Clearing the cervical spine in a war zone: What other injuries matter?

Jennifer Drew, Victoria B Chou, Catriona Miller, Bryson Borg, Maj Nichole Ingalls, Stacy Shackelford

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Cervical spine clearance requires clinicians to assess the reliability of physical examination based on a patient’s mental status and distracting injuries. Distracting injuries have never been clearly defined in military casualties. Methods: Retrospective review was conducted of patients entered into Department of Defense Trauma Registry January 2008 to August 2013, identifying blunt trauma patients with cervical spine injury and Glasgow Coma Score ≥ 14. Physical examination and radiology results were abstracted from medical records and injury diagnoses were obtained from Department of Defense Trauma Registry. Groups were compared, p-value of < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: A total of 149 patients met study criteria; 20 patients (13%) had a negative clinical examination of the cervical spine. Coexisting injuries identified in patients with negative physical examination included injuries in proximity to the neck (head, thoracic spine, chest, or humerus) in 17 (85%) patients. In 3 patients (15%), coexisting injuries were not in proximity to the neck and included pelvic, femur, and tibia fractures. All patients without coexisting injury (n = 37) had a positive physical examination. Conclusion: Physical examination of multitrauma casualties with neck injury may be unreliable when distracting injuries are present. When no distracting injuries were present, the physical examination was accurate in all patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)792-797
Number of pages6
JournalMilitary Medicine
Volume180
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Spine
Wounds and Injuries
Physical Examination
Warfare
Registries
Neck
Thorax
Neck Injuries
Humerus
Mentally Ill Persons
Coma
Tibia
Radiology
Femur
Medical Records
Head

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Drew, J., Chou, V. B., Miller, C., Borg, B., Ingalls, M. N., & Shackelford, S. (2015). Clearing the cervical spine in a war zone: What other injuries matter? Military Medicine, 180(7), 792-797. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-14-00635

Clearing the cervical spine in a war zone : What other injuries matter? / Drew, Jennifer; Chou, Victoria B; Miller, Catriona; Borg, Bryson; Ingalls, Maj Nichole; Shackelford, Stacy.

In: Military Medicine, Vol. 180, No. 7, 2015, p. 792-797.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Drew, J, Chou, VB, Miller, C, Borg, B, Ingalls, MN & Shackelford, S 2015, 'Clearing the cervical spine in a war zone: What other injuries matter?', Military Medicine, vol. 180, no. 7, pp. 792-797. https://doi.org/10.7205/MILMED-D-14-00635
Drew, Jennifer ; Chou, Victoria B ; Miller, Catriona ; Borg, Bryson ; Ingalls, Maj Nichole ; Shackelford, Stacy. / Clearing the cervical spine in a war zone : What other injuries matter?. In: Military Medicine. 2015 ; Vol. 180, No. 7. pp. 792-797.
@article{4ce0d65e11a2497bacd10669bc23d068,
title = "Clearing the cervical spine in a war zone: What other injuries matter?",
abstract = "Background: Cervical spine clearance requires clinicians to assess the reliability of physical examination based on a patient’s mental status and distracting injuries. Distracting injuries have never been clearly defined in military casualties. Methods: Retrospective review was conducted of patients entered into Department of Defense Trauma Registry January 2008 to August 2013, identifying blunt trauma patients with cervical spine injury and Glasgow Coma Score ≥ 14. Physical examination and radiology results were abstracted from medical records and injury diagnoses were obtained from Department of Defense Trauma Registry. Groups were compared, p-value of < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: A total of 149 patients met study criteria; 20 patients (13{\%}) had a negative clinical examination of the cervical spine. Coexisting injuries identified in patients with negative physical examination included injuries in proximity to the neck (head, thoracic spine, chest, or humerus) in 17 (85{\%}) patients. In 3 patients (15{\%}), coexisting injuries were not in proximity to the neck and included pelvic, femur, and tibia fractures. All patients without coexisting injury (n = 37) had a positive physical examination. Conclusion: Physical examination of multitrauma casualties with neck injury may be unreliable when distracting injuries are present. When no distracting injuries were present, the physical examination was accurate in all patients.",
author = "Jennifer Drew and Chou, {Victoria B} and Catriona Miller and Bryson Borg and Ingalls, {Maj Nichole} and Stacy Shackelford",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.7205/MILMED-D-14-00635",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "180",
pages = "792--797",
journal = "Military Medicine",
issn = "0026-4075",
publisher = "Association of Military Surgeons of the US",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clearing the cervical spine in a war zone

T2 - What other injuries matter?

AU - Drew, Jennifer

AU - Chou, Victoria B

AU - Miller, Catriona

AU - Borg, Bryson

AU - Ingalls, Maj Nichole

AU - Shackelford, Stacy

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Background: Cervical spine clearance requires clinicians to assess the reliability of physical examination based on a patient’s mental status and distracting injuries. Distracting injuries have never been clearly defined in military casualties. Methods: Retrospective review was conducted of patients entered into Department of Defense Trauma Registry January 2008 to August 2013, identifying blunt trauma patients with cervical spine injury and Glasgow Coma Score ≥ 14. Physical examination and radiology results were abstracted from medical records and injury diagnoses were obtained from Department of Defense Trauma Registry. Groups were compared, p-value of < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: A total of 149 patients met study criteria; 20 patients (13%) had a negative clinical examination of the cervical spine. Coexisting injuries identified in patients with negative physical examination included injuries in proximity to the neck (head, thoracic spine, chest, or humerus) in 17 (85%) patients. In 3 patients (15%), coexisting injuries were not in proximity to the neck and included pelvic, femur, and tibia fractures. All patients without coexisting injury (n = 37) had a positive physical examination. Conclusion: Physical examination of multitrauma casualties with neck injury may be unreliable when distracting injuries are present. When no distracting injuries were present, the physical examination was accurate in all patients.

AB - Background: Cervical spine clearance requires clinicians to assess the reliability of physical examination based on a patient’s mental status and distracting injuries. Distracting injuries have never been clearly defined in military casualties. Methods: Retrospective review was conducted of patients entered into Department of Defense Trauma Registry January 2008 to August 2013, identifying blunt trauma patients with cervical spine injury and Glasgow Coma Score ≥ 14. Physical examination and radiology results were abstracted from medical records and injury diagnoses were obtained from Department of Defense Trauma Registry. Groups were compared, p-value of < 0.05 was considered significant. Results: A total of 149 patients met study criteria; 20 patients (13%) had a negative clinical examination of the cervical spine. Coexisting injuries identified in patients with negative physical examination included injuries in proximity to the neck (head, thoracic spine, chest, or humerus) in 17 (85%) patients. In 3 patients (15%), coexisting injuries were not in proximity to the neck and included pelvic, femur, and tibia fractures. All patients without coexisting injury (n = 37) had a positive physical examination. Conclusion: Physical examination of multitrauma casualties with neck injury may be unreliable when distracting injuries are present. When no distracting injuries were present, the physical examination was accurate in all patients.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84943527367&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84943527367&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.7205/MILMED-D-14-00635

DO - 10.7205/MILMED-D-14-00635

M3 - Article

C2 - 26126250

AN - SCOPUS:84943527367

VL - 180

SP - 792

EP - 797

JO - Military Medicine

JF - Military Medicine

SN - 0026-4075

IS - 7

ER -