Cervical Spine Fractures: Who Really Needs CT Angiography?
Mitchell S Fourman 1, Jeremy D Shaw 1, Nicholas J Vaudreuil 1, Malcolm E Dombrowski 1, Rick A Wawrose 1, Lorraine A T Boakye 1, Louis H Alarcon 2, Joon Y Lee 1, William F Donaldson 3rd 1Affiliations expand
- PMID: 31348180
- DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000003163
Abstract
Study design: Retrospective cohort study.
Objective: Compare a novel two-step algorithm for indicating a computed tomography angiography (CTA) in the setting of a cervical spine fracture with established gold standard criteria.
Summary of background data: As CTA permits the rapid detection of blunt cerebrovascular injuries (BCVI), screening criteria for its use have broadened. However, more recent work warns of the potential for the overdiagnosis of BCVI, which must be considered with the adoption of broad criteria.
Methods: A novel two-step metric for indicating CTA screening was compared with the American College of Surgeons guidelines and the expanded Denver Criteria using patients who presented with cervical spine fractures to a tertiary-level 1 trauma center from January 1, 2012 to January 1, 2016. The ability for each metric to identify BCVI and posterior circulation strokes that occurred during this period was assessed.
Results: A total of 721 patients with cervical fractures were included, of whom 417 underwent CTAs (57.8%). Sixty-eight BCVIs and seven strokes were diagnosed in this cohort. All algorithms detected an equivalent number of BCVIs (52 with the novel metric, 54 with the ACS and Denver Criteria, P = 0.84) and strokes (7/7, 100% with the novel metric, 6/7, 85.7% with the ACS and Denver Criteria, P = 1.0). However, 63% fewer scans would have been needed with the proposed screening algorithm compared with the ACS or Denver Criteria (261/721, 36.2% of all patients with our criteria vs. 413/721, 57.3% with the ACS standard and 417/721, 57.8%) with the Denver Criteria, P < 0.0002 for each).
Conclusion: A two-step criterion based on mechanism of injury and patient factors is a potentially useful guide for identifying patients at risk of BCVI and stroke after cervical spine fractures. Further prospective analyses are required prior to widespread clinical adoption.
Level of evidence: 4.
Similar articles
- Association between cervical spine and skull-base fractures and blunt cerebrovascular injury.Buch K, Nguyen T, Mahoney E, Libby B, Calner P, Burke P, Norbash A, Mian A.Eur Radiol. 2016 Feb;26(2):524-31. doi: 10.1007/s00330-015-3858-1. Epub 2015 Jun 26.PMID: 26113246
- Limitations of multidetector computed tomography angiography for the diagnosis of blunt cerebrovascular injury.Grandhi R, Weiner GM, Agarwal N, Panczykowski DM, Ares WJ, Rodriguez JS, Gelfond JA, Myers JG, Alarcon LH, Okonkwo DO, Jankowitz BT.J Neurosurg. 2018 Jun;128(6):1642-1647. doi: 10.3171/2017.2.JNS163264. Epub 2017 Aug 11.PMID: 28799874
- Screening via CT angiogram after traumatic cervical spine fractures: narrowing imaging to improve cost effectiveness. Experience of a Level I trauma center.Lockwood MM, Smith GA, Tanenbaum J, Lubelski D, Seicean A, Pace J, Benzel EC, Mroz TE, Steinmetz MP.J Neurosurg Spine. 2016 Mar;24(3):490-5. doi: 10.3171/2015.6.SPINE15140. Epub 2015 Nov 27.PMID: 26613284 Free PMC article.
- Screening for blunt cerebrovascular injuries: the essential role of computed tomography angiography.Stengel D, Rademacher G, Hanson B, Ekkernkamp A, Mutze S.Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2007 Apr;28(2):101-8. doi: 10.1053/j.sult.2007.01.009.PMID: 17432764 Review.
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic screening criteria for blunt cerebrovascular injuries.Franz RW, Willette PA, Wood MJ, Wright ML, Hartman JF.J Am Coll Surg. 2012 Mar;214(3):313-27. doi: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2011.11.012. Epub 2012 Jan 11.PMID: 22244206 Review.
