Clearing the pediatric c spine
Download
1 / 71

Clearing the Pediatric C-Spine - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 563 Views
  • Updated On :

Clearing the Pediatric C-Spine. Kelly R. Millar, MD, FRCPC Emergency Physician, Alberta Children’s Hospital Assistant Professor, University of Calgary. Overview. Epidemiology Anatomic considerations Clearing the pediatric c-spine Who needs imaging? What films should be ordered?

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Clearing the Pediatric C-Spine' - burt


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Clearing the pediatric c spine l.jpg

Clearing the Pediatric C-Spine

Kelly R. Millar, MD, FRCPC

Emergency Physician, Alberta Children’s Hospital

Assistant Professor, University of Calgary


Overview l.jpg
Overview

  • Epidemiology

  • Anatomic considerations

  • Clearing the pediatric c-spine

    • Who needs imaging?

    • What films should be ordered?

    • Who needs a CT/MRI?

  • Interpretation of Pediatric c-spine films

  • Cases


Epidemiology of pediatric cervical spine injury l.jpg
Epidemiology of PediatricCervical Spine Injury

  • 5% of all spinal cord injuries occur in children

  • 1000 pediatric spinal cord injuries in the US each year

  • 80% of spinal injuries in children < 8 yrs are cervical (vs 30-40% in adults)


Epidemiology l.jpg
Epidemiology

  • Many small case series

  • Often include up to age 20, so data very skewed to older “children”

  • 2 recent large pediatric data sources have fair number of younger children:

  • The largest prospective series is the pediatric subset of the NEXUS trial

  • The largest retrospective series comes from the National Pediatric Trauma Registry



National pediatric trauma registry l.jpg
National Pediatric Trauma Registry

  • Prospective, multi-center database

  • Includes ages 0-20

  • Primary diagnosis traumatic injury

  • Patel et al (2001) J Ped Surg

  • 10 yr review (1988-98)

  • > 75,000 pediatric injuries in database

  • 1.5% had cervical spine injury (N = 1098)


National pediatric trauma registry kokoska et al 2001 j ped surg l.jpg
National Pediatric Trauma RegistryKokoska et al (2001) J Ped Surg

  • 6 year review of same database

  • 1994 – 99

  • Age distribution of

    c-spine injuries →

  • Younger age groups well represented

Age (yrs)


Do children have the same injury patterns as adults l.jpg
Do children have the same injury patterns as adults?

NO!

  • Injuries differ in location and type

    Why?

  • Developing spine has unique anatomy


Anatomic considerations l.jpg
Anatomic Considerations

  • Large head

  • Torque and acceleration stress occur higher in the c-spine

  • Fulcrum of motion C2-C3 in young children (vs C5-C6 in adults)

  • Younger children have an increased incidence of high C-spine injury


Location of injury national pediatric trauma registry l.jpg
Location of InjuryNational Pediatric Trauma Registry

Kokoska et al

(2001)

J Ped Surg

Patel et al

(2001)

J Ped Surg

Age


Slide11 l.jpg

Young Child

Mature

University of Hawaii (www.hawaii.edu/medicine/pediatrics/pemxray)


Slide12 l.jpg


Slide13 l.jpg


Type of injury l.jpg
Type of injury against spinal fracture in low energy trauma, however, may lead to SCIWORA in high-energy trauma

National Pediatric Trauma Registry:

Kokoska et al (2001) J Ped Surg


How common are neuro deficits l.jpg
How common are neuro deficits? against spinal fracture in low energy trauma, however, may lead to SCIWORA in high-energy trauma

National Pediatric Trauma Registry:Patel et al (2001) J Ped Surg


What is sciwora l.jpg
What is SCIWORA? against spinal fracture in low energy trauma, however, may lead to SCIWORA in high-energy trauma

  • Def: Spinal cord injury without radiographic abnormality on plain film or CT

  • Mechanism: transient vertebral displacement with subsequent realignment resulting in damaged spinal cord and normal appearing vertebral column

  • Young spinal column can stretch up to 5cm

  • Spinal cord ruptures after 5mm of traction


Sciwora l.jpg
SCIWORA against spinal fracture in low energy trauma, however, may lead to SCIWORA in high-energy trauma

  • How common is it?

  • Literature extremely inconsistent with definition and incidence

  • Reported as 0-50% of peds spinal cord injuries

  • National Pediatric Trauma Registry: 17%

  • NEXUS: none!!


Sciwora case series l.jpg
SCIWORA – case series against spinal fracture in low energy trauma, however, may lead to SCIWORA in high-energy trauma

Common themes:

  • Up to half may have delayed onset of symptoms (usually within 48 hrs)

  • SCI can be severe

  • Chance of recovery low if complete

  • May be related to spinal cord infarction


Epidemiology bottom line l.jpg
Epidemiology: Bottom Line against spinal fracture in low energy trauma, however, may lead to SCIWORA in high-energy trauma

  • C-spine injuries in children are rare, but they do occur in about 1.5% of blunt trauma patients

  • In young children, be on look out for:

    • High c-spine injury

    • Ligamentous injury


How can we protect the pediatric c spine l.jpg

How can we protect the pediatric C-spine? against spinal fracture in low energy trauma, however, may lead to SCIWORA in high-energy trauma


Begins in prehospital setting immobilization l.jpg
Begins in Prehospital Setting: Immobilization against spinal fracture in low energy trauma, however, may lead to SCIWORA in high-energy trauma

  • Aim for “neutral position”

  • Big head

  • When laying flat on backboard, neck is flexed

  • Must accommodate large occiput, using either an occipital depression or padding under the torso


Immobilization l.jpg
Immobilization against spinal fracture in low energy trauma, however, may lead to SCIWORA in high-energy trauma

  • Best immobilization achieved by modified spine board, rigid collar and taping

  • Too large a collar can distract the neck and worsen an injury – blocks are preferable to a poorly fitting collar


Ok now the collar s on how do i get it off l.jpg
OK… Now the collar’s on… against spinal fracture in low energy trauma, however, may lead to SCIWORA in high-energy traumaHow do I get it off?

Challenges:

  • Preverbal or crying children:

    • Difficult to assess tenderness

    • Difficult to perform detailed neurologic exam

      Questions:

  • Who needs imaging?

  • What type of imaging is needed?

  • When do I need a CT or MRI?


Clearing the pediatric c spine part 1 who needs imaging l.jpg
Clearing the Pediatric C-Spine against spinal fracture in low energy trauma, however, may lead to SCIWORA in high-energy traumaPART 1: Who needs imaging?

Is there any pediatric evidence?

  • 1 prospective study

    • Peds subset of NEXUS – Viccellio et al

  • 1 retrospective study

    • Isolated head injuries – Laham et al


Imaging peds subset of nexus viccellio et al 2001 pediatrics l.jpg
Imaging – Peds subset of NEXUS against spinal fracture in low energy trauma, however, may lead to SCIWORA in high-energy traumaViccellio et al (2001) Pediatrics

  • Prospective study of patients with blunt trauma + cervical spine radiography

  • Used 5 low-risk criteria:

    • No midline cervical tenderness

    • No evidence of intoxication

    • No altered level of consciousness

    • No focal neurological deficit

    • No painful distracting injury

  • If all 5 criteria met – considered low risk


Nexus peds subset l.jpg
NEXUS – peds subset against spinal fracture in low energy trauma, however, may lead to SCIWORA in high-energy trauma

  • 3065 patients < 18 years (9% of NEXUS)

  • Total # c-spine injuries: 30

  • 603 / 3065 considered “low risk” (20%)

  • All low risk patients had negative radiographic evaluations (100% sensitive)


Nexus peds subset27 l.jpg
NEXUS – peds subset against spinal fracture in low energy trauma, however, may lead to SCIWORA in high-energy trauma

  • Problem: Numbers are small, so 95% CI for sensitivity: 87.8% - 100%

  • Problem: Very few injuries in younger kids

  • Grouped as follows:

    • 0-2 (lack of verbal skills) N = 88 (0)

    • 3-8 (immature cervical spine) N = 817 (4)

    • 9-17 (older children) N = 2150 (26)


Nexus peds subset28 l.jpg
NEXUS – peds subset against spinal fracture in low energy trauma, however, may lead to SCIWORA in high-energy trauma

  • Bottom line:

  • Authors “cautiously endorse” the use of the NEXUS criteria in children over age 8

  • Not enough power to ensure that the tool is safe to use in younger children

  • However, authors state that there is not a single case in the medical literature of a child with a c-spine injury who would have been classified as low risk using NEXUS


Laham et al 1994 ped neurosurg l.jpg
Laham et al (1994) Ped Neurosurg against spinal fracture in low energy trauma, however, may lead to SCIWORA in high-energy trauma

  • Retrospective review of 268 children with apparent isolated HI

  • 2 high risk criteria = incapable of verbal communication (due to age or HI) and neck pain

  • Did x-rays in all kids

  • No abnormal x-rays in low risk group

  • 7.5% abnormal in high risk group

  • Authors concluded: In isolated HI with no neuro deficits, no x-rays needed if child can communicate and has no neck pain


What about the canadian c spine rules l.jpg
What about the Canadian C-Spine Rules? against spinal fracture in low energy trauma, however, may lead to SCIWORA in high-energy trauma

  • Have not been evaluated for use in patients < 16 years


Are there any consensus statements or guidelines l.jpg
Are there any consensus statements or guidelines? against spinal fracture in low energy trauma, however, may lead to SCIWORA in high-energy trauma

  • American Association of Neurosurgeons (Guidelines committee of the section on disorders of the spine) [AANS]

    Management of Pediatric Cervical Spine and Spinal Cord Injuries

    Neurosurgery 2002;50(3) March supp

  • Guidelines based on available evidence and expert opinion


Aans bottom line children 8 years l.jpg
AANS Bottom Line: against spinal fracture in low energy trauma, however, may lead to SCIWORA in high-energy traumaChildren > 8 years

  • Evidence supports the use of NEXUS criteria:

  • Image if any one of:

    • Midline tenderness

    • Focal neurological deficit

    • Altered level of consciousness

    • Evidence of intoxication

    • Painful distracting injury


Aans bottom line children 8 years and under who are conversant l.jpg
AANS Bottom Line: against spinal fracture in low energy trauma, however, may lead to SCIWORA in high-energy traumaChildren 8 years and under who are conversant

  • Although evidence is lacking, expert opinion supports the use of the NEXUS criteria

  • Given lack of evidence, and possible communication barriers in young children, it would be reasonable to consider imaging in high risk mechanisms:

    • high speed MVC

    • fall > 8 ft

    • axial load injury


What should we do with infants l.jpg
What should we do with infants? against spinal fracture in low energy trauma, however, may lead to SCIWORA in high-energy trauma

  • NEXUS – 88 patients < 2 yo – no injuries

  • NPTR – children < 2 yo : ~ 8 injuries per yr

  • No studies with large enough numbers to generate evidence-based practice recommendations

  • Have to go to expert opinion


Aans bottom line non conversant children l.jpg
AANS Bottom Line: against spinal fracture in low energy trauma, however, may lead to SCIWORA in high-energy traumaNon-conversant Children

  • Advise obtaining images in all non-conversant children who have “experienced trauma”

  • Practically, this is not what’s done in most Canadian pediatric EDs


What should we do with infants36 l.jpg
What should we do with infants? against spinal fracture in low energy trauma, however, may lead to SCIWORA in high-energy trauma

  • See them quickly

  • Assess for altered LOC, neuro deficit, distracting injury

  • If no injury apparent, remove immobilization equipment in protected environment

  • Observe for spontaneous movement of neck

  • Most small children will “clinically clear” themselves


Clearing the pediatric c spine37 l.jpg

Clearing the Pediatric C-Spine against spinal fracture in low energy trauma, however, may lead to SCIWORA in high-energy trauma

PART 2: What films do I need?


Slide38 l.jpg


Odontoid views l.jpg
Odontoid views? necessary

  • Many authors have questioned the need

  • Swischuk surveyed 984 pediatric radiologists (432 responses)

  • Obtained reports of 46 pediatric fractures that were missed on lateral view and seen on odontoid view

  • Calculated a miss rate of 0.007 per year per radiologist


Odontoid views40 l.jpg
Odontoid views? necessary

  • Buhs et al(2000) J Ped Surg - Retrospective review of all c-spine injuries in children< 16 yrs over 10 year period at 4 Detroit trauma centres

  • can’t r/o fracture with AP/lat alone


But odontoid views are hard to get in young children l.jpg
But odontoid views are hard to get in young children!!! necessary

  • Consider:

    • 0-3 years: 50% of injuries are at C1 / C2 level

    • 4-12 years: 8% of injuries are at C1 / C2 level

  • Bottom line: If you are worried enough to image the c-spine, you need to get a good look at C1 / C2

    ~need odontoid view or CT


Oblique views l.jpg
Oblique views? necessary

  • Ralston et al (2003) Ped Emerg Care:

  • Blinded retrospective review (8 year period)

  • Blunt trauma patients ≤16 yrs

  • AP/Lat + oblique views

  • N = 109


Oblique views43 l.jpg
Oblique views? necessary

  • All with normal AP/Lat had normal obliques

    (N = 78)

    If AP/Lat normal, obliques unlikely to add additional information

  • 4 obliques resulted in revision of impression:

    • 3 from equivocal to normal

    • 1 from equivocal to abnormal (final dx = no injury)

      May be of assistance in equivocal situation


Flexion extension views ralston et al 2001 acad emerg med l.jpg
Flexion-Extension views? necessaryRalston et al (2001) Acad Emerg Med

  • Blinded retrospective review (6 year period)

  • Blunt trauma patients ≤16 yrs

  • AP/Lat (+ odont in 83%) + flex/ex views

  • N = 129

    • 45 patients had initial AP/Lat read as normal – all had normal flex/ex views (no revision of impressions)

      If primary series is normal…flex/ex views do not add info

    • 84 patients had initial AP/Lat read as abnormal (including loss of lordosis -79 had revision of impression)



Flexion extension views l.jpg
Flexion-Extension views? necessary

  • Normal flex-ex views do not rule out an injury

  • If plain films worrisome, more sensitive modalities are warranted (CT +/- MRI)

    May consider flex-ex after to look for major instability

  • If the concern is significant pain despite normal plain films, quality of flex-ex view likely limited due to pain and they cannot be used to “rule out” an injury


To ct or not to ct l.jpg
To CT or not to CT…. necessary

  • Routinely used in adults trauma patients to examine c-spine

  • There are significant concerns that exposing children to CT radiation may lead to an increased lifetime risk of cancer

  • Try to be much more selective with the use of CT in children

  • Limit scans to specific areas of interest


Indications for ct l.jpg
Indications for CT necessary

  • Valuable for:

    • Defining anatomy in regions where an abnormality is suspected on plain film

    • Viewing regions not visualized on plain film

      • ie – skullbase to C3 in intubated patient

  • Remember: a large proportion of young children with c-spine injury will have an isolated ligamentous injury, a normal CT cannot be used to exclude a c-spine injury

  • CT can miss odontoid #


Evidence for early ct keenan et al 2001 ajr l.jpg
Evidence for early CT? necessaryKeenan et al (2001) AJR

  • Retrospective study of 63 kids

  • Head injury + C-spine plain films

  • 21/63 had early CT c-spine with initial head CT

  • 42/63 had plain films alone - often repeat attempts

  • Analyzed multiple patient factors + total radiation dose received in process of imaging c-spine

  • Found kids in high speed MVC with GCS <8 had same radiation with repeated plain films as with early CT (new generation, helical CT with recons)


How about mri l.jpg
How about MRI ??? necessary

  • Keiper et al (1998) Neurorad

  • Retrospective case review

    • Children with hx of blunt c-spine trauma

    • Normal plain films + normal CT

    • One of:

      • Persistent or delayed neuro symptoms

      • Persistent significant neck pain

  • N = 52

  • MRI abnormal in 16/52 (31%)

  • 4 went on to operative management


Mri flynn et al 2002 j peds ortho l.jpg
MRI ??? necessaryFlynn et al (2002) J Peds Ortho


What do these mri studies mean for me i can t just order an mri l.jpg
What do these MRI studies mean for me? (…I can’t just order an MRI!)

  • In children with normal plain films and normal CT who have either:

    • Neurologic deficit

    • Significant persistent neck pain

      ~ they may still have a significant injury, so discuss case with referring neurosurgeon

  • Those with neuro deficits likely need urgent MRI

  • Those with ++ pain may benefit from one or more of Aspen collar, outpatient MRI, and neurosurg follow-up (at discretion of neurosx)


Clearing the pediatric c spine53 l.jpg

Clearing the Pediatric C-Spine order an MRI!)

PART 3: Now I know what tests to do… How do I interpret pediatric C-spine films?


Slide54 l.jpg


Alignment subluxation of c2 c3 l.jpg
Alignment – Subluxation of C2/C3? order an MRI!)

University of Hawaii (www.hawaii.edu/medicine/pediatrics/pemxray)


Alignment pseudosubluxation l.jpg
Alignment - Pseudosubluxation order an MRI!)

  • 24% C2 on C3

  • 14% C3 on C4

    (Age <7 years)

  • Swischuk’s line: posterior arch of C1 to C3 – should come within 1 mm of post arch of C2

University of Hawaii (www.hawaii.edu/medicine/pediatrics/pemxray)


Bones l.jpg
Bones order an MRI!)

  • Wedge shaped vertebral bodies

  • Ossification centres

    • Can appear like tear-drop fractures of the vertebral bodies

University of Hawaii (www.hawaii.edu/medicine/pediatrics/pemxray)


Slide58 l.jpg
Dens order an MRI!)

  • Predental space – allow up to 5 mm in young children

  • Subdental synchondrosis - lucency at base of dens

  • Dens fuses with body of C2 between ages 4 - 6 years

  • A thin lucency may be appreciable on the lateral view for many years (50% up to age 11)

  • May have ossification centre at tip of dens

University of Hawaii (www.hawaii.edu/medicine/pediatrics/pemxray)


Prevertebral soft tissues l.jpg
Prevertebral Soft Tissues order an MRI!)

  • Allowable thickness changes with age

  • In general:

    • Above glottis:

      ½ vertebral body

    • Below glottis:

      1 vertebral body

  • Often falsely thickened 2° to neck flexion (big occiput) or expiration

University of Hawaii (www.hawaii.edu/medicine/pediatrics/pemxray)


Slide60 l.jpg


Clearing the pediatric c spine61 l.jpg

Clearing the Pediatric C-Spine present by age 8

PART 4: Specific injuries to watch for


Case 1 l.jpg
Case 1 present by age 8

  • 5 yo girl

  • Hit by car while riding bike

  • VSA at scene

  • Vitals recovered by EMS

Rose et al, Am J Surg 2003;185(4)


Atlanto occipital dislocation l.jpg
Atlanto-Occipital Dislocation present by age 8

  • 2.5 x more common in children than adults

  • Due to small occipital condyles and horizontal atlanto-occipital joints

  • Suspect if distance between occipital condyles and C1 is > 5mm at any point

  • Usually have ++ soft tissue swelling


Wackenheim clivus line l.jpg
Wackenheim Clivus Line present by age 8

The Encyclopaedia of Medical Imaging www.amershamhealth.com

Line from clivus should

just touch posterior odontoid tip


Case 2 l.jpg
Case 2 present by age 8

  • 2 yo female

  • High speed MVA

  • Closed HI (GCS 11)

Proctor (2002) Crit Care Med


C1 c2 subluxation l.jpg
C1 – C2 Subluxation present by age 8

  • Predental space

    = 8mm

  • Prevertabral soft tissue swelling > ½ vertebral body


Case 3 l.jpg
Case 3 present by age 8

  • 3 yo male

  • Fell out of barn loft

  • Alert, crying but consolable

  • Says his head hurts

  • Makes no attempt to voluntarily move neck

University of Hawaii (www.hawaii.edu/medicine/pediatrics/pemxray)


Dens fracture l.jpg
Dens Fracture present by age 8

  • Suspicious for dens fracture:

    • widening of the synchondrosis

    • anterior tilting of the odontoid

    • (may be posteriorly tilted in normal children)


Dens fracture69 l.jpg
Dens Fracture present by age 8

  • Often lack neuro symptoms as spinal canal is wide at that level

  • Most common symptoms:

    • Occipital pain (injury to greater occipital nerve)

    • Refusal to extend neck

  • Believed to have high miss rate – can lead to chronic problems


What injuries should you be watching for in children 8 years l.jpg
What injuries should you be watching for in children < 8 years?

Occiput

█~ atlanto-occipital dislocation

C1

█ ~ C1-C2 subluxation

C2 ~ odontoid fractures

C3-C7 ~ ligamentous injury


References l.jpg
References years?

  • Patel et al: J Ped Surg 2001;36(2):373-376

  • Viccellio et al: Pediatrics 2001;108(2):e20

  • Kokoska et al: J Ped Surg 2001;36(1):100-105

  • Radiology Cases in Pediatric Emergency Medicine, University of Hawaii (www.hawaii.edu/medicine/pediatrics/pemxray)

  • Laham et al: Ped Neurosurg 1994;21:221-226

  • Swischuk et al: Ped Radiol 2000;30:186-189

  • Buhs et al: J Ped Surg 2000;35(6):994-997

  • Ralston et al: Ped Emerg Care 2003;19(2):68-72

  • Ralston et al: Acad Emerg Med 2001;8(3):237-245

  • Keenan et al: AJR 2001;177:1405-1409

  • Keiper et al: Neurorad 1998;40(6):359-363

  • Dare et al J: Neurosurg 2002;97(suppl 1):33-39

  • Rose et al, Am J Surg 2003;185(4)

  • The Encyclopaedia of Medical Imaging (www.amershamhealth.com)

  • Proctor: Crit Care Med 2002;30(11)


ad