Benjamin C Gadomski1, Bradley J Hindman2, Mitchell I Page1, Franklin Dexter2, Christian M Puttlitz1. 1. Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Biomedical Engineering, Orthopaedic Bioengineering Research Laboratory, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado. 2. the Department of Anesthesia, University of Iowa Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine, Iowa City, Iowa.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In a closed claims study, most patients experiencing cervical spinal cord injury had stable cervical spines. This raises two questions. First, in the presence of an intact (stable) cervical spine, are there tracheal intubation conditions in which cervical intervertebral motions exceed physiologically normal maximum values? Second, with an intact spine, are there tracheal intubation conditions in which potentially injurious cervical cord strains can occur? METHODS: This study utilized a computational model of the cervical spine and cord to predict intervertebral motions (rotation, translation) and cord strains (stretch, compression). Routine (Macintosh) intubation force conditions were defined by a specific application location (mid-C3 vertebral body), magnitude (48.8 N), and direction (70 degrees). A total of 48 intubation conditions were modeled: all combinations of 4 force locations (cephalad and caudad of routine), 4 magnitudes (50 to 200% of routine), and 3 directions (50, 70, and 90 degrees). Modeled maximum intervertebral motions were compared to motions reported in previous clinical studies of the range of voluntary cervical motion. Modeled peak cord strains were compared to potential strain injury thresholds. RESULTS: Modeled maximum intervertebral motions occurred with maximum force magnitude (97.6 N) and did not differ from physiologically normal maximum motion values. Peak tensile cord strains (stretch) did not exceed the potential injury threshold (0.14) in any of the 48 force conditions. Peak compressive strains exceeded the potential injury threshold (-0.20) in 3 of 48 conditions, all with maximum force magnitude applied in a nonroutine location. CONCLUSIONS: With an intact cervical spine, even with application of twice the routine value of force magnitude, intervertebral motions during intubation did not exceed physiologically normal maximum values. However, under nonroutine high-force conditions, compressive strains exceeded potentially injurious values. In patients whose cords have less than normal tolerance to acute strain, compressive strains occurring with routine intubation forces may reach potentially injurious values.
BACKGROUND: In a closed claims study, most patients experiencing cervical spinal cord injury had stable cervical spines. This raises two questions. First, in the presence of an intact (stable) cervical spine, are there tracheal intubation conditions in which cervical intervertebral motions exceed physiologically normal maximum values? Second, with an intact spine, are there tracheal intubation conditions in which potentially injurious cervical cord strains can occur? METHODS: This study utilized a computational model of the cervical spine and cord to predict intervertebral motions (rotation, translation) and cord strains (stretch, compression). Routine (Macintosh) intubation force conditions were defined by a specific application location (mid-C3 vertebral body), magnitude (48.8 N), and direction (70 degrees). A total of 48 intubation conditions were modeled: all combinations of 4 force locations (cephalad and caudad of routine), 4 magnitudes (50 to 200% of routine), and 3 directions (50, 70, and 90 degrees). Modeled maximum intervertebral motions were compared to motions reported in previous clinical studies of the range of voluntary cervical motion. Modeled peak cord strains were compared to potential strain injury thresholds. RESULTS: Modeled maximum intervertebral motions occurred with maximum force magnitude (97.6 N) and did not differ from physiologically normal maximum motion values. Peak tensile cord strains (stretch) did not exceed the potential injury threshold (0.14) in any of the 48 force conditions. Peak compressive strains exceeded the potential injury threshold (-0.20) in 3 of 48 conditions, all with maximum force magnitude applied in a nonroutine location. CONCLUSIONS: With an intact cervical spine, even with application of twice the routine value of force magnitude, intervertebral motions during intubation did not exceed physiologically normal maximum values. However, under nonroutine high-force conditions, compressive strains exceeded potentially injurious values. In patients whose cords have less than normal tolerance to acute strain, compressive strains occurring with routine intubation forces may reach potentially injurious values.
Authors: Tim Bhatnagar; Jie Liu; Andrew Yung; Peter Cripton; Piotr Kozlowski; Wolfram Tetzlaff; Thomas Oxland Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2016-04-08 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: Sarah A Figley; Ramak Khosravi; Jean M Legasto; Yun-Fan Tseng; Michael G Fehlings Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2014-01-11 Impact factor: 5.269
Authors: T A Parfenchuck; S L Bertrand; M J Powers; D M Drvaric; S M Pueschel; J M Roberts Journal: J Pediatr Orthop Date: 1994 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.324
Authors: Benjamin C Gadomski; Snehal S Shetye; Bradley J Hindman; Franklin Dexter; Brandon G Santoni; Michael M Todd; Vincent C Traynelis; Robert P From; Ricardo B Fontes; Christian M Puttlitz Journal: J Neurosurg Spine Date: 2017-10-20