BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study Low-Risk Criteria were established to identify patients with a low probability of cervical spine injury in whom imaging of the cervical spine was unnecessary. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the number of unnecessary cervical spine CT studies on the basis of proper application of established clinical guidelines and, secondarily, to determine indications for ordering studies in the absence of guideline criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients presenting to a level I trauma center for whom a screening cervical spine CT was ordered in the setting of blunt trauma were eligible for enrollment. For each study, the requesting clinician completed a survey regarding study indications. CT examinations were evaluated by a board-certified radiologist blinded to survey data to determine the presence or absence of cervical spine injury. RESULTS: Of 507 CT examinations, 5 (1%) were positive and 497 (98.0%) were negative for acute cervical spine injury. Five studies (1%) were indeterminate for acute injury but demonstrated no abnormality on subsequent imaging and clinical follow-up. Of the 502 studies without cervical spine injury, 81 (16.1%) were imaged despite meeting all 5 NEXUS criteria for nonimaging. Of these, the most common study indication was dangerous mechanism of injury (48.1%) followed by subjective neck pain (40.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Strict application of NEXUS criteria could potentially reduce the number of screening cervical spine CT scans in the setting of blunt trauma; this change would avoid a considerable amount of unnecessary radiation and cost.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study Low-Risk Criteria were established to identify patients with a low probability of cervical spine injury in whom imaging of the cervical spine was unnecessary. The purpose of this study was to ascertain the number of unnecessary cervical spine CT studies on the basis of proper application of established clinical guidelines and, secondarily, to determine indications for ordering studies in the absence of guideline criteria. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All patients presenting to a level I trauma center for whom a screening cervical spine CT was ordered in the setting of blunt trauma were eligible for enrollment. For each study, the requesting clinician completed a survey regarding study indications. CT examinations were evaluated by a board-certified radiologist blinded to survey data to determine the presence or absence of cervical spine injury. RESULTS: Of 507 CT examinations, 5 (1%) were positive and 497 (98.0%) were negative for acute cervical spine injury. Five studies (1%) were indeterminate for acute injury but demonstrated no abnormality on subsequent imaging and clinical follow-up. Of the 502 studies without cervical spine injury, 81 (16.1%) were imaged despite meeting all 5 NEXUS criteria for nonimaging. Of these, the most common study indication was dangerous mechanism of injury (48.1%) followed by subjective neck pain (40.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Strict application of NEXUS criteria could potentially reduce the number of screening cervical spine CT scans in the setting of blunt trauma; this change would avoid a considerable amount of unnecessary radiation and cost.
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: Margaret M Griffen; Eric R Frykberg; Andrew J Kerwin; Miren A Schinco; Joseph J Tepas; Kathleen Rowe; Jennifer Abboud Journal: J Trauma Date: 2003-08
Authors: John Bailitz; Frederic Starr; Matthew Beecroft; Jon Bankoff; Roxanne Roberts; Faran Bokhari; Kimberly Joseph; Dorian Wiley; Andrew Dennis; Susan Gilkey; Paul Erickson; Patricia Raksin; Kimberly Nagy Journal: J Trauma Date: 2009-06
Authors: Garth Dickinson; Ian G Stiell; Michael Schull; Robert Brison; Catherine M Clement; Katherine L Vandemheen; Daniel Cass; Douglas McKnight; Gary Greenberg; James R Worthington; Mark Reardon; Laurie Morrison; Mary A Eisenhauer; Jonathan Dreyer; George A Wells Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: H Laetitia Hattingh; Zoe Alexandra Michaleff; Peter Fawzy; Leanne Du; Karlene Willcocks; K Meng Tan; Gerben Keijzers Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2022-06-18 Impact factor: 2.908
Authors: Annelie Slaar; M M Fockens; Junfeng Wang; Mario Maas; David J Wilson; J Carel Goslings; Niels Wl Schep; Rick R van Rijn Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-12-07