Ngatchou William, Beirnaert Jeanne, Lemogoum Daniel, Bouland Cyril, Youatou Pierre, Ramadan Ahmed Sabry, Sontou Regis, Alima Maimouna Bol, Plumaker Alain, Guimfacq Virginie, Bika Claude, Mols Pierre
Department of Emergency and Cardiac Surgery, St Pierre University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium.
Department of Emergency St Pierre University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium.
Pan Afr Med J. 2018 Jun 21;30:157. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2018.30.157.13256. eCollection 2018.
The Canadian C Spine Rule (CCR) and the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (Nexus) low criteria are well accepted as guide to help physician in case of cervical blunt trauma.
We aimed to evaluate retrospectively the application of these recommendations in our emergency department. Secondly we analyzed the quality of cervical spine radiography (CSR) in an emergency setting.
281 patients with cervical blunt trauma were analyzed retrospectively. The CCR and the NEXUS rules were respected in 91.2% and 96.8% of cases respectively. No lesions were found in 96.4% of patient. A lesion was present in 1.1% of patient and suspected in 2.5% of patient. The quality of CSR was adequate in only 37.7% of patient. The poor quality of CSR was due either to the lack of C7 vertebrae visualization in 64.6% or other lower vertebrae in 28%. Other causes included the absence of open mouth view (8%), the absence C1 vertebrae visualization (3.4%), artifact in 2.3% and the absence of lateral view in 0.6% of patient.
CCR and NEXUS are widely used in our emergency department. The high rate of inadequate CSR reinforces the debate about it's utility in emergency condition.
加拿大颈椎规则（CCR）和国家急诊X线摄影利用研究（Nexus）低标准作为指导医生处理颈椎钝性创伤的指南已被广泛接受。
我们旨在回顾性评估这些建议在我们急诊科的应用情况。其次，我们分析了急诊情况下颈椎X线摄影（CSR）的质量。
对281例颈椎钝性创伤患者进行了回顾性分析。CCR和Nexus规则分别在91.2%和96.8%的病例中得到遵守。96.4%的患者未发现病变。1.1%的患者存在病变，2.5%的患者疑似有病变。仅37.7%的患者CSR质量合格。CSR质量差的原因要么是64.6%的患者未显示C7椎体，要么是28%的患者未显示其他下位椎体。其他原因包括8%的患者未拍摄张口位片，3.4%的患者未显示C1椎体，2.3%的患者存在伪影，0.6%的患者未拍摄侧位片。
CCR和Nexus在我们急诊科广泛应用。CSR不合格率高加剧了关于其在急诊情况下实用性的争论。
