Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T06:23:52.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Association of injury mechanism with the risk of cervical spine fractures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

Wendy L. Thompson ,
Ian G. Stiell ,
Catherine M. Clement ,
Robert J. Brison  and
Canadian C-Spine Rule Study Group
Wendy L. Thompson
Affiliation:
Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont. Health Surveillance and Epidemiology Division, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
Ian G. Stiell
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.
Catherine M. Clement
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ont.
Robert J. Brison*
Affiliation:
Department of Community Health and Epidemiology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont. Department of Emergency Medicine, Queen's University, Kingston, Ont.
*
Emergency Medicine and Injury Research Group, Queen's University, Angada 3, Kingston General Hospital, 76 Stuart St., Kingston ON K7L 2V7; fax 613 548-1381; brisonr@kgh.kari.net

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

A full understanding of an injury event and the mechanical forces involved should be important for predicting specific anatomical patterns of injury. Yet, information on the mechanism of injury is often overlooked as a predictor for specific anatomical injury in clinical decision-making. We measured the relationship between mechanism of injury and risk for cervical spine fracture.

Methods:

Our case-control study is a secondary analysis of data collected from the Canadian C-Spine Rule (CCR) study. Data were collected from 1996 to 2002 and included patients presenting to the emergency departments of 9 tertiary care centres after sustaining acute blunt trauma to the head or neck. Cases are defined as patients who were categorized in the CCR study with a clinically important cervical spine fracture. Controls had no radiologic evidence of cervical spine injury. Bivariate and multivariate unconditional logistic regression models were used. Results are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results:

Among the 17 208 patients in the CCR study, 320 (2%) received a diagnosis of a cervical spine fracture. Axial loads, falls, diving incidents and nontraffic motorized vehicle collisions (e.g., collisions involving snowmobiles or all-terrain vehicles) were injury mechanisms that were significantly related to a higher risk of fracture. For motor vehicle collisions, the risk of cervical spine injury increased with the posted speed, being involved in a head-on collision or a rollover, or not wearing a seat belt (p < 0.05). The occurrence of cervical spine fracture was negligible in simple rear-end collisions (1 in 3694 cases; OR 0.015, 95% CI 0.002–0.104]).

Conclusion:

Our study quantitatively demonstrates the relationship between specific mechanisms of injury and the risk of a cervical spine fracture. A full understanding of the injury mechanism would assist providers of emergency health care in assessing risk for injury in trauma patients.

Keywords

mechanism of injurycervical spine injurycase-control studyCanadian C-Spine Rule Study
Type
Original Research • Recherche originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 11 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 14 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2009

References

1.Dowd, MD, McAneney, C, Lacher, M, et al.Maximizing the sensitivity and specificity of pediatric trauma team activation criteria. Acad Emerg Med 2000;7:1119–25.Google Scholar
2.Hunt, RC. Is mechanism of injury dead? Prehosp Emerg Care 1999;3:70–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Daffner, RH, Deeb, ZL, Rothfus, WE. “Fingerprints” of vertebral trauma — a unifying concept based on mechanisms. Skeletal Radiol 1986;15:518–25.Google Scholar
4.Fox, MA, Mangiante, EC, Fabian, TC, et al.Pelvic fractures: an analysis of factors affecting pre-hospital triage and patient outcome. South Med J 1990;83:785–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Burstein, JL, Henry, MC, Alicandro, JM, et al.Evidence for and impact of selective reporting of trauma triage mechanism criteria. Acad Emerg Med 1996;3:1011–5.Google Scholar
6.Cooper, ME, Yarbrough, DR, Zone-Smith, L, et al.Application for field triage guidelines by pre-hospital personnel: Is mechanism of injury a valid guideline for patient triage? Am Surg 1995;61:363–7.Google ScholarPubMed
7.Esposito, TJ, Offner, PJ, Jurkovich, GJ, et al.Do prehospital trauma center triage criteria identify major trauma victims? Arch Surg 1995;130:171–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Domeier, RM, Evans, RW, Swor, RA, et al.The reliability of prehospital clinical evaluation for potential spinal injury is not affected by the mechanism of injury. Prehosp Emerg Care 1999;3:332–7.Google Scholar
9.Fox, MA, Fabian, RC, Croce, MA, et al.Anatomy of the accident scene: a prospective study of injury and mortality. Am Surg 1991;57:394–7.Google Scholar
10.Hunt, RC, Brown, RL, Cline, KA, et al.Comparison of motor vehicle damage documentation in emergency medical services run reports compared with photographic documentation. Ann Emerg Med 1993;22:651–6.Google Scholar
11.Hunt, RC, Whitely, TW, Allison, EJ, et al.Photograph documentation of motor vehicle damage by EMTs at the scene: a prospective multicenter study in the United States. Am J Emerg Med 1997;15:233–9.Google Scholar
12.Dickinson, ET, O’Connor, RE, Krett, RD. The impact of prehospital instant photography of motor vehicle crashes on receiving physician perception. Prehosp Emerg Care 1997;1:76–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Orsay, EM, Martens, K, Lyons, E, et al.The usefulness of photographs of crash vehicles in motor vehicle trauma [abstract]. Acad Emerg Med 1995;2:447.Google Scholar
14.Chance, GQ. Note on a flexion fracture of the spine. Br J Radiol 1948;21:452–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.Mirvis, SE, Young, JW, Lim, C, et al.Hangman’s fracture: radio-logic assessment in 27 cases. Radiology 1987;163:713–7.Google Scholar
16.Mantas, JP, Burks, RT. Lisfranc injuries in the athlete. Clin Sports Med 1994;13:719–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Rosenthal, DI, Schwartz, M, Phillips, WC, et al.Fracture of the radius with instability of the wrist. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1983;141:113–6.Google Scholar
18.Sanders, TG, Medynski, MA, Lawhorn, KW. Bone contusion patterns of the knee at MR imaging: footprint of the mechanism of injury. Radiographics 2000;20:S135–51.Google Scholar
19.Cassada, DC, Munyikwa, MP, Moniz, MP, et al.Acute injuries of the trachea and major bronchi: importance of early diagnosis. Ann Thorac Surg 2000;69:1563–7.Google Scholar
20.Stiell, IG, Wells, GA, Vandemheen, KL, et al.The Canadian C-Spine rule for radiography in alert and stable trauma patients. JAMA 2001;286:1841–8.Google Scholar
21.Stiell, IG, Clement, CM, McKnight, RD, et al.The Canadian C-Spine Rule versus the NEXUS low-risk criteria in patients with trauma. N Engl J Med 2003;349:2510–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Canadian CT Head and C-Spine (CCC) Study Group. The Canadian C-Spine Rule study for alert and stable trauma patients: I. Background and rationale. CJEM 2002;4:84–90.Google Scholar
23.Canadian CT Head and C-Spine (CCC) Study Group. The Canadian C-Spine Rule study for alert and stable trauma patients: II. Study objectives and methodology. CJEM 2002;4:185–93.Google Scholar
24.Stiell, IG, Lesiuk, HJ, Vandemheen, K, et al.Obtaining consensus for a definition of “clinically important cervical spine injury” in the CCC Study [abstract]. Acad Emerg Med 1999;6:435.Google Scholar
25.Vandemheen, K, Stiell, IG, Brison, R, et al.Validity evaluation of the cervical spine injury proxy outcome assessment tool in the CCC Study [abstract]. Acad Emerg Med 1999;6:434.Google Scholar
26.Bruce, DA, Schut, L, Sutton, LN. Brain and cervical spine injuries occurring during organized sports activities in children and adolescents. Prim Care 1984;11:175–94.Google Scholar
27.Torg, JS. Epidemiology, pathomechanics, and prevention of athletic injuries to the cervical spine. Med Sci Sports Exerc 1985;17:295–303.Google Scholar
28.Watkins, RG. Neck injuries in football players. Clin Sports Med 1986;5:215–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29.Hwang, V, Shofer, FS, Durbin, DR, et al.Prevalence of traumatic injuries in drowning and near drowning in children and adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2003;157:50–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30.Schwarz, N, Sim, E, Nestinger, K. Injuries of the thoracic vertebrae in head-first dive into water [article in German]. Un-fallchirurg 2001;104:300–2.Google ScholarPubMed
31.Bensch, FV, Kiuru, MJ, Koivikko, MP, et al.Spine fractures in falling accidents: analysis of multidetector CT findings. Eur Radiol 2004;14:618–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32.Blauth, M, Lange, UF, Knop, C, et al.Spinal fractures in the elderly and their treatment. Orthopade 2000;29:302–17.Google Scholar
33.Lomoschitz, FM, Blackmore, CC, Mirza, SK, et al.Cervical spine injuries in patients 65 years old and older: epidemiologic analysis regarding the effects of age and injury mechanism on distribution, type, and stability of injuries. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;178:573–7.Google Scholar
34.Brolin, K. Neck injuries among the elderly in Sweden. Inj Control Saf Promot 2003;10:155–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35.Ehara, S, Shimamura, T. Cervical spine injury in the elderly: imaging features. Skeletal Radiol 2001;30:1–7.Google Scholar
36.Brown, RL, Brunn, MA, Garcia, VF. Cervical spine injuries in children: a review of 103 patients treated consecutively at a level 1 pediatric trauma center. J Pediatr Surg 2001;36:1107–14.Google Scholar
37.Canadian Motor Vehicle Traffic Statistics 2003. Ottawa (ON): Transport Canada; 2003. Available: http://www.tc.gc.ca/roadsafety/tp/tp3322/2003/page12.htm (accessed 2008 Nov 12).Google Scholar
38.Hunt, RC. Is Mechanism of injury dead? Prehosp Emerg Care 1999;3:70–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39.Santana, JR, Martinez, R. Accuracy of emergency physician data collection in automobile collisions. J Trauma 1995;38:583–6.Google Scholar
40.Peterson, TD, Tilman Jolly, B, Runge, JW, et al.Motor vehicle safety: current concepts and challenges for emergency physicians. Ann Emerg Med 1999;34:217–20.Google Scholar
41.McLellan, BA, Rizoli, SB, Brenneman, FD, et al.Injury pattern and severity in lateral motor vehicle collisions — a Canadian experience. J Trauma 1996;41:708–13.Google Scholar
42.Foust, D, Chaffin, DB, Snyder, RG, et al.Proceedings of the 17th Stapp Car Crash Conference; 1973 Nov 12–13; Oklahoma City (OK): Society of Automotive Engineers; 1973.Google Scholar
43.Castro, WH, Schilgen, M, Meyer, S, et al.Do “whiplash injuries” occur in low-speed rear impacts? Eur Spine J 1997;6:366–75.Google Scholar
44.Lövsund, P, Nygren, A, Salen, B, et al.Neck injuries in rear end collisions among front and rear seat occupants. Proceedings of the International Council on the Biomechanics of Impacts (IR-COBI) Conference, 1988 Bergisch-Gladbach (DE): 1988. p.319–25.Google Scholar
45.Claytor, B, MacLennan, PA, McGwin, G Jr, et al.Cervical spine injury and restraint system use in motor vehicle collisions. Spine 2004;29:386–9.Google Scholar