Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

Multidetector computed tomographic evaluation of cervical spine trauma

Journal Name:

  • Indian Journal of Basic & Applied Medical Research

Publication Year:

  • 2013

Key Words:

Author Name
Abstract (2. Language): 
Introduction: Present study was planned to assess the role of multidetector computed tomography in trauma of cervical spine and to describe the imaging features of various cervical spine injuries. Methods: The study was carried out on prospective basis over the period of six months. All the patients referred for evaluation of cervical spine trauma were included in the study. In patients with clinical suspicion of cervical spine injury, plain radiograph followed by MDCT was performed and recorded. Volumetric MDCT scan of the cervical spine was performed in axial plane followed by multiplanar reconstruction in coronal and sagittal planes. In suspected spinal cord injury MRI was performed to look for spinal cord hematoma, contusion or transection (wherever required). Results: Out of 50 cases of cervical spine trauma, 72% patients were males and 28% were females and age ranges from 6 to 62 years. Mode of injury in our study was high intensity blunt trauma i.e. motor vehicle accidents, fall from height, physical assault and other causes. On MDCT vertebral body fracture was found in 36 (72%), fracture of posterior element in 21 (42%), fracture of transverse process in 18 (36%), fracture of atlas in 6 (12%) cases, fracture of axis in 13 (26%), traumatic spondylolisthesis in 11 (22%), fracture of articular process in 9 (18%), dislocation in 8 (16%) and rotational injuries in 4 (8%) of cases. As compared with plain radiograph, MDCT was more sensitive and specific in detecting the fractures and injuries in cervical spine trauma. Conclusion: Trauma to cervical spine is one of the most common emergencies requiring accurate and early diagnosis for preventing unnecessary investigations and proper management. MDCT has high sensitivity and specificity and has high accuracy for detection of fracture. Multiplanar reformation, 3D imaging and CT angiography facilitate optimal characterization of the fracture and vascular injuries.
Bookmark/Search this post with
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon 1052-1060.pdf.pdf
  • 8
1052-1060
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Richards PJ. Cervical spine clearance: a review. Injury 2005;36:248-269.
2. Tins BJ, Cassar-Pullicino VN. Imaging of acute cervical spine injuries: review and outlook. Clin
Radiol 2004;59:865- 880.
3. Grossman MD, Reilly PM, Gillett T, et al. National survey of the incidence of cervical spine injury and
approach to cervical spine clearance in U.S. trauma centers. J Trauma 1999;47:684-690.
Indian Journal of Basic & Applied Medical Research; September 2013: Issue-8, Vol.-2, P. 1052-1060
1059
www.ijbamr.com
4. Merritt RM, Williams MF. Cervical spine injury complicating facial trauma: incidence and
management. Am J Otolaryngol 1997;18:235-238.
5. West OC, Anbari MM, Pilgram TK, et al. Acute cervical spine trauma: diagnostic performance of
single-view versus three-view radiographic screening. Radiology 1997;204:819-823.
6. Woodring JH, Lee C. Limitations of cervical radiography in the evaluation of acute cervical trauma. J
Trauma 1993;34:32-39.
7. Diaz JJ Jr, Gillman C, Morris JA Jr, et al. Are five-view plain films of the cervical spine unreliable? A
prospective evaluation in blunt trauma patients with altered mental status. J Trauma 2003;55:658-663.
8. Schenarts PJ, Diaz J, Kaiser C, et al. Prospective comparison of admission computed tomographic scan
and plain films of the upper cervical spine in trauma patients with altered mental status. J Trauma
2001;51:663-668.
9. Edwards MJ, Frankema SP, Kruit MC, et al. Routine cervical spine radiography for trauma victims:
does everybody need it? J Trauma 2001;50:529-534.
10. Nunez DB Jr, Quencer RM. The role of helical CT in the assessment of cervical spine injuries. AJR
1998;171:951-957.
11. Blackmore CC, Ramsey SD, Mann FA, Deyo RA. Cervical spine screening with CT in trauma
patients: a cost-effective analysis. Radiology 1999;212:117-125.
12. Hanson JA, Blackmore CC, Mann FA, Wilson AJ. Cervical spine injury: accuracy of helical CT used
as a screening technique. Emer Radiol 2000;7:31-35.
13. Blackmore CC, Mann FA, Wilson AJ: Helical CT in the primary trauma evaluation of the cervical
spine: an evidence-based approach. Skeletal Radiol 2000;29:632-639.
14. Daffner RH. Cervical radiography for trauma patients: a time effective technique? AJR
2000;175:1309-1311.
15. Nunez DB, Zuluaga A, Fuentes-Bernardo DA, Rivas LA, Becerra JL. Cervical spine trauma: how
much more do we learn by routinely using helical CT? RadioGraphics 1996;16(6):1307-1318.
16. NunezDB Jr, Quencer RM. The role of helical CT in the assessment of cervical spine injuries. AJR Am
J Roentgenol1998;171(4):951-957.
17. Shanmuganathan K, Mirvis SE, Dowe M, Levine AM. Traumatic isolation of the articular pillar:
imaging observations in 21 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;166(4):897-902.
18. LevineAM, Mazel C, Roy-Camille R. Management of fracture separations of the articular mass using
posterior cervical plating. Spine1992;17(10 suppl):S447-S454.
19. HallidayAL, Henderson BR, Hart BL, Benzel EC. The management of unilateral lateral mass/ facet
fractures of the subaxial cervical spine: the use of magnetic resonance imaging to predict
instability. Spine 1997;22(22):2614-2621.
20. WoodringJH, Lee C. Limitations of cervical radiography in the evaluation of acute cervical trauma. J
Trauma1993;34(1):32-39.
21. MaimanDJ, Yoganandan N. Biomechanics of cervical spine trauma. Clin Neurosurg 1991;37:543-570.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com