Harrison Carmichael1,2, Christian Vaillancourt3, Ian Shrier4, Manya Charette5, Elisabeth Hobden6, Ian G Stiell3. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. hcarm010@uottawa.ca. 2. Ottawa Hospital, Civic Campus, 1053 Carling Ave., Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada. hcarm010@uottawa.ca. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 4. Lady Davis Institute, Jewish General Hospital, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 5. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada. 6. University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the ability of the prehospital Canadian C-Spine Rule to selectively recommend immobilization in sport-related versus non-sport-related injuries and describe sport-related mechanisms of injury. METHODS: We reviewed data from the prospective paramedic Canadian C-Spine Rule validation and implementation studies in 7 Canadian cities. A trained reviewer further categorized sport-related mechanisms of injury collaboratively with a sport medicine physician using a pilot-tested standardized form. We compared the Canadian C-Spine Rule's recommendation to immobilize sport-related versus non-sport-related patients using Chi-square and relative risk statistics with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: There were 201 sport-related patients among the 5,978 included. Sport-related injured patients were younger (mean age 36.2 vs. 42.4) and more predominantly male (60.5% vs. 46.8%) than non-sport-related patients. Paramedics did not miss any C-Spine injury when using the Canadian C-Spine Rule. C-Spine injury rates were similar between sport (2/201; 1.0%) and non-sport-injured patients (47/5,777; 0.8%). The Canadian C-Spine Rule recommended immobilization equally between groups (46.4% vs. 42.5%; RR 1.09 95%CI 0.93-1.28), most commonly resulting from a dangerous mechanism among sport-injured (68.7% vs. 54.5%; RR 1.26 95%CI 1.08-1.47). The most common dangerous mechanism responsible for immobilization in sport was axial load. CONCLUSION: Although equal proportions of sport and non-sport-related injuries were immobilized, a dangerous mechanism was most often responsible for immobilization in sport-related cases. These findings do not address the potential impact of using the Canadian C-Spine Rule to evaluate collegiate or pro athletes assessed by sport medicine physicians. It does support using the Canadian C-Spine Rule as a tool in sport-injured patients assessed by paramedics.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to compare the ability of the prehospital Canadian C-Spine Rule to selectively recommend immobilization in sport-related versus non-sport-related injuries and describe sport-related mechanisms of injury. METHODS: We reviewed data from the prospective paramedic Canadian C-Spine Rule validation and implementation studies in 7 Canadian cities. A trained reviewer further categorized sport-related mechanisms of injury collaboratively with a sport medicine physician using a pilot-tested standardized form. We compared the Canadian C-Spine Rule's recommendation to immobilize sport-related versus non-sport-related patients using Chi-square and relative risk statistics with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: There were 201 sport-related patients among the 5,978 included. Sport-related injured patients were younger (mean age 36.2 vs. 42.4) and more predominantly male (60.5% vs. 46.8%) than non-sport-related patients. Paramedics did not miss any C-Spine injury when using the Canadian C-Spine Rule. C-Spine injury rates were similar between sport (2/201; 1.0%) and non-sport-injured patients (47/5,777; 0.8%). The Canadian C-Spine Rule recommended immobilization equally between groups (46.4% vs. 42.5%; RR 1.09 95%CI 0.93-1.28), most commonly resulting from a dangerous mechanism among sport-injured (68.7% vs. 54.5%; RR 1.26 95%CI 1.08-1.47). The most common dangerous mechanism responsible for immobilization in sport was axial load. CONCLUSION: Although equal proportions of sport and non-sport-related injuries were immobilized, a dangerous mechanism was most often responsible for immobilization in sport-related cases. These findings do not address the potential impact of using the Canadian C-Spine Rule to evaluate collegiate or pro athletes assessed by sport medicine physicians. It does support using the Canadian C-Spine Rule as a tool in sport-injured patients assessed by paramedics.