patients with persistent neck pain and a negative CT scan, more than 90% of Level I and more than 70% of Level II trauma centers incorporated the 2009 EAST recommendations. No institution recommended passive flexion-extension radiographs for the obtunded patient.

Conclusions: Written cervical spine clearance protocols exist in 63% of California's trauma centers and only 51% of the centers have protocols that follow current evidence-based guidelines. Standardization and utilization of these protocols should be encouraged to prevent missed injuries and secondary neurologic injuries.

Keywords: Blunt trauma; California; Cervical spine; Cervical spine CT scan; Clearance protocols; NEXUS.

Publication types

  • Observational Study

MeSH terms

  • California
  • Cervical Vertebrae / injuries*
  • Cross-Sectional Studies
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Outcome Assessment, Health Care
  • Radiography
  • Range of Motion, Articular
  • Reference Standards
  • Retrospective Studies
  • Spinal Injuries / diagnostic imaging*
  • Spinal Injuries / therapy
  • Trauma Centers / statistics & numerical data*
  • Trauma Severity Indices