TRAVMALI HASTALARDA KANADA SERVİKAL OMURGA KURALLARI VE NEXUS DÜŞÜK RİSK KRİTERLERİNİN GEÇERLİLİĞİ

Giriş ve amaç: Künt servikal travma hastalarında klinik olarak anlamlı yaralanmaları tanımlamak için geliştirilen ilk karar kuralı National Emergency X-Radiography (NEXUS). NEXUS çalışmasında, negatif prediktif değer(NPV)% 99,8 olarak belirlenmiştir. Kanada Servikal Omurga Kurallarının (KSOK) duyarlılığı % 99.4, özgüllük % 45.1 ve NPV % 100 olarak bildirilmiştir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, servikal yaralanma riski olan Türk hasta popülasyonu için NEXUS ve KSOK’'nın güvenilirliğini ve yararlılığını belirlemektir. Gereç ve yöntem: Bu prospektif gözlemsel çalışmaya, 1 Ocak 2012 - 1 Nisan 2012 tarihleri arasında, akut travma geçiren ve ambulansla ya da kendi imkanlarıyla hastaneye başvuran, servikal travmaya yol açabilecek bir mekanizma ile yaralanan 16 yaşın üzerindeki, gebe olmayan, stabil, bilinçli hastaları kapsayan 225 hasta dahil edilmiştir. Bu hastalar daha sonra NEXUS ve CCR geçerliliği için değerlendirildi. Veriler güncel istatistik programında analiz edildi. Bulgular: 225 hastanın 7’sinde servikal patoloji tespit edilmiştir. Patolojik görüntüleme bulgusu varlığını belirleme açısından NEXUS’un duyarlılığı %93(%95 GA 83-97) ve özgüllüğü %1,3(%95 GA 0,2-5,1) olarak bulunurken, KSOK’nin duyarlılığı %100 (%95 GA %56-100) ve özgüllüğü %3,2 (%95 GA %1,4-6,7) olarak tespit edildi. Sonuç: KSOK ve NEXUS düşük risk kriterlerinin acil serviste servikal patolojilerin dışlanmasında faydalı olduğu, KSOK’nın, NEXUS düşük risk kriterleri ile karşılaştırıldığında daha güvenilir ve yararlı olduğu tespit edilmiştir.

The Validity of Canadian Cervical Spine Rules and the Nexus Low Risk Criteria in Trauma Patients

Background: The first decision rule developed to identify clinically significant injuries in blunt cervicaltrauma patients is National Emergency X-Radiography Utilisation Study (NEXUS). In the NEXUS study, thenegative predictive value (NPV) has been determined as 99.8%. Sensitivity of Canadian Cervical Spine Rules(CCR) was reported as 99.4%, specificity as 45.1% and NPV was reported as 100%. The objective of this studyis to determine the reliability and utility of NEXUS and CCR for Turkish patient population that has a risk ofcervical injury.Methods: This prospective observational study included 225 patients, all stable, conscious patients over 16years of age who had acute trauma and were brought to the hospital with ambulances or using their ownmeans and who had been injured by a mechanism that may cause cervical trauma, and without exclusioncriteria. The patients included in the study were then evaluated for NEXUS and CCR validity.Results: When CCR was evaluated as a whole, it was determined that all pathological cases were identifiedusing these rules. In terms of identifying the presence of pathological imaging finding the sensitivity of CCRwas 100% (95% CI % 56-100) and specificity was 3.2% (95% CI 1.4-6.7%). NEXUS's sensitivity was calculatedas 93% (95% CI 83-97) and specificity as 1.3%(95% CI 0.2-5.1).Conclusion: CCR and the NEXUS were determined to be useful in the emergency department for theexclusion of cervical pathologies. CCR were more reliable and useful when compared with the NEXUS.

PDF

___

Spinal Cord Injury Facts and Figures at a Glance. The Journal of Spinal Cord Medicine. 2014;37(4):479-480.
Goodnight TJ, Helmer SD, Dort JM, Nold RJ, Smith RS. A compari- son of flexion and extension radiographs with computed tomogra- phy of the cervical spine in blunt trauma. Am Surg. 2008;74(9):855- 857.
Sala F, Dvorak J, Faccioli F. Cost effectiveness of multimodal intraoperative monitoring during spine surgery. Eur Spine J. 2007;16(Suppl 2):S229–S231.
Hoffman JR, Mower WR, Wolfson AB, Todd KH, Zucker MI. Valid- ity of a set of clinical criteria to rule out injury to the cervical spine in patients with blunt trauma. National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study Group. N Engl J M ed. 2000;343(2):94-99.
Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen KL, et al. The Canadian C-spine rule for radiography in alert and stable trauma patients. JAMA. 2001;286(15):1841-1848.
Stiell IG, Clement CM, McKnight RD, et al. The Canadian C-spine rule versus the NEXUS low-risk criteria in patients with trauma. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(26):2510-2518.
Stiell IG, Clement CM, Grimshaw J, et al. Implementation of the Canadian C-Spine Rule: prospective 12 centre cluster randomised trial. BMJ. 2009;339:b4146.
Stiell IG, Clement CM, O’Connor A, et al. Multicentre prospective validation of use of the Canadian C-Spine Rule by triage nurses in the emergency department. CMAJ. 2010;182(11):1173-1179.
Yealy DM, Auble TE. Choosing between clinical prediction rules. N Engl J Med. 2003;349(26):2553-2555.
Ackland HM, Cameron PA, Varma DK, et al. Cervical spine magnetic resonance imaging in alert, neurologically intact trauma patients with persistent midline tenderness and negative computed tomography results. Ann Emerg Med. 2011;58(6):521-530.
D’Costa H, George G, Parry M, et al. Pitfalls in the clinical diag- nosis of vertebral fractures: a case series in which posterior midline tenderness was absent. Emerg Med J. 2005;22(5):330-332.