ian scott feb 6 2002 spinal injuries: recognition and therapy
TRANSCRIPT
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Spinal injuries: Recognition and Therapy
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Definition (Stedmans 1998)
The Spine: A short sharp process of bone; a
spinous process A thorn Columna Vertebralis
Really not much help
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
The Spinal ColumnC-Spine (44%)
Thoracic Spine (41%)
Lumbar Spine
Sacral Spine
(15%)
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Cervical Spine
The most vulnerable yet most common site of injury.
Data from the UK (1993-95)44% of all spine trauma occurs at the cervical level
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Incidence of SCI
20-40 cases per million per year US data 10 000 cases per year Of these 10 000 cases
40% are “complete” No sensory or motor function
below the lesion• 4 000 cases per year of
tetra/paraplegia
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Incidence of SCI cont.
Disease of the young male 85% male
Age usually between 15-35 years
Mechanisms of injury (UK vs. Can) MVA 36% / 36% Sport 20% / 14% Domestic/Work 37% / 44% Assault 6.5% / 6%
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Cost of Spinal Cord Injury
Lifetime direct medical costs range between $325 000 - $1 350 000 Varies according to age at injury
as well as severity of injury
High Tetraplegics account for over 80% of expenditures
$7.7 Billion per year in USA
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Spinal Injuries
The devastating effects on the patient, as well as the burdensome effect on health care dollars has created an urgency for a cure.
WHAT CAN BE DONE?
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Spinal Injuries
The patient with potential spine injury. Injury prevention Pre-hospital care Emergency triage Surgical Management Medical Management Rehabilitation
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Spinal Injuries
The patient with potential spine injury. Injury prevention Pre-hospital care Emergency triage Surgical Management Medical Management Rehabilitation
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
SCI pre-hospital care
We are instructed to maintain potential SCI patients “in a Neutral position” for fear of worsening the initial injury “Pithing the Frog”
Cervical Hard collar is North American Standard of Care.
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Identifying the SCI patient Emergency medical personnel
are usually the first on the scene.
Who should be placed in spinal precautions?
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Who should get spinal precautions?
Stroh & Braude (Ann Emerg Med June 2001)
Retrospective chart review Fresno County EMS Spine
protocol 861 patients discharged from
hospital with SCI from 1990-96 504 patients brought by EMS
495 were in Spinal precautions What about the 9 patients that
weren’t?
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Fresno County EMS policy #530 Spinal immobilization
Implement spinal immobilization under following circumstances:
Spinal pain or tenderness, include any neck pain with hx of trauma
Significant Multi trauma Severe facial/head trauma Numbness/weakness after trauma Loss of consciousness caused by trauma If altered mental status and
• No hx available• Found in setting of possible trauma• Near drowning with hx or probability of diving
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Fresno Protocol
Of the 9 patients not immobilized 2 refused immobilization AMA 2 could not be immobilized
The remaining 5 patients however: 2 patients had criteria BUT were not immobilized
Protocol violation 3 patients were missed by protocol
This leaves a 499/504 ratio 99% sensitivity
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Pre-hospital immobilization
An interesting point: Do ANY patients
with suspected SCI need immobilization?
(Hauswald Acad Emerg Med Mar 1998)
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Out of Hospital spinal immobilization: its effect on neurologic injury
5 year retrospective chart review Effect of emergent immobilization
on neurologic outcome, comparing two different University hospitals University of Malaya, Malaysia
120 patients University of New Mexico
334 patients
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Who Cares?
Malaysia Similar hospital Similar Staff NO SPINAL
PRECAUTIONS
New Mexico Universal
precautions
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Who Cares?
Malaysia Similar hospital Similar Staff NO SPINAL
PRECAUTIONS
Less neurologic disability in malaysian patients at discharge
New Mexico Universal
precautions
Out of hospital immobilization has little effect on outcome
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Of course we can’t!
A retrospective study has many significant pitfalls but it suggests a few things Spinal cord injury is primarily the result of the initial
impact. Secondary damage may be caused by swelling,
ischemia etc, but NOT necessarily by unrestricted movement post injury
There may be unrecognized morbidities associated with spinal immobilization.
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Morbidity associated with Spinal immobilization
Several studies have questioned the wisdom of routine spinal immobilization Pain and discomfort Respiratory compromise Increased intracranial pressure Actual worsening of symptoms(numerous references)
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Identifying potential SCI: Clearing the Spines
There is no easy solution. We must recognize that MANY
people will be immobilized in the hopes of preventing further injury to those patients with true spinal injury.
Efforts must be made to “clear” low risk patients quickly and efficiently.
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Spinal injury To identify the 10 000
people each year with spinal injury, emergency physicians will screen approximately 800 000 patients with spinal radiography.
Two recent papers address this situation
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
NEXUS: National emergency X-radiography Utilization Study
Hoffman et al NEJM 2000 343:94-99 Prospective observational study to validate decision rule
for low risk patients Decision instrument as follows:
Absence of tenderness in posterior midline Absence of neurologic deficit Normal level of alertness (GCS 15) No evidence of intoxication No distracting pain elswhere
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
NEXUS
Patients who fulfilled all five criteria were considered low risk for C-spine injury and therefore do not require C-spine radiography
If patients had any of the 5 criteria, they would have radiographic imaging in the form of 3 views AP, lateral and odontoid views
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
NEXUS
34 069 patients enrolled 818 patients had significant c-spine
injury 810 were identified as potential
spinal injury patients by the decision rule
8 patients were identified as low risk, but in fact had radiographic injury
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
NEXUS
Sensitivity 99% Negative predictive value 99.8%
Specificity 12.9% Positive predictive value 2.7%
Radiographic imaging could have been avoided in 4309 patients (12.6%) of the 34 069 patients
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
NEXUS
Several concerns have been raised regarding NEXUS Screening C-spines with three
views may not be sensitive enough to detect all spinal injuries in the study population
Many centres advocate use of bilateral oblique views also (5 views)
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
NEXUS
Many emergency physicians also feel the criteria are too vague and open for interpetation Distracting injuries Presence of intoxication
Enter the Canadian C-spine rules..
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Canadian C-spine rules (JAMA Oct 17 2001)
Brought to fruition by same group who developed the Ottawa Ankle rules
Prospective cohort study, patients evaluated for 20 standardized clinical findings PRIOR to radiography
Hx of blunt trauma to head/neck, hemodynamically stable, with GCS 15
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Canadian C-spine rules
8924 patients enrolled 151 patients had important c-spine
injury (1.7%)
Derived Decision rule as follows:
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Canadian Rules…
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Canada Rules 1) Any High risk factor that mandates radiography?
Age>65, dangerous mechanism, paresthesias 2) Any low risk factors that allow safe assessment of
range of motion Simple rear end MVC, sitting position in ER, Ambulatory
at any time, delayed onset of neck pain, absence of midline tenderness
3) Able to rotate neck? 45 degrees left and right
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Canadian C-spine rules
100% sensitivity 42.5% specificity
Potential radiography order rate 58.2%
Unfortunately, these rules do not apply to the usual ICU patients
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Spinal Radiography in critically ill
No clear consensus. Full agreement that patients with
trauma and decreased LOC must be assumed to have spinal fracture until cleared clinically and/or radiographically
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
C-spine radiography
Bare Minimum: Cross table lateral Anteroposterior view Open mouth odontiod
If adequate views NOT attainable, patient requires CT scan reconstructions of disputed areas
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Lateral c-spine view
Lateral views have a sensitivity of approx 80% to identify c-spine fractures
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Disruption of all spinal lines with obvious anterior dislocation
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Vertebral Burst fractures
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
SCIWORET worth a mention
SCIWORET is Spinal cord injury without radiographic evidence of trauma First described in pediatric population (SCIWORA) In adults, tends to affect the elderly
Much more prevalent in cervical spine as opposed to the thoracolumbar area.
• Related to the degenerative changes in the c-spine
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Pathophysiology of Spinal Cord injury
Primary mechanisms Initial crush, shear impingement of
cord with the inciting trauma.
Secondary mechanisms Vascular insults/insufficiency Edema Cell toxicity Apoptosis
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Secondary Injury
Electrolytes
Cell toxicity
Decreased energy(ATP)
Edema
Vascular
Apoptosis
CELL DEATH
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Secondary Mechanisms
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Secondary Mechanisms Electrolytes
Calcium release Cell toxicity
Glutamate release, arachidonic acid metabolites, free radical generation
Apoptosis Programmed cell death
Vascular Disautoregulation, hypotension, neurogenic shock
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Secondary mechanisms Numerous mediators of spinal cord damage have
been identified experimentally.
The hope is that through simple pharmacologic interventions, the secondary damage can be limited, or even potentially reversed.
Unfortunately very little clinical progress has been made to date.
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Steroids Several studies have reported success with high
dose steroid infusions, limiting progression of spinal cord damage in trauma.
NASCIS II and III (NEJM 1990, JAMA 1997) Two highly publicized studies demonstrating small but
clinically significant improvement with neurologic recovery following administration of high dose methyl-prednisolone
• NASCIS II placebo controlled• NASCIS III dose varied. Not placebo controlled
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
NASCIS II Steroid bolus 30mg/kg over 15min in 1st hour,
then 5.4mg/kg/hr for 23 hours An average 70Kg patient would receive 23
GRAMS of steroid over 24 hours
NASCIS II was in fact a negative study. Only on post hoc sub group analysis did steroid
yield a “benefit” Only patients who received steroid in the first 8
hours post injury demonstrated a benefit What degree of benefit however?
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
The Controversy
Unfortunately, the degree of “statistically significant benefit” has no clinical relevance
Motor score improvements were 17 .2 and 12.0 for steroid and placebo groups respectively (out of a total possible score of 70), which gives a difference of 5.2. A difference of 5.2 simply put could be gained if a
patient regained the ability to shrug his shoulders.
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Important Papers
NASCIS II NEJM 1990 322:1405-11
NASCIS III JAMA 1997 277:1597-1604
Revisiting NASCIS II & III J. Trauma 1998 45:6 1088-93
Methylprednisolone for acute spinal injury…. J. Neurosurg (Spine 1) 2000:93:1-7
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002
Future Directions
Glutamate receptor inhibition
Peripheral nerve transplants
Glial cell regeneration
Axon growth, guidance and synaptogenesis
Ian Scott Feb 6 2002