Evaluation of cervical spine clearance scores in children younger than 3 years with blunt trauma.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Journal of neurosurgery. Pediatrics Pub Date : 2024-05-31 Print Date: 2024-08-01 DOI:10.3171/2024.4.PEDS2413
Tej D Azad, Kelly Jiang, Carly Weber-Levine, Ryan P Lee, Amit Jain, Paul Sponseller, Mari Groves, Nicholas Theodore, Isam W Nasr, Eric M Jackson
{"title":"Evaluation of cervical spine clearance scores in children younger than 3 years with blunt trauma.","authors":"Tej D Azad, Kelly Jiang, Carly Weber-Levine, Ryan P Lee, Amit Jain, Paul Sponseller, Mari Groves, Nicholas Theodore, Isam W Nasr, Eric M Jackson","doi":"10.3171/2024.4.PEDS2413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The PEDSPINE I and PEDSPINE II scores were developed to determine when patients require advanced imaging to rule out cervical spine injury (CSI) in children younger than 3 years of age with blunt trauma. This study aimed to evaluate these scores in an institutional cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The authors identified patients younger than 3 years with blunt trauma who received cervical spine MRI from their institution's prospective database from 2012 to 2015. Patient demographics, injury characteristics, and imaging were compared between patients with and without CSI using chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighty-eight patients were identified, 8 (9%) of whom had CSI on MRI. The PEDSPINE I system had a higher sensitivity (50% vs 25%) and negative predictive value (93% vs 92%), whereas PEDSPINE II had a higher specificity (91% vs 65%) and positive predictive value (22% vs 13%). Patients with CSI missed by the scores had mild, radiologically significant ligamentous injuries detected on MRI. Both models would have recommended advanced imaging for the patient who required halo-vest fixation (risk profile: no CSI, 81.9%; ligamentous, 10.1%; osseous, 8.0%). PEDSPINE I would have prevented 52 (65%) of 80 uninjured patients from receiving advanced imaging, whereas PEDSPINE II would have prevented 73 (91%). Using PEDSPINE I, 10 uninjured patients (13%) could have avoided intubation for imaging. PEDSPINE II would not have spared any patients intubation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Current cervical spine clearance algorithms are not sensitive or specific enough to determine the need for advanced imaging in children. However, these scores can be used as a reference in conjunction with physicians' clinical impressions to reduce unnecessary imaging.</p>","PeriodicalId":16549,"journal":{"name":"Journal of neurosurgery. Pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":"138-144"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of neurosurgery. Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3171/2024.4.PEDS2413","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The PEDSPINE I and PEDSPINE II scores were developed to determine when patients require advanced imaging to rule out cervical spine injury (CSI) in children younger than 3 years of age with blunt trauma. This study aimed to evaluate these scores in an institutional cohort.

Methods: The authors identified patients younger than 3 years with blunt trauma who received cervical spine MRI from their institution's prospective database from 2012 to 2015. Patient demographics, injury characteristics, and imaging were compared between patients with and without CSI using chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

Results: Eighty-eight patients were identified, 8 (9%) of whom had CSI on MRI. The PEDSPINE I system had a higher sensitivity (50% vs 25%) and negative predictive value (93% vs 92%), whereas PEDSPINE II had a higher specificity (91% vs 65%) and positive predictive value (22% vs 13%). Patients with CSI missed by the scores had mild, radiologically significant ligamentous injuries detected on MRI. Both models would have recommended advanced imaging for the patient who required halo-vest fixation (risk profile: no CSI, 81.9%; ligamentous, 10.1%; osseous, 8.0%). PEDSPINE I would have prevented 52 (65%) of 80 uninjured patients from receiving advanced imaging, whereas PEDSPINE II would have prevented 73 (91%). Using PEDSPINE I, 10 uninjured patients (13%) could have avoided intubation for imaging. PEDSPINE II would not have spared any patients intubation.

Conclusions: Current cervical spine clearance algorithms are not sensitive or specific enough to determine the need for advanced imaging in children. However, these scores can be used as a reference in conjunction with physicians' clinical impressions to reduce unnecessary imaging.

评估三岁以下钝伤儿童的颈椎清创评分。
目的:开发 PEDSPINE I 和 PEDSPINE II 评分是为了确定 3 岁以下钝性外伤患儿何时需要进行高级影像学检查以排除颈椎损伤 (CSI)。本研究旨在对机构队列中的这些评分进行评估:作者从其所在机构的前瞻性数据库中找出了2012年至2015年期间接受颈椎磁共振成像检查的3岁以下钝性创伤患者。采用卡方检验(chi-square)和Wilcoxon秩和检验(Wilcoxon rank-sum tests)比较了有CSI和无CSI患者的人口统计学特征、损伤特征和影像学特征:结果:共确定了 88 名患者,其中 8 人(9%)在核磁共振成像上有 CSI。PEDSPINE I系统的灵敏度更高(50%对25%),阴性预测值更高(93%对92%),而PEDSPINE II系统的特异性更高(91%对65%),阳性预测值更高(22%对13%)。评分漏诊的 CSI 患者在核磁共振成像中发现了轻度、放射学意义上的韧带损伤。两种模型都会建议对需要进行半身固定的患者进行高级成像(风险概况:无 CSI,81.9%;韧带损伤,10.1%;骨损伤,8.0%)。如果使用 PEDSPINE I,80 位未受伤的患者中将有 52 位(65%)不会接受高级成像检查,而如果使用 PEDSPINE II,将有 73 位(91%)不会接受高级成像检查。使用 PEDSPINE I,10 名未受伤的患者(13%)可以避免插管进行成像。PEDSPINE II则不会使任何患者免于插管:结论:目前的颈椎清创算法在确定儿童是否需要进行高级造影检查方面不够敏感或特异。但是,这些评分可以作为参考,结合医生的临床印象来减少不必要的影像学检查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of neurosurgery. Pediatrics
Journal of neurosurgery. Pediatrics 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
10.50%
发文量
307
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Information not localiced
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信