Timelines for Return to Different Sports Types After Eight Cervical Spine Fractures in Recreational and Elite Athletes: A Survey of the Association for Collaborative Spine Research.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cross-sectional survey. OBJECTIVE: To identify timelines for when athletes may be considered safe to return to varying athletic activities after sustaining cervical spine fractures. BACKGROUND: While acute management and detection of cervical spine fractures have been areas of comprehensive investigation, insight into timelines for when athletes may return to different athletic activities after sustaining such fractures is limited. METHODS: A web-based survey was administered to members of the Association for Collaborative Spine Research that consisted of surgeon demographic information and questions asking when athletes (recreational vs elite) with one of 8 cervical fractures would be allowed to return to play noncontact, contact, and collision sports treated nonoperatively or operatively. The third part queried whether the decision to return to sports was influenced by the type of fixation or the presence of radiculopathy. RESULTS: Thirty-three responses were included for analysis. For all 8 cervical spine fractures treated nonoperatively and operatively, significantly longer times to return to sports for athletes playing contact or collision sports compared with recreational and elite athletes playing noncontact sports, respectively (P< 0.05), were felt to be more appropriate. Comparing collision sports with contact sports for recreational and elite athletes, similar times for return to sports for nearly all fractures treated nonoperatively or operatively were noted. In the setting of associated radiculopathy, the most common responses for safe return to play were "when only motor deficits resolve completely" and "when both motor and sensory deficits resolve completely." CONCLUSIONS: In this survey of spine surgeons from the Association for Collaborative Spine Research, reasonable timeframes for return to play for athletes with 8 different cervical spine fractures treated nonoperatively or operatively varied based on fracture subtype and level of sporting physicality.

Use of Osteobiologics for Fracture Management: The When, What, and How.

Osteobiologics are defined as a group of natural and synthetic materials used to augment bone healing. The selection of the most appropriate osteobiologic from the growing list of available options can be a challenging task. In selecting a material, surgeons should weigh a variety of considerations, including the indication for their use (the when), the most suitable substance (the what), and the correct mode of application (the how). This summary reviews these considerations and seeks to provide the surgeon with a basis for informed clinical evidence-based decision-making in their choice of a successful option.

Cervical spine clearance protocols in level 1 trauma centers in the United States.

STUDY DESIGN: Observational, cross-sectional. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cervical spine clearance protocols in level 1 trauma centers in the United States. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Cervical spine clearance protocols were developed to prevent missed injuries that could result in neurological deficits. The degree of incorporation of evidence-based guidelines into protocols at trauma centers in the United States is unknown. METHODS: Level 1 trauma (n = 191) centers in the United States were contacted. Each available protocol was reviewed for 4 scenarios: clearing the asymptomatic patient, the imaging used in patients not amenable to clinical clearance, the management strategies for patients with persistent neck pain with a negative computed tomographic (CT) scan, and those who are obtunded. RESULTS: The response rate was 87%. Cervical spine clearance protocols existed in 57% of the institutions. National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study criteria to clear asymptomatic patients were recommended in 89% of protocols. Sixty percent of protocols used CT scans as the first line of imaging. In patients with persistent neck pain with negative CT scan flexion-extension plain radiographs were the most common (30%) next step for clearance. In patients who are obtunded, a CT scan followed by a magnetic resonance imaging was the most common method (31%) of clearance. Eight percent of the protocols recommended dynamic flexion-extension views in patients who are obtunded, which are contraindicated. CONCLUSION: Written cervical spine clearance protocols exist in 57% of level 1 trauma centers in the United States. These protocols are highly variable and standardization and utilization of these protocols should be encouraged in all trauma centers to prevent missed injuries and neurological catastrophes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.