Pediatric Cervical Spine Injury Following Blunt Trauma in Children Younger Than 3 Years: The PEDSPINE II Study.

Importance: There is variability in practice and imaging usage to diagnose cervical spine injury (CSI) following blunt trauma in pediatric patients. Objective: To develop a prediction model to guide imaging usage and to identify trends in imaging and to evaluate the PEDSPINE model. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included pediatric patients (<3 years years) following blunt trauma between January 2007 and July 2017. Of 22 centers in PEDSPINE, 15 centers, comprising level 1 and 2 stand-alone pediatric hospitals, level 1 and 2 pediatric hospitals within an adult hospital, and level 1 adult hospitals, were included. Patients who died prior to obtaining cervical spine imaging were excluded. Descriptive analysis was performed to describe the population, use of imaging, and injury patterns. PEDSPINE model validation was performed. A new algorithm was derived using clinical criteria and formulation of a multiclass classification problem. Analysis took place from January to October 2022. Exposure: Blunt trauma. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was CSI. The primary and secondary objectives were predetermined. Results: The current study, PEDSPINE II, included 9389 patients, of which 128 (1.36%) had CSI, twice the rate in PEDSPINE (0.66%). The mean (SD) age was 1.3 (0.9) years; and 70 patients (54.7%) were male. Overall, 7113 children (80%) underwent cervical spine imaging, compared with 7882 (63%) in PEDSPINE. Several candidate models were fitted for the multiclass classification problem. After comparative analysis, the multinomial regression model was chosen with one-vs-rest area under the curve (AUC) of 0.903 (95% CI, 0.836-0.943) and was able to discriminate between bony and ligamentous injury. PEDSPINE and PEDSPINE II models' ability to identify CSI were compared. In predicting the presence of any injury, PEDSPINE II obtained a one-vs-rest AUC of 0.885 (95% CI, 0.804-0.934), outperforming the PEDSPINE score (AUC, 0.845; 95% CI, 0.769-0.915). Conclusion and Relevance: This study found wide clinical variability in the evaluation of pediatric trauma patients with increased use of cervical spine imaging. This has implications of increased cost, increased radiation exposure, and a potential for overdiagnosis. This prediction tool could help to decrease the use of imaging, aid in clinical decision-making, and decrease hospital resource use and cost.

National Outcomes after Pressure Ulcer Closure: Inspiring Surgery.

Over two million Americans receive treatment for pressure ulcers (PUs) annually, but national surgical outcomes are not well described. This study investigated rates and risk factors of postoperative complications in patients with PU. The 2011 and 2012 American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database was queried and PU patients undergoing flap closure were identified. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression analysis was used and reported as odds ratios (ORs) if (P < 0.05). Of 1196 patients identified with a primary diagnosis of PU, 327 (27%) underwent flap closure. Emergency interventions were performed in seven patients who were excluded from analysis. Characteristics were average age 53.3 (±17); 65 per cent male; 41 per cent with grossly contaminated or infected wounds; 29 per cent frail; and 16 per cent with an American Society of Anesthesiologists score of four or five. Myocutaneous or fasciocutaneous flaps were performed in 82 per cent of patients, local skin rearrangements in 17 per cent, and free flap in one patient. Complications were low with 1.9 per cent recurrence and 4.7 per cent reoperation rates. Higher American Society of Anesthesiologists was independently associated with mortality (odds ratio = 6.6) and steroid use correlated with flap failure (odds ratio = 15). No differences in complication profiles were identified based on technique, frailty, or contamination. Surgical closure can be considered reasonable in all patients fit for anesthesia.

What is the role of chest X-ray in the initial assessment of stable trauma patients?

BACKGROUND: The Advanced Trauma Life Support course advocates the liberal use of chest X-ray (CXR) during the initial evaluation of trauma patients. We reviewed CXR performed in the trauma resuscitation room (TR) to determine its usefulness. METHODS: A retrospective, registry-based review was conducted and included 1,000 consecutive trauma patients who underwent CXR in the TR at a Level I trauma center during a 7-month period. RESULTS: Patients receiving CXR comprised 91.5% of all patients evaluated in the TR during the study period. CXR followed by chest computed tomography (CCT) was performed in 820 (82.0%) patients. Subsequent CCT identified missed findings in 235 (35.6%) of the 660 patients with an initial negative CXR who went on to receive CCT. CXR alone was performed in 127 (26.1%) of the 487 patients who were stable, not intubated, and had a normal chest physical examination (CPE). Seven patients (5.5%) in this group had potentially significant findings but none required intervention beyond physiotherapy or antibiotics. Three hundred and sixty (73.9%) of the 487 patients who were hemodynamically stable with a normal CPE underwent both CXR and CCT. Fifty-four patients (15%) in this group had findings of significance, and two (0.6%) required intervention. One patient received bilateral chest tubes for large pre-existing pleural effusions found on CXR and CCT; another patient undergoing general anesthesia required a chest tube for a pneumothorax found only on CCT. CONCLUSION: In stable trauma patients with a normal CPE, CXR appears to be unnecessary in their initial evaluation. CXR should be relegated to a role similar to cervical spine and pelvis radiographs in the initial evaluation of hemodynamically stable trauma patients with a normal physical examination, and should be limited to use only for clear clinical indications.

Retrievable vena cava filters for preventing pulmonary embolism in trauma patients: a cautionary tale.

BACKGROUND: Retrievable vena cava filters (RFs) offer the appeal of short-term prophylaxis for trauma patients temporarily at risk for pulmonary embolism (PE) without the long-term risks of permanent vena cava filters (PFs). However, the evidence that RFs and PFs reduce the risks of PE and death in trauma patients is not conclusive. RFs were introduced at our trauma center in August 2002. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of RFs on our strategy to prevent PE in trauma patients. METHODS: We reviewed our trauma registry to compare rates of filter placement, filter-related complications (FRCs), and PE before (Group I: January 2000 to August 15, 2002) and after (Group II: August 16, 2002 through December 2004) RF introduction. Indication for filter placement, filter retrieval, FRCs, and incidence of PE were compared. RESULTS: There were 5,042 patients in Group I and 5,038 patients in Group II. There was a threefold increase in filter placement in Group II compared with Group I (55 [1.1%] versus 161 [3.2%]; p < 0.001). There were no significant differences between the rates of PE (0.2% versus 0.2%, p = 0.636) or major FRCs (1.8% versus 2.5%, p = 0.777). Major FRCs included two filter infections with sepsis, one vena cava thrombotic occlusion, one filter lodged in the jugular vein during retrieval, and one PE after filter placement. RF removal was attempted in 43 (27%) patients and successful in 33 (21%). CONCLUSION: The advent of RFs was associated with a threefold increase in vena cava filter placement in our trauma center. Major FRCs were encountered and a very low incidence of PE was not altered by their use. Successful removal could be verified in only 21% of RFs. The results of this study lead us to question the rationale for a more liberal use of vena cava filters in trauma patients.