ﺑﺎﺯﮔﺸﺖ ﺑﻪ ﺻﻔﺤﻪ ﻗﺒﻠﯽ
خرید پکیج
تعداد آیتم قابل مشاهده باقیمانده : 3 مورد
نسخه الکترونیک
medimedia.ir

Suspected cervical spine injury in adults: Choice of imaging

Suspected cervical spine injury in adults: Choice of imaging
Literature review current through: Jan 2024.
This topic last updated: Aug 11, 2023.

INTRODUCTION — Diagnosis of cervical spine injury in patients following trauma involves imaging. Cervical spine injuries can range from those that are minor and stable to more severe injuries that involve vertebral fractures or damage to the spinal cord, nerve root, ligaments, or vessels.

This topic describes cervical spine imaging in adults including the choice of modality, image-acquisition procedures, and diagnostic performance of the imaging examinations.

The selection of patients to undergo imaging for suspected cervical spine trauma, including the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) low-risk criteria and the Canadian C-spine Rule, is presented in the algorithm (algorithm 1) and discussed separately. (See "Cervical spinal column injuries in adults: Evaluation and initial management".)

The epidemiology, clinically important anatomy, mechanisms of injury, and classification of spinal column injuries are discussed separately. (See "Spinal column injuries in adults: Types, classification, and mechanisms".)

The anatomy, clinical presentation, classification, evaluation, and management of traumatic spinal cord injuries are discussed separately. (See "Acute traumatic spinal cord injury" and "Anatomy and localization of spinal cord disorders".)

CHOICE OF INITIAL IMAGING MODALITY

Computed tomography preferred — For patients who require imaging for suspected cervical spine injury, cervical spine computed tomography (CT) without contrast is the preferred imaging examination. The technology and expertise are available at most sites and around the clock at trauma centers. Some clinicians still perform cervical spine radiography, especially without ready access to CT or in patients who may not need imaging based on clinical decision rules. However, patients with negative radiographs but persistent examination findings concerning for injury (eg, focal midline cervical tenderness, neurologic findings localizing to the cervical spine) should be managed with the presumptive diagnosis of a cervical spine injury or have a CT. (See "Cervical spinal column injuries in adults: Evaluation and initial management", section on 'Determining the need for imaging'.)

In a hemodynamically unstable blunt trauma patient who is going to the operating room without CT imaging, a cross-table lateral cervical spine radiograph (obtained in the emergency department or operating room) may demonstrate an intervenable injury [1]. However, in trauma patients, hemodynamic compromise should always be attributed to hemorrhagic shock and not neurogenic shock (ie, hypotension and bradycardia from loss of sympathetic tone due to spinal cord injury) until proven otherwise. (See "Acute traumatic spinal cord injury" and "Approach to shock in the adult trauma patient".)

Cervical spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography angiography (CTA), or magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) are not routinely performed in patients with suspected spine injury. They are reserved for further evaluation of some patients following the initial evaluation with CT.

Cervical spine CT is preferred over radiography because of its superior diagnostic performance and safety. Moreover, evaluating the spine with multidetector CT is faster, involves less patient movement, and results in far fewer technical failures requiring repeat imaging than with radiography. A meta-analysis of 3832 patients imaged for suspected cervical spine trauma calculated the pooled sensitivity of radiography and CT as 52 percent (95% CI 47-56 percent) and 98 percent (95% CI 96-99 percent), respectively, for identifying those with injury [2]. However, there was insufficient evidence to suggest replacing radiography with CT for all patients because of heterogeneity and bias towards enrolling more injured patients in the included studies.

The American College of Radiology (ACR) Appropriateness Criteria rate CT as "usually appropriate" and above radiography in patients who have undergone blunt cervical spine trauma and meet criteria for imaging [3]. Practice guidelines from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma (EAST) recommend that multidetector CT be used as the primary method of screening for cervical trauma [4].

CT performance and test characteristics — A cervical spine CT is performed on a multidetector scanner capable of volumetric acquisition. Patient is supine with the neck in a neutral (ie, neither flexion nor extension) position. Images are acquired with ≤3 mm collimation (typically ≤1 mm collimation) from the skull base through C7-T1 disc space. Thin-slice (≤1 mm) axial images in bone algorithm are preferred for primary evaluation in the trauma setting. Axial, sagittal, and coronal reconstructions are also performed in both bone and soft tissue algorithm. No intravenous contrast is given. Imaging in a nonhelical (ie, single-detector) scanner with axial acquisition is not sufficient to yield multiplanar (ie, sagittal and coronal) reformation images of sufficient quality for accurate interpretation.

For all patients who have sustained major trauma and are undergoing CT to assess for internal injury of the head, chest, or abdomen, cervical spine CT images are all acquired in the same sitting.

If a cervical spine fracture is detected, the entire spinal column (ie, cervical, thoracic, and lumbar spine), in general, is imaged. Fractures found at one level of the spine are associated with injury at other noncontiguous levels in approximately 20 percent of trauma patients [5,6]. This issue is discussed separately. (See "Thoracic and lumbar spinal column injury in adults: Evaluation", section on 'Decision rules for imaging thoracolumbar injury'.)

Several studies have reported that a multidetector CT with multiplanar reformations has a sensitivity and specificity approximating 100 percent for a clinically significant injury in an alert and cooperative patient [7-10]. As one example, a prospective multicenter trial performed by the Western Trauma Association involving 10,276 blunt trauma patients who did not meet National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) exclusion criteria reported a sensitivity of 98.5 percent and a specificity of 91 percent, with a negative predictive value of 99.97 percent, for a clinically significant cervical spine injury (n = 198; defined as requiring surgery or stabilization with a halo or cervical-thoracic brace) [9]. Three false negative results were reported, all in patients with focal neurologic findings during their initial examination consistent with central cord syndrome. In another prospective study of 1668 intoxicated blunt trauma patients, researchers reported a negative predictive value of 99.8 percent for clinically significant cervical spine injury [11].

Although CT detects almost all fractures, it does not adequately image soft tissues such as ligaments, intervertebral discs, the spinal cord, and nerve roots. Thus, in patients with persistent or localizing signs and symptoms and a normal cervical spine CT, cervical spine MRI should be obtained. (See 'Further evaluation with magnetic resonance imaging' below.)

Estimated radiation dose from cervical spine CT is 5 to 6 mSv.

CT interpretation — Image interpretation requires evaluation of the axial, sagittal and coronal images reconstructed in bone and soft tissue algorithm. It is not sufficient to view images reconstructed in a soft tissue kernel in bone windows.

Assessment of bones in all three planes is required for accurate fracture diagnosis. Overall, spinal alignment is best assessed on the midsagittal view. For evaluating the specific articulations, the following planes are the most helpful:

Lateral condyles of occipital bone, C1 and C2 lateral masses – Axial, parasagittal and coronal

Intervertebral disc spaces – Sagittal and coronal

Facet joints – Parasagittal and axial

C2 dens – Coronal

Finally, the prevertebral soft tissues are evaluated in soft tissue windows on the midsagittal image. Soft tissue contour should parallel the vertebral bodies and be uniformly thin from C1 to C4. This enables indirect detection of underlying edema or hematoma.

Radiography — Cervical spine radiographs for trauma should include anterior-posterior (AP), lateral, and odontoid (ie, open-mouth) views. The lateral view should include the C7-T1 junction, which may require addition of a "swimmer's" view. On the lateral view, the entire cervical spine, from the base of the occiput to the top of the first thoracic vertebra, must be clearly visible. On the odontoid view, the dens and both lateral masses must be clearly visible (image 1).

While the lateral view is helpful in diagnosing spinal injuries, it is inadequate when used alone, detecting only 60 to 80 percent of fractures seen with a complete radiographic series [12,13]. Diagnostic yield increases substantially when AP and odontoid views are added.

In patients following major trauma or those who are obtunded for other reasons, adequate positioning to visualize the entire cervical spine is often not possible. Thus, radiography of the complete cervical spine with technically acceptable views cannot be obtained in up to 72 percent of patients [14].

Cervical spine radiographs identify only about one-third of fractures detected with CT [15]. If an adequate CT has been performed, radiographs are not needed for the initial evaluation, as they provide no additional information [16].

Estimated radiation dose from cervical spine radiography is 1.5 to 2.0 mSv.

Radiography interpretation — Image interpretation begins with an assessment of whether adequate views have been obtained. If the images are adequate, the alignment, appearance, position, and spacing between vertebrae are evaluated. The soft tissues are assessed for evidence of underlying edema or hematoma. Guides for interpreting each of the three major views (lateral, odontoid, and AP) are provided (figure 1 and image 1 and image 2).

Loss of cervical lordosis alone is not sufficient to diagnose a cervical spine injury in the absence of the positive findings [17].

Flexion and extension radiography — Flexion and extension radiography in the trauma patient is not recommended. Optimum assessment and safe positioning requires a patient who is alert, cooperative, and without neck pain; however, adequate spinal movement is often not achievable due to pain and muscle spasm in the acute setting, and between 30 to 95 percent of flexion and extension radiographs are technically inadequate to exclude ligamentous injury [18-21].

FURTHER EVALUATION WITH MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING

Patient with abnormal CT or suspected spinal cord injury without radiographic abnormality — If computed tomography (CT) suggests underlying ligamentous or spinal cord injury, our approach is to obtain cervical spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to evaluate the soft tissues, including the spinal cord, ligaments, disc, and nerve roots. MRI can readily detect cord compression from discs or epidural hematomas that are difficult or impossible to identify with CT. MRI may detect ligamentous injury indicating spinal instability. In addition, MRI is used to assist with operative planning.

Lateral radiographs of the cervical spine with the neck in flexion and extension should not be performed in the acute setting [2,3,12-14,16,22-27].

Whether additional imaging is useful in patients with an isolated spinal cord injury after a normal CT (ie, spinal cord injury without radiographic abnormality [SCIWORA]) remains controversial [3,8,28-31]. Clinicians should suspect a cervical ligamentous injury or SCIWORA in an alert patient with focal neurologic findings (eg, upper extremity weakness) or upper extremity paresthesias despite a normal CT examination. We generally do not obtain MRI in an alert patient with persistent neck pain or midline tenderness without neurologic signs or symptoms; a retrospective study of trauma patients with normal cervical spine CT but abnormal MRI found that superficial ligament injury that had occurred in this subcohort was not clinically significant [31]. (See "Cervical spinal column injuries in adults: Evaluation and initial management", section on 'Spinal cord injury without radiographic abnormality'.)

Cervical spine clearance in an obtunded patient with a normal cervical spine CT is discussed separately. (See "Cervical spinal column injuries in adults: Evaluation and initial management", section on 'Cervical spine clearance (removal of cervical collar)'.)

MRI performance and safety — For cervical spine MRI, the patient is supine with the neck in neutral (ie, neither flexion nor extension) position. The examination should be performed on a ≥1.5T scanner, and imaging should extend from the skull base to the C7-T1 interspace. While the imaging protocol varies somewhat with each practice and scanner, sagittal T1, T2-weighted fat-suppressed (eg, fast spin echo inversion recovery) sequences, axial T2-weighted sequences with or without fat suppression, and hemorrhage-sensitive (eg, gradient echo) sequences are obtained. Sagittal fat-suppressed T2-weighted or short TI inversion recovery (STIR) images are necessary in order to evaluate for bone marrow edema related to fracture and edema in the soft tissues due to ligamentous injury. The spinal cord is assessed for compression, edema, contusion, and hemorrhage on T1 and T2 sagittal as well as axial images with hemorrhagic products best seen on gradient echo images. Intravenous contrast is not required. Approximately 20 to 40 minutes are required for image acquisition.

MRI is more sensitive than CT for detecting soft tissue injury, but its specificity for detecting clinically significant discoligamentous injury remains low. The false-positive rate of MRI is estimated between 20 and 40 percent for detecting clinically significant injuries [32-34]. This may result in unnecessary morbidity. For example, in obtunded patients in the intensive care unit following trauma, adding MRI to CT for cervical spine clearance prolongs the period of rigid collar immobilization and mechanical ventilation, thereby increasing the risks for associated morbidities (eg, pressure ulcers, dysphagia, decreased cerebrovascular perfusion, elevated intracranial pressure, thromboembolism, ventilated associated infections, pressure ulcers, etc) [32].

If the patient is unresponsive, determining that he or she is free of indwelling electromagnetic or metallic implants to undergo MRI safely sometimes may not be feasible. In such cases, available CT and/or plain-film imaging as well as the family or health care proxy should be consulted to clear the patient. In the absence of health care history, minimally plain films of the skull, neck, chest, abdomen, and pelvis should be obtained to clear the patient before MRI. Obtunded patients should be monitored while in the scanner and ventilators, monitors, and other devices must be magnetic-resonance compatible [32,35,36]. (See "Patient evaluation for metallic or electrical implants, devices, or foreign bodies before magnetic resonance imaging".)

[18,20,25,37,38]

CTA OR MRA — Computed tomography angiography (CTA) or magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) is used to identify cerebrovascular injuries [3]. As the diagnostic performance is comparable, the choice is driven by availability of imaging resources and patient contraindications. CTA requires administration of intravenous contrast. MRA requires administration of gadolinium-based contrast for optimum accuracy but can be performed without contrast in patients with contraindications. Evaluation of trauma patients with suspected blunt cerebrovascular injury is presented in the algorithm (algorithm 2) and described elsewhere. (See "Blunt cerebrovascular injury: Mechanisms, screening, and diagnostic evaluation".)

In patients with trauma, CTA is generally preferred over MRA for logistical reasons. MRA involves longer table times, which, in an obtunded patient who cannot cooperate, will result in motion artifacts and poor image quality. Patient monitoring and support equipment are usually not magnetic-resonance compatible, which poses another hurdle. Thus, MRA is typically reserved for patients with contraindications to iodinated contrast or in patients who are undergoing another magnetic resonance exam for a separate indication (eg, brain or cervical spine magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] for injury).

SOCIETY GUIDELINE LINKS — Links to society and government-sponsored guidelines from selected countries and regions around the world are provided separately. (See "Society guideline links: Upper spine and neck disorders" and "Society guideline links: Cervical spine injury".)

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Determining need for imaging – Selection of adult patients to undergo imaging for suspected cervical spine trauma is determined by the mechanism of trauma and the patient's clinical signs and symptoms. An algorithm outlining our approach is provided (algorithm 1). Evaluation for high-risk of injury and the use of clinical decision instruments (eg, National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study [NEXUS] low-risk criteria and the Canadian C-spine Rule) are discussed separately. (See "Cervical spinal column injuries in adults: Evaluation and initial management", section on 'Determining the need for imaging'.)

Choice of initial imaging modality – In patients for whom imaging is indicated, cervical spine computed tomography (CT) without contrast is the preferred examination. Cervical spine CT is preferred over radiography because of its superior diagnostic performance and safety. (See 'Choice of initial imaging modality' above.)

Patient with suspected ligamentous or spinal cord injury – In a patient with a CT that suggests underlying ligamentous or spinal cord injury or an alert patient with a normal cervical spine CT and upper extremity paresthesias or focal neurologic findings, we obtain cervical spine magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) without contrast to evaluate the soft tissues, including the spinal cord, ligaments, disc, and nerve roots and to exclude compressive hematomas. Lateral radiographs of the cervical spine with the neck in flexion and extension should not be performed in the acute setting. (See 'Further evaluation with magnetic resonance imaging' above and "Cervical spinal column injuries in adults: Evaluation and initial management", section on 'Spinal cord injury without radiographic abnormality'.)

Patient with concern for cerebrovascular injury – Computed tomography angiography (CTA) or magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) is used to identify cerebrovascular injuries. In patients with trauma, CTA is generally preferred over MRA for logistical reasons, but choice is driven by availability of imaging resources and patient contraindications. (See 'CTA or MRA' above.)

  1. Khurana B, Stella M, Ledbetter MS, et al. Current role of lateral cervical spine radiograph: a case report. Emerg Radiol 2011; 18:61.
  2. Holmes JF, Akkinepalli R. Computed tomography versus plain radiography to screen for cervical spine injury: a meta-analysis. J Trauma 2005; 58:902.
  3. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria Suspected Spine Trauma. https://acsearch.acr.org/docs/69359/Narrative/ (Accessed on April 03, 2018).
  4. Como JJ, Diaz JJ, Dunham CM, et al. Practice management guidelines for identification of cervical spine injuries following trauma: update from the eastern association for the surgery of trauma practice management guidelines committee. J Trauma 2009; 67:651.
  5. Miller CP, Brubacher JW, Biswas D, et al. The incidence of noncontiguous spinal fractures and other traumatic injuries associated with cervical spine fractures: a 10-year experience at an academic medical center. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2011; 36:1532.
  6. Nelson DW, Martin MJ, Martin ND, Beekley A. Evaluation of the risk of noncontiguous fractures of the spine in blunt trauma. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2013; 75:135.
  7. Resnick S, Inaba K, Karamanos E, et al. Clinical relevance of magnetic resonance imaging in cervical spine clearance: a prospective study. JAMA Surg 2014; 149:934.
  8. Patel MB, Humble SS, Cullinane DC, et al. Cervical spine collar clearance in the obtunded adult blunt trauma patient: a systematic review and practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2015; 78:430.
  9. Inaba K, Byerly S, Bush LD, et al. Cervical spinal clearance: A prospective Western Trauma Association Multi-institutional Trial. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2016; 81:1122.
  10. Ertel AE, Robinson BR, Eckman MH. Cost-effectiveness of cervical spine clearance interventions with litigation and long-term-care implications in obtunded adult patients following blunt injury. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2016; 81:897.
  11. Bush L, Brookshire R, Roche B, et al. Evaluation of Cervical Spine Clearance by Computed Tomographic Scan Alone in Intoxicated Patients With Blunt Trauma. JAMA Surg 2016; 151:807.
  12. West OC, Anbari MM, Pilgram TK, Wilson AJ. Acute cervical spine trauma: diagnostic performance of single-view versus three-view radiographic screening. Radiology 1997; 204:819.
  13. Crim JR, Moore K, Brodke D. Clearance of the cervical spine in multitrauma patients: the role of advanced imaging. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2001; 22:283.
  14. Gale SC, Gracias VH, Reilly PM, Schwab CW. The inefficiency of plain radiography to evaluate the cervical spine after blunt trauma. J Trauma 2005; 59:1121.
  15. Bailitz J, Starr F, Beecroft M, et al. CT should replace three-view radiographs as the initial screening test in patients at high, moderate, and low risk for blunt cervical spine injury: a prospective comparison. J Trauma 2009; 66:1605.
  16. Mathen R, Inaba K, Munera F, et al. Prospective evaluation of multislice computed tomography versus plain radiographic cervical spine clearance in trauma patients. J Trauma 2007; 62:1427.
  17. Mejaddam AY, Kaafarani HM, Ramly EP, et al. The clinical significance of isolated loss of lordosis on cervical spine computed tomography in blunt trauma patients: a prospective evaluation of 1,007 patients. Am J Surg 2015; 210:822.
  18. Khan SN, Erickson G, Sena MJ, Gupta MC. Use of flexion and extension radiographs of the cervical spine to rule out acute instability in patients with negative computed tomography scans. J Orthop Trauma 2011; 25:51.
  19. Duane TM, Scarcella N, Cross J, et al. Do flexion extension plain films facilitate treatment after trauma? Am Surg 2010; 76:1351.
  20. McCracken B, Klineberg E, Pickard B, Wisner DH. Flexion and extension radiographic evaluation for the clearance of potential cervical spine injures in trauma patients. Eur Spine J 2013; 22:1467.
  21. Sim V, Bernstein MP, Frangos SG, et al. The (f)utility of flexion-extension C-spine films in the setting of trauma. Am J Surg 2013; 206:929.
  22. Mower WR, Hoffman JR, Pollack CV Jr, et al. Use of plain radiography to screen for cervical spine injuries. Ann Emerg Med 2001; 38:1.
  23. Widder S, Doig C, Burrowes P, et al. Prospective evaluation of computed tomographic scanning for the spinal clearance of obtunded trauma patients: preliminary results. J Trauma 2004; 56:1179.
  24. Ajani AE, Cooper DJ, Scheinkestel CD, et al. Optimal assessment of cervical spine trauma in critically ill patients: a prospective evaluation. Anaesth Intensive Care 1998; 26:487.
  25. Greenbaum J, Walters N, Levy PD. An evidenced-based approach to radiographic assessment of cervical spine injuries in the emergency department. J Emerg Med 2009; 36:64.
  26. Watanabe M, Sakai D, Yamamoto Y, et al. Upper cervical spine injuries: age-specific clinical features. J Orthop Sci 2010; 15:485.
  27. Govender S, Vlok GJ, Fisher-Jeffes N, Du Preez CP. Traumatic dislocation of the atlanto-occipital joint. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003; 85:875.
  28. Plackett TP, Wright F, Baldea AJ, et al. Cervical spine clearance when unable to be cleared clinically: a pooled analysis of combined computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Am J Surg 2016; 211:115.
  29. Pourtaheri S, Emami A, Sinha K, et al. The role of magnetic resonance imaging in acute cervical spine fractures. Spine J 2014; 14:2546.
  30. Maung AA, Johnson DC, Barre K, et al. Cervical spine MRI in patients with negative CT: A prospective, multicenter study of the Research Consortium of New England Centers for Trauma (ReCONECT). J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2017; 82:263.
  31. Khurana B, Keraliya A, Velmahos G, et al. Clinical significance of "positive" cervical spine MRI findings following a negative CT. Emerg Radiol 2022; 29:307.
  32. Plumb JO, Morris CG. Clinical review: Spinal imaging for the adult obtunded blunt trauma patient: update from 2004. Intensive Care Med 2012; 38:752.
  33. Zhuge W, Ben-Galim P, Hipp JA, Reitman CA. Efficacy of MRI for assessment of spinal trauma: correlation with intraoperative findings. J Spinal Disord Tech 2015; 28:147.
  34. Malhotra A, Wu X, Kalra VB, et al. Utility of MRI for cervical spine clearance after blunt traumatic injury: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2017; 27:1148.
  35. Dunham CM, Brocker BP, Collier BD, Gemmel DJ. Risks associated with magnetic resonance imaging and cervical collar in comatose, blunt trauma patients with negative comprehensive cervical spine computed tomography and no apparent spinal deficit. Crit Care 2008; 12:R89.
  36. Como JJ, Thompson MA, Anderson JS, et al. Is magnetic resonance imaging essential in clearing the cervical spine in obtunded patients with blunt trauma? J Trauma 2007; 63:544.
  37. Sliker CW, Mirvis SE, Shanmuganathan K. Assessing cervical spine stability in obtunded blunt trauma patients: review of medical literature. Radiology 2005; 234:733.
  38. Bagley LJ. Imaging of spinal trauma. Radiol Clin North Am 2006; 44:1.
Topic 121029 Version 10.0

References

آیا می خواهید مدیلیب را به صفحه اصلی خود اضافه کنید؟