Lien D, Jacques T, Powell K
Intensive Care Unit, The St. George Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales.
Crit Care Resusc. 2003 Jun;5(2):91-6.
Rigid or semi-rigid collar and spine board related complications may be causes of significant morbidity in intubated polytraumatised patients. As the process quantifying cervical spine injuries is controversial, exclusion of cervical spinal injuries (cervical spine clearance) can be delayed, thereby increasing complications associated with spinal cord immobilisation. We examined current practices in Australian ICUs by survey.
The intensive care unit or trauma services director and the senior nursing unit manager from 17 units within designated Australian trauma centres were surveyed separately by telephone. The presence of a written protocol for cervical spine clearance including radiological and clinical criteria, time goals for clearance, immobilisation methods and formal surveillance of collar related complications were assessed using a standardised questionnaire.
All states and territories were represented. Of those services surveyed, only 50% had a written protocol, 50% had no specific time goal for cervical spinal clearance and the method of clearance ranged from plain cervical spine X-rays only to routine use of MRI. Immobilisation methods also varied, including use of rigid (hard) or soft collars with 71% having no formal surveillance of collar-related complications. Despite these results, 65% were satisfied with their approach to cervical spine clearance.
There is no standardised approach to the clearance of the cervical spine in intubated trauma patients in Australian intensive care units. In addition, morbidity from current practices and the true incidence of cervical spine injuries remains unknown. We recommend use of a written protocol and formal documentation of collar related complications. A standardised approach to radiological and clinical clearance of cervical spine injuries, which is practical, yet safe, remains a subject for future risk-benefit analysis.
在气管插管的多发伤患者中,硬式或半硬式颈托及脊柱板相关并发症可能是导致严重发病的原因。由于量化颈椎损伤的过程存在争议,颈椎损伤的排除(颈椎评估)可能会延迟,从而增加与脊髓固定相关的并发症。我们通过调查研究了澳大利亚重症监护病房(ICU)的当前做法。
分别通过电话对澳大利亚指定创伤中心内17个科室的重症监护病房或创伤服务主任以及高级护理单元经理进行了调查。使用标准化问卷评估是否存在包括影像学和临床标准、评估时间目标、固定方法以及对颈托相关并发症进行正式监测的颈椎评估书面方案。
所有州和领地均有代表参与。在接受调查的科室中,只有50%有书面方案,50%没有颈椎评估的具体时间目标,评估方法从仅使用颈椎X线平片到常规使用磁共振成像(MRI)不等。固定方法也各不相同,包括使用硬式(硬质)或软质颈托,71%没有对颈托相关并发症进行正式监测。尽管如此,65%的人对他们的颈椎评估方法感到满意。
在澳大利亚重症监护病房中,对于气管插管创伤患者的颈椎评估没有标准化方法。此外,当前做法导致的发病率以及颈椎损伤的真实发生率仍然未知。我们建议使用书面方案并对颈托相关并发症进行正式记录。一种实用且安全的颈椎损伤影像学和临床评估标准化方法仍是未来风险效益分析的课题。