BACKGROUND: A cautious outlook towards neck injuries has been the norm to avoid missing cervical spine injuries. Consequently there has been an increased use of cervical spine radiography. The Canadian Cervical Spine rule was proposed to reduce unnecessary use of cervical spine radiography in alert and stable patients. Our aim was to see whether applying the Canadian Cervical Spine rule reduced the need for cervical spine radiography without missing significant cervical spine injuries. METHODS: This was a retrospective study conducted in 2 hospitals. 114 alert and stable patients who had cervical spine radiographs for suspected neck injuries were included in the study. Data on patient demographics, high risk & low risk factors as per the Canadian Cervical Spine rule and cervical spine radiography results were collected and analysed. RESULTS: 28 patients were included in the high risk category according to the Canadian Cervical Spine rule. 86 patients fell into the low risk category. If the Canadian Cervical Spine rule was applied, there would have been a significant reduction in cervical spine radiographs as 86/114 patients (75.4%) would not have needed cervical spine radiograph. 2/114 patients who had significant cervical spine injuries would have been identified when the Canadian Cervical Spine rule was applied. CONCLUSION: Applying the Canadian Cervical Spine rule for neck injuries in alert and stable patients would have reduced the use of cervical spine radiographs without missing out significant cervical spine injuries. This relates to reduction in radiation exposure to patients and health care costs.
BACKGROUND: A cautious outlook towards neck injuries has been the norm to avoid missing cervical spine injuries. Consequently there has been an increased use of cervical spine radiography. The Canadian Cervical Spine rule was proposed to reduce unnecessary use of cervical spine radiography in alert and stable patients. Our aim was to see whether applying the Canadian Cervical Spine rule reduced the need for cervical spine radiography without missing significant cervical spine injuries. METHODS: This was a retrospective study conducted in 2 hospitals. 114 alert and stable patients who had cervical spine radiographs for suspected neck injuries were included in the study. Data on patient demographics, high risk & low risk factors as per the Canadian Cervical Spine rule and cervical spine radiography results were collected and analysed. RESULTS: 28 patients were included in the high risk category according to the Canadian Cervical Spine rule. 86 patients fell into the low risk category. If the Canadian Cervical Spine rule was applied, there would have been a significant reduction in cervical spine radiographs as 86/114 patients (75.4%) would not have needed cervical spine radiograph. 2/114 patients who had significant cervical spine injuries would have been identified when the Canadian Cervical Spine rule was applied. CONCLUSION: Applying the Canadian Cervical Spine rule for neck injuries in alert and stable patients would have reduced the use of cervical spine radiographs without missing out significant cervical spine injuries. This relates to reduction in radiation exposure to patients and health care costs.
Authors: I G Stiell; G A Wells; K L Vandemheen; C M Clement; H Lesiuk; V J De Maio; A Laupacis; M Schull; R D McKnight; R Verbeek; R Brison; D Cass; J Dreyer; M A Eisenhauer; G H Greenberg; I MacPhail; L Morrison; M Reardon; J Worthington Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-10-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Ian G Stiell; Catherine M Clement; R Douglas McKnight; Robert Brison; Michael J Schull; Brian H Rowe; James R Worthington; Mary A Eisenhauer; Daniel Cass; Gary Greenberg; Iain MacPhail; Jonathan Dreyer; Jacques S Lee; Glen Bandiera; Mark Reardon; Brian Holroyd; Howard Lesiuk; George A Wells Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-12-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Zoe A Michaleff; Chris G Maher; Arianne P Verhagen; Trudy Rebbeck; Chung-Wei Christine Lin Journal: CMAJ Date: 2012-10-09 Impact factor: 8.262