Search

Head trauma (ie, head injury) is a significant public health concern and is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in children and young adults. Neuroimaging plays an important role in the management of head and brain injury, which can be separated into acute (0-7 days), subacute ( 3 months) phases. Over 75% of acute head trauma is classified as mild, of which over 75% have a normal Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15, therefore clinical practice guidelines universally recommend selective CT scanning in this patient population, which is often based on clinical decision rules. While CT is considered the first-line imaging modality for suspected intracranial injury, MRI is useful when there are persistent neurologic deficits that remain unexplained after CT, especially in the subacute or chronic phase. Regardless of time frame, head trauma with suspected vascular injury or suspected cerebrospinal fluid leak should also be evaluated with CT angiography or thin-section CT imaging of the skull base, respectively. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Background Treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures has traditionally involved spinal instrumentation with fusion performed with standard open surgical techniques. Novel surgical strategies, including instrumentation without fusion and percutaneous instrumentation alone, have been considered less invasive and more efficient treatments. Objective To review the current literature and determine the role of fusion in instrumented fixation, as well as the role of percutaneous instrumentation, in the treatment of patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures. Methods The task force members identified search terms/parameters and a medical librarian implemented the literature search, consistent with the literature search protocol (see Appendix I), using the National Library of Medicine PubMed database and the Cochrane Library for the period from January 1, 1946 to March 31, 2015. Results A total of 906 articles were identified and 38 were selected for full-text review. Of these articles, 12 articles met criteria for inclusion in this systematic review. Conclusion There is grade A evidence for the omission of fusion in instrumented fixation for thoracolumbar burst fractures. There is grade B evidence that percutaneous instrumentation is as effective as open instrumentation for thoracolumbar burst fractures. Question Does the addition of arthrodesis to instrumented fixation improve outcomes in patients with thoracic and lumbar burst fractures? Recommendation It is recommended that in the surgical treatment of patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures, surgeons should understand that the addition of arthrodesis to instrumented stabilization has not been shown to impact clinical or radiological outcomes, and adds to increased blood loss and operative time. Strength of Recommendation: Grade A. Question How does the use of minimally invasive techniques (including percutaneous instrumentation) affect outcomes in patients undergoing surgery for thoracic and lumbar fractures compared to conventional open techniques? Recommendation Stabilization using both open and percutaneous pedicle screws may be considered in the treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures as the evidence suggests equivalent clinical outcomes. Strength of Recommendation: Grade B The full version of the guideline can be reviewed at: https://www.cns.org/guideline-chapters/congress-neurological-surgeons-systematic-review-evidence-based-guidelines/chapter_12.

Background Thoracic and lumbar burst fractures in neurologically intact patients are considered to be inherently stable, and responsive to nonsurgical management. There is a lack of consensus regarding the optimal conservative treatment modality. The question remains whether external bracing is necessary vs mobilization without a brace after these injuries. Objective To determine if the use of external bracing improves outcomes compared to no brace for neurologically intact patients with thoracic or lumbar burst fractures. Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed using the National Library of Medicine PubMed database and the Cochrane Library for studies relevant to thoracolumbar trauma. Clinical studies specifically comparing external bracing to no brace for neurologically intact patients with thoracic or lumbar burst fractures were selected for review. Results Three studies out of 1137 met inclusion criteria for review. One randomized controlled trial (level I) and an additional randomized controlled pilot study (level II) provided evidence that both external bracing and no brace equally improve pain and disability in neurologically intact patients with burst fractures. There was no difference in final clinical and radiographic outcomes between patients treated with an external brace vs no brace. One additional level IV retrospective study demonstrated equivalent clinical outcomes for external bracing vs no brace. Conclusion This evidence-based guideline provides a grade B recommendation that management either with or without an external brace is an option given equivalent improvement in outcomes for neurologically intact patients with thoracic and lumbar burst fractures. The decision to use an external brace is at the discretion of the treating physician, as bracing is not associated with increased adverse events compared to no brace. Question Does the use of external bracing improve outcomes in the nonoperative treatment of neurologically intact patients with thoracic and lumbar burst fractures? Recommendation The decision to use an external brace is at the discretion of the treating physician, as the nonoperative management of neurologically intact patients with thoracic and lumbar burst fractures either with or without an external brace produces equivalent improvement in outcomes. Bracing is not associated with increased adverse events compared to not bracing. Strength of Recommendation: Grade B The full version of the guideline can be reviewed at: https://www.cns.org/guideline-chapters/congress-neurological-surgeons-systematic-review-evidence-based-guidelines/chapter_8.

Question 1 Are there classification systems for fractures of the thoracolumbar spine that have been shown to be internally valid and reliable (ie, do these instruments provide consistent information between different care providers)? Recommendation 1 A classification scheme that uses readily available clinical data (eg, computed tomography scans with or without magnetic resonance imaging) to convey injury morphology, such as Thoracolumbar Injury Classification and Severity Scale or the AO Spine Thoracolumbar Spine Injury Classification System, should be used to improve characterization of traumatic thoracolumbar injuries and communication among treating physicians. Strength of Recommendation: Grade B. Question 2 In treating patients with thoracolumbar fractures, does employing a formally tested classification system for treatment decision-making affect clinical outcomes? Recommendation 2 There is insufficient evidence to recommend a universal classification system or severity score that will readily guide treatment of all injury types and thereby affect outcomes. Strength of Recommendation: Grade Insufficient The full version of the guideline can be reviewed at: https://www.cns.org/guideline-chapters/congress-neurological-surgeons-systematic-review-evidence-based-guidelines/chapter_2.

Question 1 Does routine screening for deep venous thrombosis prevent pulmonary embolism (or venous thromboembolism (VTE)-associated morbidity and mortality) in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures? Recommendation 1 There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against routine screening for deep venous thrombosis in preventing pulmonary embolism (or VTE-associated morbidity and mortality) in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures. Strength of Recommendation: Grade Insufficient. Question 2 For patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures, is one regimen of VTE prophylaxis superior to others with respect to prevention of pulmonary embolism (or VTE-associated morbidity and mortality)? Recommendation 2 There is insufficient evidence to recommend a specific regimen of VTE prophylaxis to prevent pulmonary embolism (or VTE-associated morbidity and mortality) in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures. Strength of Recommendation: Grade Insufficient. Question 3 Is there a specific treatment regimen for documented VTE that provides fewer complications than other treatments in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures? Recommendation 3 There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against a specific treatment regimen for documented VTE that would provide fewer complications than other treatments in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures. Strength of Recommendation: Grade Insufficient. Recommendation 4 Based on published data from pooled (cervical and thoracolumbar) spinal cord injury populations, the use of thromboprophylaxis is recommended to reduce the risk of VTE events in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures. Consensus Statement by the Workgroup The full version of the guideline can be reviewed at: https://www.cns.org/guideline-chapters/congress-neurological-surgeons-systematic-review-evidence-based-guidelines/chapter_7.

Importance Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), or concussion, in children is a rapidly growing public health concern because epidemiologic data indicate a marked increase in the number of emergency department visits for mTBI over the past decade. However, no evidence-based clinical guidelines have been developed to date for diagnosing and managing pediatric mTBI in the United States. Objective To provide a guideline based on a previous systematic review of the literature to obtain and assess evidence toward developing clinical recommendations for health care professionals related to the diagnosis, prognosis, and management/treatment of pediatric mTBI. Evidence Review The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Board of Scientific Counselors, a federal advisory committee, established the Pediatric Mild Traumatic Brain Injury Guideline Workgroup. The workgroup drafted recommendations based on the evidence that was obtained and assessed within the systematic review, as well as related evidence, scientific principles, and expert inference. This information includes selected studies published since the evidence review was conducted that were deemed by the workgroup to be relevant to the recommendations. The dates of the initial literature search were January 1, 1990, to November 30, 2012, and the dates of the updated literature search were December 1, 2012, to July 31, 2015. Findings The CDC guideline includes 19 sets of recommendations on the diagnosis, prognosis, and management/treatment of pediatric mTBI that were assigned a level of obligation (ie, must, should, or may) based on confidence in the evidence. Recommendations address imaging, symptom scales, cognitive testing, and standardized assessment for diagnosis; history and risk factor assessment, monitoring, and counseling for prognosis; and patient/family education, rest, support, return to school, and symptom management for treatment. Conclusions and Relevance This guideline identifies the best practices for mTBI based on the current evidence; updates should be made as the body of evidence grows. In addition to the development of the guideline, CDC has created user-friendly guideline implementation materials that are concise and actionable. Evaluation of the guideline and implementation materials is crucial in understanding the influence of the recommendations.

Question 1 Does the surgical treatment of burst fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine improve clinical outcomes compared to nonoperative treatment? Recommendation 1 There is conflicting evidence to recommend for or against the use of surgical intervention to improve clinical outcomes in patients with thoracolumbar burst fracture who are neurologically intact. Therefore, it is recommended that the discretion of the treating provider be used to determine if the presenting thoracic or lumbar burst fracture in the neurologically intact patient warrants surgical intervention. Strength of Recommendation: Grade Insufficient. Question 2 Does the surgical treatment of nonburst fractures of the thoracic and lumbar spine improve clinical outcomes compared to nonoperative treatment? Recommendation 2 There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the use of surgical intervention for nonburst thoracic or lumbar fractures. It is recommended that the decision to pursue surgery for such fractures be at the discretion of the treating physician. Strength of Recommendation: Grade Insufficient The full version of the guideline can be reviewed at: https://www.cns.org/guideline-chapters/congress-neurological-surgeons-systematic-review-evidence-based-guidelines/chapter_1.

QUESTION Does early surgical intervention improve outcomes for patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures? RECOMMENDATIONS There is insufficient and conflicting evidence regarding the effect of timing of surgical intervention on neurological outcomes in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures. Strength of Recommendation: Grade Insufficient It is suggested that "early" surgery be considered as an option in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures to reduce length of stay and complications. The available literature has defined "early" surgery inconsistently, ranging from

QUESTION 1 Which neurological assessment tools have demonstrated internal reliability and validity in the management of patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures (ie, do these instruments provide consistent information between different care providers)? RECOMMENDATION 1 Numerous neurologic assessment scales (Functional Independence Measure, Sunnybrook Cord Injury Scale and Frankel Scale for Spinal Cord Injury) have demonstrated internal reliability and validity in the management of patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures. Unfortunately, other contemporaneous measurement scales (ie, American Spinal Cord Injury Association Impairment Scale) have not been specifically studied in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures. Strength of Recommendation: Grade C. QUESTION 2 Are there any clinical findings (eg, presenting neurological grade/function) in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures that can assist in predicting clinical outcomes? RECOMMENDATION 2 Entry American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale grade, sacral sensation, ankle spasticity, urethral and rectal sphincter function, and AbH motor function can be used to predict neurological function and outcome in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures (Table I https://www.cns.org/guideline-chapters/congress-neurological-surgeons-systematic-review-evidence-based-guidelines/chapter_4_table1). Strength of Recommendation: Grade B The full version of the guideline can be reviewed at: https://www.cns.org/guideline-chapters/congress-neurological-surgeons-systematic-review-evidence-based-guidelines/chapter_4.

Question Does the choice of surgical approach (anterior, posterior, or combined anterior-posterior) improve clinical outcomes in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures? Recommendations In the surgical treatment of patients with thoracolumbar burst fractures, physicians may use an anterior, posterior, or a combined approach as the selection of approach does not appear to impact clinical or neurological outcomes. Strength of Recommendation: Grade B With regard to radiologic outcomes in the surgical treatment of patients with thoracolumbar fractures, physicians may utilize an anterior, posterior, or combined approach because there is conflicting evidence in the comparison among approaches. Strength of Recommendation: Grade Insufficient With regard to complications in the surgical treatment of patients with thoracolumbar fractures, physicians may use an anterior, posterior, or combined approach because there is conflicting evidence in the comparison among approaches. Strength of Recommendation: Grade Insufficient The full version of the guideline can be reviewed at: https://www.cns.org/guideline-chapters/congress-neurological-surgeons-systematic-review-evidence-based-guidelines/chapter_11.

Question Does the administration of a specific pharmacologic agent (eg, methylprednisolone) improve clinical outcomes in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures and spinal cord injury? Recommendation There is insufficient evidence to make a recommendation; however, the task force concluded, in light of previously published data and guidelines, that the complication profile should be carefully considered when deciding on the administration of methylprednisolone. Strength of recommendation: Grade Insufficient The full version of the guideline can be reviewed at: https://www.cns.org/guideline-chapters/congress-neurological-surgeons-systematic-review-evidence-based-guidelines/chapter_5.

Question Does the active maintenance of arterial blood pressure after injury affect clinical outcomes in patients with thoracic and lumbar fractures? Recommendations There is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the use of active maintenance of arterial blood pressure after thoracolumbar spinal cord injury. Grade of Recommendation: Grade Insufficient However, in light of published data from pooled (cervical and thoracolumbar) spinal cord injury patient populations, clinicians may choose to maintain mean arterial blood pressures >85 mm Hg in an attempt to improve neurological outcomes. Consensus Statement by the Workgroup The full version of the guideline can be reviewed at: https://www.cns.org/guideline-chapters/congress-neurological-surgeons-systematic-review-evidence-based-guidelines/chapter_6.