Thoracolumbar spine clearance: Clinical examination for patients with distracting injuries.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to prospectively assess the sensitivity of clinical examination to screen for thoracolumbar spine (TLS) injury in awake and alert blunt trauma patients with distracting injuries. METHODS: From December 2012 to June 2014, all blunt trauma patients older than 13 years were prospectively evaluated as per standard TLS examination protocol at a Level 1 trauma center. Awake and alert patients with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 14 or greater underwent clinical examination of the TLS. Clinical examination was performed regardless of distracting injuries. Patients with no complaints of pain or tenderness on examination of the TLS were considered clinically cleared of injury. Patients with distracting injuries, including those clinically cleared and those with complaints of TLS pain or tenderness, underwent computed tomographic scan of the entire TLS. Patients with minor distracting injuries were not considered to have a distracting injury. RESULTS: A total of 950 blunt trauma patients were entered, 530 (56%) of whom had at least one distracting injury. Two hundred nine patients (40%) with distracting injuries had a positive TLS clinical examination result, of whom 50 (25%) were diagnosed with TLS injury. Three hundred twenty-one patients (60%) with distracting injuries were initially clinically cleared, in whom 17 (5%) TLS injuries were diagnosed. There were no missed injuries that required surgical intervention, with only four injuries receiving TLS orthotic bracing. This yielded an overall clinical clearance sensitivity for injury of 75% and sensitivity for clinically significant injury of 89%. CONCLUSION: In awake and alert blunt trauma patients with distracting injuries, clinical examination is a sensitive screening method for significant TLS injury. Radiologic assessment may be unnecessary for safe clearance of the asymptomatic TLS in patients with distracting injuries. These findings suggest significant potential reduction of both health care cost and patient radiation exposure. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic study, level IV; therapeutic/care management study, level IV.

The validity of abdominal examination in blunt trauma patients with distracting injuries.

BACKGROUND: Many trauma care providers often disregard the abdominal clinical examination in the presence of extra-abdominal distracting injuries and mandate abdominal computed tomographic scan in these patients. Ignoring the clinical examination may incur undue expense and radiation exposure. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of abdominal clinical examination in patients with distracting injuries. METHODS: During a 1-year period, all awake and alert blunt trauma patients with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score of 14 or 15 were entered into a prospective study. Abdominal clinical examination was performed and documented prospectively on all patients. Abdominal clinical examination included four-quadrant anterior abdominal palpation, flank palpation, lower thoracic palpation, pelvis examination, and palpation of the thoracolumbar spine. Following examination documentation, all patients underwent computed tomographic scan of the abdomen and pelvis with intravenous contrast. RESULTS: A total of 803 patients were enrolled: 451 patients had distracting injuries, and 352 patients did not. Of the 352 patients without distracting injuries, 19 (5.4%) had intra-abdominal injuries, of whom 2 (10.5%) had negative clinical examination result. Of the 451 patients with distracting injuries, 48 (10.6%) were diagnosed with intra-abdominal injury, of whom 5 (10.4%) had negative clinical examination result. All five missed injuries in patients with distracting injuries were solid organ injuries, none of which required surgical intervention or blood transfusion. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of abdominal examination for patients with distracting injuries were 90.0% and 97.0%, respectively. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of abdominal examination for surgically significant and transfusion-requiring injuries were both 100%. CONCLUSION: Distracting injuries do not seem to diminish the efficacy of clinical abdominal examination for the diagnosis of clinically significant abdominal injury. These data suggest that clinical examination of the abdomen is valid in awake and alert blunt trauma patients, regardless of the presence of other injuries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic study, level III.

Mesh wrapping for severe hepatic injury: a beneficial option in the trauma surgeon's armamentarium.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of absorbable mesh wrapping (MW) versus perihepatic packing (HP) for severe hepatic injury. METHODS: From January 2001 to December 2012, data were collected for MW patients with hepatic injury. Patients who underwent HP were matched with MW patients by injury mechanism, liver injury grade, Injury Severity Score, and age. RESULTS: Twenty-six MW and twenty-six HP patients were matched. Eighteen blunt and 8 penetrating injuries were present in each group. There were 9 (35%) mortalities in the MW group and 16 (62%) in the HP groups (P = .03). Average transfusions were 12.0 and 24.5 (P = .03) packed red blood cells in the MW and HP groups, respectively. Average laparotomies per survivors were 1.3 for the MW and 3.1 for the HP groups (P = .01). Average length of stay for survivors was 19 and 47 (P = .04) days in the MW and HP groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: MW for hepatic injuries can significantly decrease mortality, transfusions, laparotomies, and length of stay.

Clinical clearance of the cervical spine in patients with distracting injuries: It is time to dispel the myth.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to prospectively assess the sensitivity and efficacy of clinical examination for screening of cervical spine (c-spine) injury in awake and alert blunt trauma patients with concomitant "distracting injuries." METHODS: During the 24-month period from December 2009 to December 2011, all blunt trauma patients older than 13 years were prospectively evaluated with a standard cervical spine examination protocol by the trauma surgery team at a Level 1 trauma center. Awake and alert patients with a Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) ≥14 underwent clinical examination of the cervical spine. Clinical examination was performed regardless of "distracting injuries." Patients without complaints of pain or tenderness on physical exam had their cervical collar removed, and the c-spine was considered clinically cleared of injury. All awake and alert patients with "distracting injuries," including those clinically cleared and those with complaints of c-spine pain or tenderness underwent computerized tomographic (CT) scanning of the entire c-spine. "Distracting injuries" were categorized into three anatomic regions: head injuries, torso injuries and long bone fractures. Patients with minor distracting injuries were not considered to have a "distracting injury." RESULTS: During the 24-month study period, 761 blunt trauma patients with GCS ≥14 and at least one "distracting injury" had been entered into the study protocol. Two-hundred ninety-six (39%) of the patients with "distracting injuries" had a positive c-spine clinical examination, 85 (29%) of whom were diagnosed with c-spine injury. Four hundred sixty-four (61%) of the patients with "distracting injuries"' were initially clinically cleared, with one patient (0.2%) diagnosed with a c-spine injury. This yielded an overall sensitivity of 99% (85/86) and negative predictive value greater than 99% (463/464) for cervical spine clinical examination in awake and alert blunt trauma patients with "distracting injuries." CONCLUSIONS: In the awake and alert blunt trauma patient with "distracting injuries," clinical examination is a sensitive screening method for cervical spine injury. Radiological assessment is unnecessary for safe clearance of the asymptomatic cervical spine in awake and alert blunt trauma patients with "distracting injuries." These findings suggest the concept of "distracting injury" in the context of cervical spine clinical examination is invalid. Expanding the utility of cervical spine clinical examination to patients with "distracting injuries" allows for significant reduction of both healthcare cost and radiation exposure.