Objective

Guidelines published by the British Association of Spine Surgeons (BASS) and Society of British Neurological Surgeons (SBNS) recommend urgent MRI imaging and intervention in individuals suspected of having CES. The need for an evidence based protocol is driven by a lack of 24/7 MRI services and centralisation of neurosurgery to tertiary centres, compounded by CES's significant medico-legal implications. We conducted an audit to evaluate the pathway for suspected CES in BCUHB West between 2018 and 2021.

Frozen section is a recognised technique to assist in the diagnosis of infection and there are standards for reporting. Our aim of this review was to assess the value of frozen section in the diagnosis of infection, as well as other variables.

We performed a retrospective review of all frozen sections for suspected infection in 2016. Patient demographics, histological and microbiological investigations, laboratory and bedside tests were recorded and analysed using statistical software.

46 patients had 55 frozen sections; the majority were for lower limb arthroplasty. No sections were reported as polymorphonuclear neutrophils per high-power field. Three sections showed signs of infection and one without evidence had positive cultures. One uncertain section did not grow organisms. 10 patients had two-stage procedures, four of these were intended to be determined by frozen section but only two had evidence of infection on analysis.

Evidence of infection on frozen section does correlate with microbiological growth but does not relate to intention to stage procedures in half of patients. The effect of new tests such as Synovasure is highlighted by this review.

Frozen section analysis is reported subjectively but is a good predictor of infection. Clinical assessment is accurate in diagnosing infection. Histological, microbiological and additional investigations should be considered in relation to their cost-effectiveness.

The aim of the study was to highlight the absence of an important pitfall in the Advanced Trauma Life Support protocol in application of rigid collar to patients with potentially unstable cervical spine injury.

We present a case series of two patients with ankylosed cervical spines who developed neurological complications following application of rigid collar for cervical spine injuries as per the ATLS protocol.

This has been followed up with a survey of A&E and T&O doctors who regularly apply cervical collars for suspected unstable cervical spine injuries. The survey was conducted telephonically using a standard questionnaire. 75 doctors completed the questionnaire. A&E doctors = 42, T&O = 33. Junior grade = 38, middle grade = 37. Trauma management frontline experience >1yr = 50, <1yr = 25. Of the 75 respondents 68/75 (90.6%) would follow the ATLS protocol in applying rigid collar in potentially unstable cervical spine injuries. 58/75 (77.3%) would clinically assess the patient prior to applying collar. Only 43/75 (57.3%) thought the patients relevant past medical history would influence collar application.

Respondents were asked whether they were aware of any pitfalls to rigid collar application in suspected neck injuries. 34/75 (45.3%) stated that they were NOT aware of pitfalls. The lack of awareness was even higher 17/25 (68%) amongst doctors with less that 12 months frontline experience. When directly asked whether ankylosing spondylitis should be regarded as a pitfall then only 43/75 (57.3%) answered in the affirmative.

We would like to emphasise the disastrous consequences of applying a rigid collar in patients with ankylosed cervical spine. The survey demonstrates the lack of awareness (∼ 50%) amongst A&E and T&O doctors regarding pitfalls to collar application. We recommend the ATLS manual highlight a pitfall for application of rigid collars in patients with ankylosed spines and suspected cervical spine injuries.