Cervical spinal injury occurs in 2% of victims of blunt trauma; the incidence is increased if the Glasgow Coma Scale score is less than 8 or if there is a focal neurologic deficit. Immobilization of the spine after trauma is advocated as a standard of care. A three-view x-ray series supplemented with computed tomography imaging is an effective imaging strategy to rule out cervical spinal injury. Secondary neurologic injury occurs in 2‐10% of patients after cervical spinal injury; it seems to be an inevitable consequence of the primary injury in a subpopulation of patients. All airway interventions cause spinal movement; immobilization may have a modest effect in limiting spinal movement during airway maneuvers. Many anesthesiologists state a preference for the fiberoptic bronchoscope to facilitate airway management, although there is considerable, favorable experience with the direct laryngoscope in cervical spinal injury patients. There are no outcome data that would support a recommendation for a particular practice option for airway management; a number of options seem appropriate and acceptable. THE provision of acute medical care to patients with cervical spinal injuries (CSIs) is a complex, challenging, and rewarding task. It is also an anxiety-provoking endeavor because care is provided in a milieu where there is constant concern about medical interventions resulting in the conversion of a spinal injury without neurologic sequelae to one in which the two are now concurrent. It is also a topic of continuous debate because care providers struggle in an environment of limited data and incomplete answers to try to craft clinical care paradigms designed to optimize preservation and return of neurologic function, while minimizing the risk of creating additional injury and neurologic compromise. Many questions regarding the initial care of these patients, particularly as they relate to airway management, remain unresolved, but there has been great effort, energy, and enthusiasm expended during the past two decades searching for these answers. This article reviews the literature that has been generated on the topic of airway management after CSI, particularly that published in the past 10 yr, identifying new areas of knowledge and evolving practice patterns. It also attempts to address and resolve controversy surrounding areas of care that have proven more contentious, most particularly the use of the direct laryngoscope to facilitate direct tracheal intubation in these patients.

/pdf/airway-management-in-adults-after-cervical-spine-trauma-1f8t56qcqw.pdf

Airway management in adults after cervical spine trauma.

BACKGROUND: The single-use supraglottic airway devices LMA-Supreme (LMA-S; Laryngeal Mask Company, Henley-on-Thames, United Kingdom) and i-gel (Intersurgical Ltd, Wokingham, Berkshire, United Kingdom) have a second tube for gastric tube insertion. Only the LMA-S has an inflatable cuff. They have the same clinical indications and might be useful for difficult airway management. This prospective, crossover, randomized controlled trial was performed in a simulated difficult airway scenario using an extrication collar limiting mouth opening and neck movement. METHODS: Sixty patients were included. Both devices were placed in random order in each patient. Primary outcome was overall success rate. Other measurements were time to successful ventilation, airway leak pressure, fiberoptic glottic view, and adverse events. RESULTS: Success rate for the LMA-S was 95% versus 93% for the i-gel (P = 1.000). LMA-S needed shorter insertion time (34 +/- 12 s vs. 42 +/- 23 s, P = 0.024). Tidal volumes and airway leak pressure were similar (LMA-S 26 +/- 8 cm H20; i-gel 27 +/- 9 cm H20; P = 0.441). Fiberoptic view through the i-gel showed less epiglottic downfolding. Overall agreement in insertion outcome was 54 (successes) and 1 (failure) or 55 (92%) of 60 patients. The difference in success rate was 1.7% (95% CI -11.3% to 7.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Both airway devices had similar insertion success and clinical performance in the simulated difficult airway situation. The authors found less epiglottic downfolding and better fiberoptic view but longer insertion time with the i-gel. Our study shows that both devices are feasible for emergency airway management in patients with reduced neck movement and limited mouth opening.

/pdf/crossover-comparison-of-the-laryngeal-mask-supreme-and-the-i-4xct4xx76n.pdf

Crossover comparison of the laryngeal mask supreme and the i-gel in simulated difficult airway scenario in anesthetized patients.

Purpose of review Translating the efficacy of neuroprotective agents in experimental traumatic brain injury to clinical benefit has proven an extremely complex and, to date, unsuccessful undertaking. The focus of this review is on neuroprotective agents that have recently been evaluated in clinical trials and are currently under clinical evaluation, as well as on those that appear promising and are likely to undergo clinical evaluation in the near future. Recent findings Excitatory neurotransmitter blockage and magnesium have recently been evaluated in phase III clinical trials, but showed no neuroprotective efficacy. Cyclosporin A, erythropoietin, progesterone and bradykinin antagonists are currently under clinical investigation, and appear promising. Summary Traumatic brain injury is a complex disease, and development of clinically effective neuroprotective agents is a difficult task. Experimental traumatic brain injury has provided numerous promising compounds, but to date these have not been translated into successful clinical trials. Continued research efforts are required to identify and test new neuroprotective agents, to develop a better understanding of the sequential activity of pathophysiologic mechanisms, and to improve the design and analysis of clinical trials, thereby optimizing chances for showing benefit in future clinical trials.

Neuroprotection in traumatic brain injury: A complex struggle against the biology of nature

The cervical collar has been routinely used for trauma patients for more than 30 years and is a hallmark of state-of-the-art prehospital trauma care. However, the existing evidence for this practice is limited: Randomized, controlled trials are largely missing, and there are uncertain effects on mortality, neurological injury, and spinal stability. Even more concerning, there is a growing body of evidence and opinion against the use of collars. It has been argued that collars cause more harm than good, and that we should simply stop using them. In this critical review, we discuss the pros and cons of collar use in trauma patients and reflect on how we can move our clinical practice forward. Conclusively, we propose a safe, effective strategy for prehospital spinal immobilization that does not include routine use of collars.

/pdf/prehospital-use-of-cervical-collars-in-trauma-patients-a-1dv20mvx0o.pdf

Prehospital use of cervical collars in trauma patients: a critical review.

Objective: To provide certified athletic trainers, team physicians, emergency responders, and other health care professionals with recommendations on how to best manage a catastrophic cerv...

/pdf/national-athletic-trainers-association-position-statement-36k96hq8z5.pdf

National athletic trainers' association position statement: acute management of the cervical spine-injured athlete.

Background Reduced mouth opening may be a major contributing factor to the deterioration in the view obtained at laryngoscopy when a semi-rigid cervical collar is in place. We set out to assess the degree to which mouth opening is restricted by a cervical collar. Methods We measured maximal inter-incisor distance in 52 volunteers. It was measured again after application of each of three appropriately sized semi-rigid cervical collars (Stifneck, Miami J, and Philadelphia). Results Inter-incisor distance was significantly reduced by the application of a cervical collar [No collar 41 (7) mm–mean (sd); Stifneck 26 (8) P P P Conclusions Application of a semi-rigid cervical collar can significantly reduce mouth opening. This could hinder definitive airway placement. Our results support removing the anterior portion of the collar before attempts at tracheal intubation.

C. M. Goutcher

Papers

Reduction in mouth opening with semi-rigid cervical collars