header advert
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_IV | Pages 100 - 100
1 Mar 2012
Rethnam U Yesupalan R Gandham G
Full Access

Background

A cautious outlook towards neck injuries is the norm to avoid missing cervical spine injuries. Consequently there has been an increased use of cervical spine radiography. The Canadian Cervical Spine rule was proposed to reduce the unnecessary use of cervical spine radiography in alert and stable patients. Our aim was to see whether applying the Canadian Cervical Spine rule reduced the need for cervical spine radiography without missing significant cervical spine injuries.

Methods

This was a retrospective study conducted in 2 hospitals. 114 alert and stable patients who had cervical spine radiographs done for suspected neck injuries were included in the study. Data on patient demographics, Canadian Cervical Spine rule, cervical spine radiography results and further visits after discharge were recorded.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_IV | Pages 99 - 99
1 Mar 2012
Rethnam U Yesupalan R Ramesh B Muthukumar T Bastawrous S
Full Access

Background

One of the basic principles in the primary survey of a trauma patient is immobilisation of the cervical spine till cleared of any injury. Lateral cervical spine radiograph is the gold standard initial radiographic assessment. More than often additional radiographs like the Swimmer's view are necessary for adequate visualisation of the cervical spine. How good is the Swimmer's view in visualisation of the cervical spine after an inadequate lateral cervical spine radiograph?

Materials & methods

100 Swimmer's view radiographs randomly selected over a 2 year period in trauma patients were included for the study. All the patients had inadequate lateral cervical spine radiographs. The radiographs were assessed with regards to their adequacy by a single observer. The criteria for adequacy were adequate visualisation of the C7 body, C7/T1 junction and the soft tissue shadow.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 93-B, Issue SUPP_I | Pages 37 - 37
1 Jan 2011
Rethnam U Yesupalan R Nair R
Full Access

There is a high incidence of ipsilateral knee injuries with the Floating knee, which makes these fractures even more challenging to manage. We present the impact knee injuries have on the final outcome of the floating knee. We propose a protocol for assessment & management of knee injuries with the Floating knee.

This prospective study included 29 patients with floating knee injuries. Knee injuries encountered were divided into bony, ligamentous and soft tissue. Bony injuries were assessed with radiographs and managed surgically along with the floating knee injury. Patients were assessed clinically for knee ligament injuries after fixation of the fractures intra-operatively and managed surgically. Soft tissue injuries around the knee were managed conservatively. Final outcome was assessed using the Karlstrom criteria.

Ten of the 29 patients had knee injuries: 3 patella fractures, 2 anterior cruciate ligament injuries, 1 posterior cruciate ligament injury, 1 medial meniscus injury and 3 extensive soft tissue injuries. The complications were knee stiffness and superficial infection. The end results according to the Karlstrom criteria were Good – 6, Acceptable – 1 and Poor – 3.

The associated knee injury in the floating knee is an important prognostic indicator. Soft tissue injury seems to have a very poor prognosis. We propose clinical evaluation of the knee after fixation of the fractures, surgical management of ligament & bony injuries and a proper rehabilitation programme to improve outcomes.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 92-B, Issue SUPP_II | Pages 346 - 346
1 May 2010
Rethnam U Yesupalan R Gandham G
Full Access

Background: A cautious outlook towards neck injuries has been the norm to avoid missing cervical spine injuries. Consequently there has been an increased use of cervical spine radiography. The Canadian Cervical Spine rule was proposed to reduce the unnecessary use of cervical spine radiography in alert and stable patients. Our aim was to see whether applying the Canadian Cervical Spine rule reduced the need for cervical spine radiography without missing significant cervical spine injuries.

Methods: This was a retrospective study conducted in 2 hospitals. 114 alert and stable patients who had cervical spine radiographs done for suspected neck injuries were included in the study. Data on patient demographics, Canadian Cervical Spine rule, cervical spine radiography results and further visits after discharge were recorded.

Results: 14 patients were included in the high risk category according to the Canadian Cervical Spine rule. 100 patients were assessed according to the low risk category. If the Canadian Cervical Spine rule was applied, there was a significant reduction in cervical spine radiographs (p< 0.001) as 86/100 patients (86%) in the low risk category would not have needed cervical spine radiograph. 2/100 patients who had significant cervical spine injuries would have been identified when the Canadian Cervical Spine rule was applied.

Conclusion: Applying the Canadian Cervical Spine rule for neck injuries in alert and stable patients reduced the use of cervical spine radiographs without missing out significant cervical spine injuries. This relates to reduction in radiation exposure to patients and cost benefits.