Atique Sajid, Mekkodathil Ahammed, Siddiqui Tariq, Mathradikkal Saji, Ahmed Khalid, Al-Ani Mushreq, Kanbar Ahad, Alaieb Abubaker, Hakim Suhail, Younis Basil, Ajaj Ahmed, Guerrero Aldwin, Masood Maarij, Khoschnau Sherwan, Hammo Abdel Aziz, Abdurraheim Nuri, Abdelrahman Husham, Peralta Ruben, Nabir Syed, Al-Hilli Shatha, El-Menyar Ayman, Al-Thani Hassan
Department of Surgery, Trauma Surgery, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
Department of Surgery, Clinical Research, Trauma and Vascular Surgery, Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar.
J Emerg Trauma Shock. 2024 Jul-Sep;17(3):159-165. doi: 10.4103/jets.jets_145_23. Epub 2024 Aug 2.
The primary objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of the clinical decision tool (CDT) in trauma patients, providing a comparable ability to rule out thoracolumbar (TL) fractures as traditional imaging methods. The goal is to facilitate early clearance of the TL spine without an immediate requirement for radiological tests, thereby minimizing unnecessary utilization of TL-spine imaging.
A prospective, observational study was conducted on trauma patients with suspected TL injury. To achieve early TL clearance, the CDT assessed criteria such as absence of pain, tenderness, and pain-free axial movement and flexion. The study enrolled alert trauma patients with thoracic and/or lumbar spine injuries, defined by the Glasgow Coma Scale of 15. The study excluded patients not aligning with CDT criteria, such as those who received intravenous opioid analgesia within 4 h and those unable to stand due to suspected pelvic or lower limb injuries.
Following the completion of the CDT steps, there were 31 true negative cases, signifying the absence of TL fractures according to both CDT and imaging studies. The sensitivity of the CDT was 99.38% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 96.59%-99.98%), specificity 9.1% (95% CI: 6.30%-12.73%), negative predictive value (NPV) 96.87% (95% CI: 81.02%-99.56%), positive predictive value (PPV) 34.19% (95% CI: 33.38%-35.00%), negative likelihood ratio (LHR) 0.07 (95% CI: 0.01-0.49), and positive LHR 1.09 (95% CI: 1.06-1.13). The sensitivity, specificity, NPV, PPV, negative LHR, and positive LHR varied with each step in the CDT. Notably, the overall sensitivity was high; however, the stepwise sensitivity decreased, albeit with an improvement in specificity with each further step in the tool. The overall sensitivity in the study cohort ( = 500) was high; however, the stepwise sensitivity decreased, albeit with an improvement in the specificity.
The CDT to rule out TL fracture is a feasible bedside stepwise tool in fully awake trauma patients after a thorough clinical neurological examination on arrival. The tool could help Level II or III trauma centers avoid secondary triage to the higher center.
本研究的主要目的是评估临床决策工具(CDT)在创伤患者中的有效性,其排除胸腰椎(TL)骨折的能力与传统影像学方法相当。目标是在无需立即进行放射学检查的情况下促进TL脊柱的早期排除,从而最大限度地减少TL脊柱影像学检查的不必要使用。
对疑似TL损伤的创伤患者进行了一项前瞻性观察研究。为实现TL的早期排除,CDT评估了诸如无疼痛、压痛以及无痛轴向运动和屈曲等标准。该研究纳入了格拉斯哥昏迷量表评分为15分的清醒创伤患者,这些患者有胸椎和/或腰椎损伤。研究排除了不符合CDT标准的患者,例如在4小时内接受静脉注射阿片类镇痛的患者以及因疑似骨盆或下肢损伤而无法站立的患者。
完成CDT步骤后,有31例真阴性病例,这表明根据CDT和影像学研究均不存在TL骨折。CDT的敏感性为99.38%(95%置信区间[CI]:96.59%-99.98%),特异性为9.1%(95%CI:6.30%-12.73%),阴性预测值(NPV)为96.87%(95%CI:81.02%-99.56%),阳性预测值(PPV)为34.19%(95%CI:33.38%-35.00%),阴性似然比(LHR)为0.07(95%CI:0.01-0.49),阳性似然比为1.09(95%CI:1.06-1.13)。CDT的每个步骤中,敏感性、特异性、NPV、PPV、阴性LHR和阳性LHR各不相同。值得注意的是,总体敏感性较高;然而,逐步敏感性降低,尽管随着工具中进一步的步骤特异性有所提高。研究队列(n = 500)中的总体敏感性较高;然而,逐步敏感性降低,尽管特异性有所提高。
在对清醒创伤患者到达后进行全面临床神经学检查后,用于排除TL骨折的CDT是一种可行的床边逐步工具。该工具可帮助二级或三级创伤中心避免将患者二次分诊至上级中心。