TY - JOUR
AU - Rosner, Michael K
AB - Abstract This Cervical and Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Evaluation, Transport, and Surgery Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) is designed to provide guidance to the deployed provider when they are treating a combat casualty who has sustained a spine or spinal cord injury. The CPG objective for the treatment and the movement of these patients is to maintain spinal stability through transport, perform decompression when urgently needed, achieve definitive stabilization when appropriate, avoid secondary injury, and prevent deterioration of the patient’s neurological condition. Thorough and accurate documentation of the patient’s neurological examination is crucial to ensure appropriate management decisions are made as the patient transits through the evacuation system. The use of this CPG should be in conjunction with good clinical judgment. thoracolumbar spine injury, spine, spinal column, spinal cord injury, combat trauma INTRODUCTION This Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) briefly reviews the indications for and methods of determining if a combat casualty patient has sustained a spine or spinal cord injury (SCI) and the appropriate treatment strategy for the patient. The goal for the treatment of patients with spine injuries is to maintain spine stability through transport, perform decompression when urgently needed, to achieve definitive stabilization when appropriate, avoid secondary injury, and prevent deterioration of the patient’s neurological condition. Early, thorough and accurate documentation of the patient’s neurological examination is crucial to ensure appropriate management decisions are made as the patient transits through the evacuation system. BACKGROUND The goal of the Cervical and Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Evaluation, Transport, and Surgery CPG is to deliver updated, accurate guidance to the deployed provider in order to provide the best care to patients who suffer a spine or SCI. This requires constant re-evaluation of the literature, both military and civilian, in addition to reviewing the lessons learned from past and present deployments. This involves not only changes in treatment and triage algorithms but also updates on injury classification and current mechanisms of injury being seen. As an overview, Blair et al published a review of spine injuries as noted in the Department of Defense Trauma Registry (DoDTR) from October 2001 to December 2009. They discovered 502 service members that sustained 1,834 different battle injuries to the spinal column compared with 92 service members that sustained 267 non-battle spine injuries. Of the battle injured, 91 had spinal cord injuries, of which 45% were complete. This compares to the 13 non-battle spinal cord injuries, of which 46% were complete. Within the battle injured, the mechanism of injury was classified as an explosive injury in 66.7%, gunshot wound in 17% and falls in 3%.1 In the same journal, Blair et al evaluated penetrating versus blunt spine injuries documented in the DoDTR. They found 598 service members with injuries to the spine or spinal cord. Of this group, the mechanism was blunt trauma in 66%, penetrating in 28%, and combined blunt and penetrating in 5%. Of this cohort, 104 (17%) suffered a SCI, with spinal cord injuries occurring in 10% of those with blunt mechanisms of injury and 38% in penetrating injuries.2 The timing and location of surgical intervention have also been a point of debate both in civilian and military settings.3–5 The paucity of data defining the optimal setting for surgical intervention when the injury occurs in a combat zone adds further challenges. The goal of decompressing and stabilizing the spine/SCI must be weighed by operational and logistical considerations, in addition to the ability of the deployed spine surgeon. In general, spine trauma patients may be placed into one of three clinical categories: patients with complete spinal cord syndromes; Patients with an incomplete SCI; patients with a spine fracture but normal neurological function. In regards to the timing of surgery, an incomplete injury from a non-penetrating mechanism is often the most problematic in the decision-making process. EVALUATION Neurologic Exam Every effort must be made to document an accurate and thorough neurological examination, especially when surgery or aeromedical transport is planned.6 The quality of the examination can be degraded by medicines, presence of an airway adjunct or endotracheal tube, cardiovascular and pulmonary performance, and presence of other injuries to the head, torso or extremities. Failure to perform and document a neurological exam has been the most common source of discrepancy between serial neurological examination findings, especially between levels of care. A thorough neurologic exam should include: − Motor exam of the 10 American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA) key motor groups (Figs 1 and 2) − Sensory examination (pinprick and light touch) using ASIA dermatomal standards − Digital rectal exam that assesses voluntary anal sphincter contraction strength, pinprick sensation, resting tone and bulbocavernosus reflex (BCR) − Normal and pathological reflex testing such as biceps, triceps, brachioradialis, knee, and ankle jerk responses as well as presence/absence of Babinski reflex FIGURE 1. Open in new tabDownload slide ASIA standard neurological classification of spinal injury. FIGURE 2. Open in new tabDownload slide Worksheet to document neurologic injury. In patients with suspected spinal column injury, with or without neurologic deficit upon presentation, frequent repetition and surveillance of the neurologic examination (focusing upon motor and sensory performance) is imperative. Alternatively, the “Combat Neuro Exam” is a simpler documentation tool than the ASIA Worksheet and may be more amenable to non-spine specialists to complete. This note addresses the minimal elements of a complete neurological exam for a patient with significant spinal column injury. Patients Who Need a Rigid Cervical Collar All patients who have sustained injuries through the following mechanisms should have a rigid cervical collar placed in the pre-hospital environment if the tactical situation allows: − Trauma resulting in loss of consciousness or even the question of loss of consciousness due to any form of head injury − Trauma resulting in temporary amnesia/loss of consciousness − Major explosive or blast injury − Mechanism that produces a violent impact on the head, neck, torso, or pelvis − Mechanism that creates sudden acceleration/deceleration or lateral bending forces on the neck or torso − Fall from height (vs. fall from standing) − Ejection or fall from any motorized vehicle − Vehicle roll-over Any patient complaining of neck pain or displaying neurological impairment following a trauma should have a cervical collar placed and maintained until the cervical spine has been “cleared” by a qualified provider.6,7 Patients with penetrating cervical injury from an explosive mechanism should have a cervical collar placed if possible. When a blunt mechanism is combined with a penetrating injury, the cervical collar is an important protection until an unstable spinal injury is ruled out. All providers must be aware that the collar may hide other injuries as well as and developing pathology such as expanding hematoma. Patients with isolated penetrating cervical injury who are conscious and have no neurologic signs should not have a cervical collar placed in the pre-hospital environment. Patients with isolated penetrating brain injury do not require a cervical collar unless the trajectory suggests cervical spine involvement.8 On the battlefield, preservation of the life of the casualty and medic is of paramount importance. In these circumstances, evacuation to a more secure area takes precedence over spine immobilization. If a patient has indications for cervical collar placement, and one had not been placed in the pre-hospital environment for whatever reason, the collar should be placed at the earliest opportunity. At each transition in care from downrange, unless cervical clearance has been clearly documented in the record or directly communicated to the accepting treatment team, a rigid cervical collar should be placed and maintained until it is officially cleared by the accepting providers. This highlights the need for clear and consistent communication along the echelons of care (Fig. 3). FIGURE 3. Open in new tabDownload slide Cervical spine clearance algorithm: reliable patient. *Film Adequacy: Axial CT from the occiput to T1 with sagittal and coronal reconstructions. Indications for Cervical Spine Clearance Algorithms Any patient with a suspected cervical spine injury and a neurologic deficit should have a cervical collar in place, and should be referred immediately for neurosurgical or orthopedic spine consultation and imaging. All other patients who have indications for pre-hospital cervical collar placement as detailed above should undergo cervical spine clearance by algorithm. There are separate algorithms for reliable (Fig. 4) and unreliable (Fig. 5) patients. Unreliable patients are those who cannot adequately communicate, have a decreased level of consciousness (GCS < 15), or have a significant distracting injury. FIGURE 4. Open in new tabDownload slide Cervical spine clearance algorithm: unreliable patient. *Film Adequacy: Axial CT from the occiput to T1 with sagittal and coronal reconstructions. Figure 5. Open in new tabDownload slide Cervical spine clearance status form. Significant distracting injury is defined as any injury, which is so painful that it may obscure the patient’s ability to notice pain in their neck. The treating physician has final say in determining if a certain injury is distracting enough to render a patient unreliable and require clearance via the unreliable patient algorithm. If uncertain, err on the side of caution and consider the injury distracting and proceed accordingly. If possible, the cervical spine should be cleared and the collar removed within 24 hours of collar placement. If the clinical scenario requires the collar remain in place more than 24 hours, stiff extrication collars should be replaced with collars designed for long-term immobilization that provide greater padding and decubitus ulcer prevention. Cervical Spine Clearance in the Obtunded Patient Cervical spine clearance in the obtunded patient presents additional challenges to the clinician, especially in the combat environment.6,8,9 Obtunded patients with a concerning mechanism of injury should undergo CT of the spine with fine cuts and multi-planar reconstructed images (3 mm axial, 3 mm coronal and 2 mm sagittal views). If CT is unavailable or unobtainable, full C-Spine plain radiographs (adequate AP, lateral, and odontoid) should be performed. For the obtunded patient with negative imaging, the incidence of significant cervical instability is small but it is not zero. Occult ligamentous injury is only cleared through either a reliable clinical examination with a cooperative, extubated patient or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). However, recent literature suggests that a high quality negative CT scan may be enough to remove the cervical collar.10 This has become the new standard to follow in several high level acute civilian trauma centers and supports the guideline to forgo an MRI as a requirement to clear an obtunded patient. This method of clearance should be reserved for those patients who cannot undergo an MRI and have arrived at their definitive level of care. Flexion/extension radiography should not be performed in a patient who cannot be simultaneously examined for the development of neurological signs or symptoms. The clinical decision to definitively clear the cervical spine without exclusion of ligamentous injury by either a reliable clinical examination or a MRI should be left to the level of care providing definitive treatment to the patient. There is risk for significant neck movements in obtunded patients while transiting through the aeromedical evacuation system, so it is recommended that they remain with cervical spine immobilization until arrival at their definitive level of care. The incidence of occipital skin breakdown has decreased with the utilization of collars with greater padding (e.g., Miami-J with Occian back) and increased trauma system awareness of this potential complication. Given the challenges and multiple handoffs inherent to echeloned care, it may be best to apply a “2 out of 3” rule for cervical clearance in the obtunded patient. This rule, which has been developed and validated in the civilian sector and has been Landstuhl Regional Medical Center/Role 4 policy since 2011, requires negative results of 2 of 3 modalities (CT, MRI, clinical exam) prior to removing rigid cervical collars in obtunded patients. Given the low, but non-zero, incidence of significant cervical injury missed on standard three-plane CT scan, it is recommended that when applying the 2 out of 3 rule, that the obtunded patient be transitioned from the traditional rigid collars to a memory foam enhanced rigid collar if available (e.g., Miami-J with Occian back) until either a reliable clinical examination or MRI can be obtained.10–14 This method helps to decrease the risk of an occipital decubitus ulcer in those patients with a low likelihood of cervical spine injury that are still in transport and have not yet arrived at their level of definitive care. Determination of when to image the whole spine (occiput to sacrum) versus selective imaging is based on the mechanism of injury, the physical/neurological exam, as well as the mental status of the patient. Patients who have one identifiable fracture in the spine should have their entire spine imaged. Certain mechanisms of injury, such as a mounted blast, should also warrant imaging of the whole spine. Cervical Spine Clearance Documentation It is required that the Joint Trauma System Cervical Spine Clearance Status form (Fig. 5) be used for documenting the cervical spine evaluation and clearance status. This comprehensive note includes indications for clearance, exam, imaging studies, and final clearance status. The note is intended to bring together all cervical spine information onto one sheet of paper and was designed to improve both the completeness and ease of documentation. Host Nationals and Those Unable to Transfer from Theater The optimal management of this group is problematic in the austere environment. The availability to obtain CT or transfer the patient to a facility with CT can make spine evaluation and clearance challenging, with reliance on plain radiographs and physical examination. Sound clinical judgment and remote consultation with a spine surgeon (if available) are of benefit. Transporting Patients with Spinal Injuries The majority of patients with cervical spine injuries will be transported using semi-rigid orthotic such as an Aspen collar. Clinical scenarios may arise wherein halo immobilization may be suitable. Transporting patients in traction is a logistically challenging option given the dynamics of air transport, particularly G-Forces during aircraft takeoff and landing, and the multiple transfers required from hospital to vehicle to aircraft to vehicle to hospital. If the patient has a thoracolumbar fracture that is unstable, then he/she should be transported by the Critical Care Air Transport Team (CCATT) using either a Vacuum Spine Board (VSB) or a standard NATO litter with or without a memory foam pad, depending on the type of fracture. Depending on the injury, either of these options can provide sufficient stability to patients with thoracolumbar fractures.15 A thoracolumbosacral orthosis (TLSO) or other external brace should not be worn during the transport process. This is unnecessary and increases the risk of pressure sores. Prior to transport, the spine surgeon and CCATT leader should agree upon suitability of VSB versus standard NATO litter. The VSB protocol requires that the VSB be deflated and re-inflated periodically to reduce the risk of pressure sores during the transport process. Logrolling in a VSB without “release of vacuum” does not significantly reduce skin pressure. Additionally, pre-transported skin integrity should be documented and care must be given to padding and pressure reduction maneuvers of the occiput and heels. Once cruising in smooth flight is accomplished, it would be reasonable to release the vacuum until either descent or turbulence is encountered. At a minimum, the VSB pressure should be checked every half hour, smoothed and re-pressurized every hour, and every 2 hours the team should release straps and logroll patient (holding patient in appropriate alignment) and provide adequate time for relief of pressure points as part of their normal turning schedule. The head of the bed should be elevated 30 degrees unless specifically told otherwise by the spine surgeon. During transport, all patients should use the sequential compression devices, which are approved for flight. Medical Management of Spinal Cord Injuries Patients who sustain neurologic compromise should have an invasive arterial line for continuous blood pressure monitoring with a goal mean arterial pressure of 85–90 mmHg for up to seven days following the injury.6 Hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg) and hypoxemia (SaO2 <92%) must be avoided. Vasopressor therapy (in the euvolemic patient) and/or supplemental oxygen are recommended, when necessary, to achieve these goals.6 Vasopressor use in the hypovolemic patient may contribute to additional ischemic loss in other injured tissues, so fluids remain the initial therapy for hypotension. While many spinal fractures require the head of bed to be flat prior to surgical correction or external bracing, the bed can usually be placed in 30 degrees reverse Trendelenberg. Logrolling the patient can be safely performed in most cases every 2 hours to prevent skin breakdown. It is incumbent upon the spine surgeon to alter these assumptions based upon the specific clinical scenario. The use of corticosteroids in the setting of either blunt or penetrating SCI is not recommended due to the lack of benefit and increased complications.6 Furthermore, the associated open or contaminated wounds of battle casualties with spine or spinal cord injuries further complicate steroid administration. Methylprednisolone administration is not recommended for any spinal cord injuries sustained in combat. An aggressive deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis regimen should be established early and maintained beyond the evacuation process. Pneumatic compression devices in conjunction with chemoprophylaxis are established treatment standards. Prophylactic dosing of a subcutaneous low molecular weight heparin (e.g., enoxaparin) is preferred and can usually be initiated within 24–72 hours of injury or repair. Early active or passive mobilization of the patient helps to reduce DVT formation and is frequently cited in support of early surgical fixation, when appropriate. Patients who show clinical signs or symptoms of a DVT should undergo further imaging to confirm the diagnosis. If a DVT is present, treatment should be initiated with therapeutic anticoagulation if approved by the spine surgeon. If full anticoagulation is contraindicated, an inferior vena cava filter placement should be considered. Operative and Nonoperative Treatment of Spinal Injuries External immobilization options for the cervical spine in theater should include semi-rigid cervical orthosis (e.g., Aspen collar), halo, and sternal-occipital-mandibular immobilizer-like devices or cervico-thoracic braces (e.g., Aspen CTO). Aspen TLSO and LSO devices may also be available at certain Role 3 facilities for bracing of thoracolumbar injuries and are primarily suitable for use on patients with stable injuries for which TLSO will be definitive treatment. The actual materials on hand in the deployed setting may be variable. It is imperative that the deployed spine surgeon be intimately familiar with the immediate availability and serviceability of these devices in the assigned expeditionary medical treatment facility in order to proactively guide treatment and logistical decisions. The operative treatment of U.S. and coalition spine fractures in theater is ultimately left to the deployed surgical team, to include the spine surgeon and the Chief of Trauma. It cannot be over emphasized that the use of good clinical judgment is a priority in the care of patients with spine and spinal cord injuries in a deployed setting. Surgery that can be delayed safely until the patient arrives to the Role 4 or 5 hospital should be delayed. However, there may be some patients who would benefit from immediate surgery in-theater (when available) and these include patients with incomplete injuries, open cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) leak, an expected prolonged delay in transport, or where an urgent reduction may improve the degree of “root sparing” in a cervical SCI.16,17 Given the absence of Levels 1 or 2 evidence guiding the ideal timing for spinal decompression and stabilization of combat-related spine injuries, we are left to rely on retrospective experience and abstraction from animal and civilian clinical studies. The most concerning subset of spine injured patients are those with incomplete injuries. Progressive SCI can occur via fracture displacement, bone fragment compression, expanding hematoma, spinal cord edema, or infarction. Animal studies have demonstrated that immediate decompression of neural elements is associated with a reduction in permanent neurological sequela.18,19 Furthermore, data from the STASCIS trial offer compelling evidence in favor of early surgery.5 This large, multi-center, prospective study showed that neurological outcomes improved at least two ASIA grades in 19.8% of spinal cord injured patients undergoing early decompression (<24 hours) versus 8.8% undergoing late decompression (>24 hours) and that early decompression was at least as safe as late decompression. A recent review of the Rick Hansen National Spinal Cord Injury Registry encompassing 949 patients from 2004 to 2013 showed that patients with incomplete injury (ASIA B, C, or D) had a 6.3 point improvement in ASIA motor scores when decompressed within 24 hours compared with those operated on after 24 hours from injury. This suggests that early surgery is beneficial for incomplete spinal cord injuries.20 Ultimately, the decision to operate on an incomplete SCI in theater must be balanced with operational needs, experience, logistical support, and medevac capabilities. If spinal stabilization is performed in theater, an instrument system that is compatible with the systems or equipment available at higher echelons of care should be used, in case additional or revision surgery is required. Other patients with spine injuries, such as some non-coalition, third country and local nationals will need to be stabilized as best as possible using available methods at the Role 3. Spinal instrumentation downrange is not without its challenges and is often performed with the understanding that additional procedures may need to be performed. A retrospective review of 50 consecutive surgical cases (30 treated at Role 3 and 20 treated at Role 4) between 2010 and 2011 demonstrated a doubling of perioperative complications and a 23% vs. 0% rate of additional spinal surgery for those treated in the Role 3 facility versus those delayed until Role 4. There was no significant difference in neurological recovery rate between these two cohorts. Emergent surgical decompression by thoracic or lumbar laminectomy for severe canal compromise in incomplete spinal cord injured patients, followed by staged surgical stabilization at Role 4 resulted in neurological improvement in two of three of these cases, suggesting that in the setting of severe stenosis with progressive neurological deficit, that staged laminectomy at the Role 3 facility, which is a faster, simpler procedure with less demand on the surgical and logistical support team in the deployed setting, followed by definitive stabilization at the fixed Role 4 facility, is another option in some cases.21 Neurological recovery is not the only purported benefit of early surgical intervention following SCI. Theoretical benefits of early operative stabilization of spinal injuries sustained in combat include earlier mobilization (diminishing DVT risk and improving pulmonary toilet), better analgesia during transport and protection of the neural elements. However, since over half of these patients have concomitant limb or pelvic injuries (“point of first contact fractures” in the combat burst injury) and/or significant hemodynamic distress, the advantages of early mobilization noted in the civilian setting do not translate to combat spine fractures that are managed across echelons of care.22 Penetrating Spine Injuries The need for surgical intervention of penetrating spine injuries is sometimes unclear and staged debridement of the wound may be required given the cavitary injury to soft tissues. Indications for surgery may include progressive neurologic deficit, incomplete deficit (particularly if a missile or fragment is still within the canal) or the presence of a CSF leak. There is no new evidence from the current conflict to support that complete SCI from a penetrating mechanism has a significant change of clinical improvement. Surgery, if required, should be performed when the patient is in the most optimal state. The cavitation effect in addition to direct trauma from combat munitions and blast fragments produces severe anatomic injury that has proven irrecoverable, even in some case in which the fragment never penetrated the spinal canal. If surgery is undertaken, good dural closure is paramount. Anterior and oblique entry to the lumbar and lower thoracic spine are at increased risk of infectious complications.23 If instability is present, infectious risks and neurologic status are key factors to determining the need for and timing of surgical intervention. In 2010, Klimo et al produced a triservice, military consensus statement in regards to treatment recommendations for penetrating spinal injury. Based on the literature, they concluded that there is still ambiguity in regards to the role of decompression in an attempt to regain neurological function. For an incomplete injury with continued canal compromise, decompression, if attempted, should be done within 24–48 hours. If instability is present, stabilization should be considered at the time of surgery.24 The consensus statement also empowered the deployed spine surgeon to make the final treatment decision based on their clinical judgment. Infectious risks and neurologic status are additional key factors to determining the need for and timing of surgical intervention. Cefazolin 2 gm IV q 8 h for 24–72 hours is sufficient for penetrating spine injuries without evidence of contamination. Fragments passing through contaminated viscus structures (e.g., esophagus and colon) require extended spectrum anti-microbial coverage of enteric organisms for a longer period of time (e.g., third generation cephalosporin for 7–10 days) for prophylaxis against osteomyelitis.25 Broad spectrum coverage with good CSF penetration is also recommended for open wounds with a CSF leak. CONCLUSION The treatment of spinal cord and column injury is in continuous evolution and therefore requires that this CPG be fluid. Research on additional medical-based therapies for spinal cord injuries continues to offer hope for additional treatment options for this injury type in the future. Consistent documentation of the neurological exam, adherence to published guidelines on the management of spine and spinal cord injuries, and the use of good clinical judgment on the timing of operative intervention will continue to be the foundation of this CPG. REFERENCES 1 Blair JA , Patzkowski JC, Schoenfeld AJ, et al. : Skeletal Trauma Research Consortium (STReC). Are spine injuries sustained in battle truly different? Spine J 2012 ; 12 ( 9 ): 824 – 9 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 2 Blair JA , Possley DR, Petfield JL, Schoenfeld AJ, Lehman RA, Hsu JR, MD, Skeletal Trauma Research Consortium (STReC) : Military penetrating spine injuries compared with blunt . Spine J 2012 ; 12 ( 9 ): 762 – 76 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 3 Tator CH , Duncan EG, Edmonds VE, et al. : Comparison of surgical and conservative management in 208 patients with acute spinal cord injury . Can J Neurol Sci 1987 ; 14 ( 1 ): 60 – 9 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 4 Krompinger WJ , Frederickson BE, Mino DE, et al. : Conservative treatment of fracture of the thoracic and lumbar spine . Orthoped Clin North Am 1986 ; 17 ( 1 ): 161 – 70 . Google Scholar OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 5 Fehlings MG , Vaccaro A, Wilson JR, et al. : Early versus delayed decompression for traumatic cervical spinal cord injury: results of the surgical timing in acute spinal cord injury study (STASCIS) . PLoS ONE 2012 ; 7 ( 2 ): e32037 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 6 Walters BC , Hadley MN, Hurlbert RJ, et al. : American Association of Neurological Surgeons; Congress of Neurological Surgeons. Guidelines for the management of acute cervical spine and spinal cord injuries: 2013 update . Neurosurgery 2013 ; 60 ( Suppl 1 ): 82 – 91 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 7 Hoffman JR , Mower WR, Wolfson AB, et al. : Validity of a set of clinical criteria to rule out injury to the cervical spine in patients with blunt trauma . New Engl J Med 2000 ; 343 : 94 – 9 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 8 Arishita GI , Vaver JS, Bellamy RF: Cervical spine immobilization of penetrating neck wounds in a hostile environment . J Trauma 1989 ; 29 : 332 – 7 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 9 Mahoney PF , Steinbruner D, Mazur R, et al. : Cervical spine protection in a combat zone . Injury 2007 ; 38 : 1222 – 0 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 10 Patel MB1 , Humble SS, Cullinane DC, et al. : Cervical spine collar clearance in the obtunded adult blunt trauma patient: a systematic review and practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma . J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2015 ; 78 ( 2 ): 430 – 41 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 11 Como JJ , Leukhardt WH, Anderson JS, et al. : Computed tomography alone may clear the cervical spine in obtunded blunt trauma patients: a prospective evaluation of a revised protocol . J Trauma 2011 ; 70 : 345 – 51 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 12 Anderson PA , Gugala Z, Lindsey RW, Schoenfeld AJ, Harris MB: Clearing the cervical spine in the blunt trauma patient . J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2010 ; 18 ( 3 ): 149 – 59 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 13 Schoenfeld AJ , Bono CM, McGuire KJ, Warholic N, Harris MB: Computed tomography alone versus computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the identification of occult injuries to the cervical spine: a meta-analysis . J Trauma 2010 ; 68 ( 1 ): 109 – 13 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 14 Simon JB , Schoenfeld AJ, Katz JN, et al. : Are “normal” multidetector computed tomographic scans sufficient to allow collar removal in the trauma patient? J Trauma 2010 ; 68 ( 1 ): 103 – 8 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 15 Mok JM , Jackson KL, Fang R, Freedman BA: Effect of vacuum spine board immobilization on incidence of pressure ulcers during evacuation of military casualties from theater . Spine J 2013 ; 13 ( 12 ): 1801 – 8 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 16 Yablon IG , Palumbo N, Spatz E, et al. : Nerve root recovery in complete injuries of the cervical spine . Spine 1991 ; 16 ( 10 Suppl ): S518 – 21 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 17 McQueen JD , Khan MI: Evaluation of patients with cervical spine lesions. In: Cervical Spine Research Society, Editorial Subcommittee, editors. The cervical spine . Philadelphia , JB Lippencott , 1983 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC 18 Dolan EJ , Tator CH, Endrenyi L: The value of decompression for acute experimental spinal cord compression injury . J Neurosurg 1980 ; 53 ( 6 ): 749 – 55 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 19 Rivlin AS , Tator CH: Effect of duration of acute spinal cord compression in a new acute cord injury model in a rat . Surg Neurol 1978 ; 10 ( 1 ): 38 – 43 . Google Scholar PubMed OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat 20 Dvorak MF , Noonan VK, Fallah N, et al. ; RHSCIR Network : The influence of time from injury to surgery on motor recovery and length of hospital stay in acute traumatic spinal cord injury: an observational Canadian cohort study . J Neurotrauma 2015 ; 32 ( 9 ): 645 – 54 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 21 Schoenfeld AJ , Mok JM, Cameron B, Jackson KL, Serrano JA, Freedman BA: Evaluation of immediate postoperative complications and outcomes among military personnel treated for spinal trauma in Afghanistan: a cohort-control study of 50 cases . J Spinal Disord Tech 2014 ; 27 ( 7 ): 376 – 81 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 22 Freedman BA , Serrano JA, Belmont PJ Jr, et al. : The combat burst fracture study--results of a cohort analysis of the most prevalent combat specific mechanism of major thoracolumbar spinal injury . Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2014 ; 134 ( 10 ): 1353 – 9 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 23 Duz B , Cansever T, Secer HI, Kahraman S, Daneyemez MK, Gonul E: Evaluation of spinal missile injuries with respect to bullet trajectory, surgical indications and timing of surgical intervention: a new guideline . Spine 2008 ; 33 : E746 – 53 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 24 Klimo P Jr , Ragel BT, Rosner M, Gluf W, McCafferty R: Can surgery improve neurological function in penetrating spine injury? A review of the military and civilian literature and treatment recommendations for military neurosurgeons . Neurosurg Focus 2010 ; 28 ( 5 ): E4 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat 25 Bono CM , Heary RF: Gunshot wounds to the spine . Spine J 2004 ; 4 ( 2 ): 230 – 40 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS PubMed WorldCat Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Association of Military Surgeons of the United States 2018. This work is written by (a) US Government employee(s) and is in the public domain in the US. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Association of Military Surgeons of the United States 2018.
TI - Cervical and Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Evaluation, Transport, and Surgery in the Deployed Setting
JO - Military Medicine
DO - 10.1093/milmed/usy096
DA - 2018-09-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/cervical-and-thoracolumbar-spine-injury-evaluation-transport-and-OxTPHUNGgX
SP - 83
EP - 91
VL - 183
IS - suppl_2
DP - DeepDyve
ER -