DOCUMENT
Background: A new selective preventive spinal immobilization (PSI) protocol was introduced in the Netherlands. This may have led to an increase in non-immobilized spinal fractures (NISFs) and consequently adverse patient outcomes. Aim: A pilot study was conducted to describe the adverse patient outcomes in NISF of the PSI protocol change and assess the feasibility of a larger effect study. Methods: Retrospective comparative cohort pilot study including records of trauma patients with a presumed spinal injury who were presented at the emergency department of a level 2 trauma center by the emergency medical service (EMS). The pre-period 2013-2014 (strict PSI protocol), was compared to the post-period 2017-2018 (selective PSI protocol). Primary outcomes were the percentage of records with a NISF who had an adverse patient outcome such as neurological injuries and mortality before and after the protocol change. Secondary outcomes were the sample size calculation for a larger study and the feasibility of data collection. Results: 1,147 records were included; 442 pre-period, and 705 post-period. The NISF-prevalence was 10% (95% CI 7-16, n = 19) and 8% (95% CI 6-11, n = 33), respectively. In both periods, no neurological injuries or mortality due to NISF were found, by which calculating a sample size is impossible. Data collection showed to be feasible. Conclusions: No neurological injuries or mortality due to NISF were found in a strict and a selective PSI protocol. Therefore, a larger study is discouraged. Future studies should focus on which patients really profit from PSI and which patients do not.
DOCUMENT
INTRODUCTION: In patients with cancer, low muscle mass has been associated with a higher risk of fatigue, poorer treatment outcomes, and mortality. To determine body composition with computed tomography (CT), measuring the muscle quantity at the level of lumbar 3 (L3) is suggested. However, in patients with cancer, CT imaging of the L3 level is not always available. Thus far, little is known about the extent to which other vertebra levels could be useful for measuring muscle status. In this study, we aimed to assess the correlation of the muscle quantity and quality between any vertebra level and L3 level in patients with various tumor localizations.METHODS: Two hundred-twenty Positron Emission Tomography (PET)-CT images of patients with four different tumor localizations were included: 1. head and neck ( n = 34), 2. esophagus ( n = 45), 3. lung ( n = 54), and 4. melanoma ( n = 87). From the whole body scan, 24 slices were used, i.e., one for each vertebra level. Two examiners contoured the muscles independently. After contouring, muscle quantity was estimated by calculating skeletal muscle area (SMA) and skeletal muscle index (SMI). Muscle quality was assessed by calculating muscle radiation attenuation (MRA). Pearson correlation coefficient was used to determine whether the other vertebra levels correlate with L3 level. RESULTS: For SMA, strong correlations were found between C1-C3 and L3, and C7-L5 and L3 ( r = 0.72-0.95). For SMI, strong correlations were found between the levels C1-C2, C7-T5, T7-L5, and L3 ( r = 0.70-0.93), respectively. For MRA, strong correlations were found between T1-L5 and L3 ( r = 0.71-0.95). DISCUSSION: For muscle quantity, the correlations between the cervical, thoracic, and lumbar levels are good, except for the cervical levels in patients with esophageal cancer. For muscle quality, the correlations between the other levels and L3 are good, except for the cervical levels in patients with melanoma. If visualization of L3 on the CT scan is absent, the other thoracic and lumbar vertebra levels could serve as a proxy to measure muscle quantity and quality in patients with head and neck, esophageal, lung cancer, and melanoma, whereas the cervical levels may be less reliable as a proxy in some patient groups.
DOCUMENT
