BACKGROUND:Traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI) is a serious public health problem. Outcomes are determined by severity of immediate injury, mitigation of secondary downstream effects, and rehabilitation. This study aimed to understand how the center type a patient presents to and whether they are transferred influence management and outcome. METHODS:The National Trauma Data Bank was used to identify patients with SCI. The primary objective was to determine association between center type, transfer, and surgical intervention. A secondary objective was to determine association between center type, transfer, and surgical timing. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit on surgical intervention and timing of the surgery as binary variables, adjusting for relevant clinical and demographic variables. RESULTS:There were 11,744 incidents of SCI identified. A total of 2,883 patients were transferred to a Level I center and 4,766 presented directly to a level I center. Level I center refers to level I trauma center. Those who were admitted directly to level I centers had a higher odd of receiving a surgery (odds ratio, 1.703; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-1.97; p < 0.001), but there was no significant difference in terms of timing of surgery. Patients transferred into a level I center were also more likely to undergo surgery than those at a level II/III/IV center, although this was not significant (odds ratio, 1.213; 95% confidence interval, 0.099-1.48; p = 0.059). CONCLUSION:Patients with traumatic SCI admitted to level I trauma centers were more likely to have surgery, particularly if they were directly admitted to a level I center. This study provides insights into a large US sample and sheds light on opportunities for improving pre hospital care pathways for patients with traumatic SCI, to provide the timely and appropriate care and achieve the best possible outcomes.

No abstract

OBJECTIVEPatients with shunted hydrocephalus often accumulate high levels of radiation over their lifetimes during evaluation of hardware integrity. Current practice involves the use of a series of conventional radiographs for this purpose. Newer low-dose EOS radiography is currently used to evaluate scoliosis but has not been explored to evaluate shunt integrity on a large scale. The goal of this study was to compare the quality of imaging using EOS low-dose radiography to conventional radiography to evaluate shunt tubing.METHODSA retrospective chart review was performed on 57 patients who previously had both conventional radiographs and low-dose EOS images of their cerebral shunt tubing from 2000 to 2018. Patient demographics (age, sex, type of shunt tubing, primary diagnosis) were collected. Conventional radiographic images and low-dose EOS images were independently analyzed by a neurosurgeon and neuroradiologist in three categories: image quality, delineation of shunt, and distinction of shunt compared to adjacent anatomy.RESULTSAll patients had shunted hydrocephalus due to spina bifida and Chiari type II malformation. Ratings of EOS and conventional radiographic images by both raters did not differ significantly in terms of image quality (rater 1, p = 0.499; rater 2, p = 0.578) or delineation of shunt (p = 0.107 and p = 0.256). Conventional radiographic images received significantly higher ratings than EOS on the ability to distinguish the shunt versus adjacent anatomy by rater 1 (p = 0.039), but not by rater 2 (p = 0.149). The overall score of the three categories combined was not significantly different between EOS and conventional radiography (rater 1, p = 0.818; rater 2, p = 0.186). In terms of cost, an EOS image was less costly than a conventional radiography shunt series ($236–$366 and $1300–$1547, respectively). The radiation dose was also lower for EOS images, with an effective dose of 0.086–0.140 mSv compared to approximately 1.6 mSv for a similar field of view with conventional radiography.CONCLUSIONSThe image quality of low-dose EOS radiography does not significantly differ from conventional radiography for the evaluation of cerebral shunts. In addition, EOS affords a much lower radiation dose and a lower cost.

No abstract