Emergency (****); * (*): *-* This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Copyright © 2016 Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. All rights reserved. Downloaded from: www.jemerg.com 127 Emergency (2016); 4 (3): 127-131 ORIGINAL RESEARCH Diagnostic Value of Clinical Findings in Evaluation of Thoracolumbar Blunt Traumas Ali Shahrami1, Majid Shojaee1, Seyed Mohammadreza Tabatabaee1*, Elaheh Mianehsaz2 1. Emergency Department, Imam Hossein Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. 2. Clinical Research Support Center, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran. *Corresponding Author: Seyed Mohammadreza Tabatabaei; Emergency Department, Imam Hossein Hospital, Shahid Madani Avenue, Tehran, Iran. Tel: +989133619199 Email: moh.tab35@yahoo.com Received: July 2015; Accepted: August 2015 Abstract Introduction: Necessity of imaging for symptom-free conscious patients presented to emergency department (ED) following traumatic thoracolumbar spine injuries has been a matter of debate. The present study was aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of clinical findings in prediction of traumatic thoracolumbar injuries compared to- computed tomography (CT) scan. Methods: The present diagnostic value study was carried out using non-random convenience sampling during the time between October 2013 and March 2014. All trauma patients > 15 years old underwent thoracolumbar CT scan were included. Correlation between clinical and CT findings was measured us- ing SPSS 21.0 and screening performance characteristics of clinical findings in prediction of thoracolumbar fracture were calculated. Results: 169 patients with mean age of 37.8 ± 17.3 years (rage: 15-86) were evaluated (69.8% male). All fracture patients had at least 1 positive finding in history and physical examination. The fracture was confirmed in only 24.6% of the patients with positive findings in history or physical examination. In 37.5% of pa- tients the location of fracture, matched the area of positive physical examinations. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, PLR, and NLR of clinical findings in comparison to thoracolumbar CT scan were 100 (95% CI: 89 - 100), 1.5 (95% CI: 0.2-6), 24.5 (95% CI: 18.3-31.9), 100 (95% CI: 19.7-100), 32.5 (95% CI: 24.6-43.03), and infinite, respectively. Conclusion: The results of the present study, show the excellent screening performance characteristics of clinica l findings in prediction of traumatic thoracolumbar fracture (100% sensitivity). It could be concluded that in con- scious patients with stable hemodynamic, who have no distracting pain and are not intoxicated, probability of thoracolumbar fracture is very low and near to zero in case of no positive clinical finding. Keywords: Spinal fractures; Physical examination; Tomography, X-ray computed; Signs and symptoms Cite this article as: Shahrami A, Shojaee M, Tabatabaei SM, Mianehsaz E. Diagnostic value of clinical findings in evaluation of thoracolumbar blunt traumas. Emergency. 2016; 4(3):127-131. Introduction: ultiple trauma patients make up a considerable portion of emergency department (ED) visitors. Spine is prone to injury following trauma. Trau- matic spinal injuries bring about various and sometimes dangerous outcomes such as spinal cord injury, neuro- logic injuries, chronic pain, deformity, transient or per- manent functional disorders, and decreased quality of life (1-3). About 50% of spinal fractures occur in the thoracolumbar area and 19% to 50% of them lead to neurologic injuries (4, 5). Incidence of traumatic spinal cord injuries has been reported to be 3.6 cases per mil- lion population in Canada and 23 per million around the world. In Iran, due to various reasons such as high rate of traffic accidents and not conducting occupational safety, the incidence has been much higher and esti- mated to be about 30 to 72.4 cases per million (6). Mis- diagnosis incidence has been reported to be up to 20% in thoracolumbar blunt traumas. Late diagnosis of these injuries leads to 7-8 times increase in neurologic compli- cations (4, 5, 7, 8). Therefore, early diagnosis and triage of the patients in need of complimentary diagnostic and curative measures is of great importance in managing these patients. Most researchers believe thoracolumbar trauma patients with pain, tenderness, positive neuro- logic findings, loss of consciousness, multiple trauma, and those unable to go through detailed physical exami- nation should undergo imaging. (4, 9-11) Necessity of imaging for symptom-free conscious patients has been a matter of debate (10, 12-19). Using clinical decision M This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Copyright © 2016 Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. All rights reserved. Downloaded from: www.jemerg.com Shahrami et al 128 rules such as National Emergency X-Radiography Utili- zation Study (NEXUS) and Canadian C-spine rule can be helpful in this regard (20-22). Despite the higher preva- lence of thoracolumbar area injuries compared to cervi- cal ones, less research has been done on trauma in this area and there is much controversy regarding its man- agement (9, 23). Although physical examination is highly important in diagnosis of thoracolumbar area injuries, its accuracy is a matter of question. Based on a review study, physical examination can only predict 27-56% of thoracolumbar fractures in patients with blunt trauma and its sensitivity and specificity have been estimated to be 48.2% and 84.9%, respectively (4). Based on the afore-mentioned points, the present study was aimed to evaluate the diagnostic value of clinical findings in pre- diction of thoracolumbar traumatic spinal injuries in comparison with computed tomography (CT) scan. Methods: Study design and setting The present diagnostic value study was carried out using non-random convenience sampling during the time be- tween October 2013 and March 2014 in the ED of Imam Hossein Hospital, Tehran, Iran. Inclusion and exclusion criteria All patients over 15 years of age who were presented to the ED following multiple trauma and underwent thora- columbar CT scan were included. Patients with de- creased level of consciousness, hemodynamic instability, distracting pain, intoxicated following alcohol, opiate or sedative drug use, and those who did not fully partici- pate during physical examination for any reason were excluded. In the present study, positive clinical finding was consid- ered the presence of any of the following items in history of physical examination: back pain, midline tenderness, lateral tenderness, skin abrasion or laceration, and focal neurologic deficit (sensory/motor). Data gathering Demographic data (age, sex), trauma mechanism (traffic accident, falling, assault, direct collision with a h object, rubble), history and physical examination findings (thoracolumbar pain, midline or lateral thoracolumbar Table 1: Baseline characteristics of the participants Variables Number of patients (%) Without fracture With fracture Age (years) < 20 21 (12.4) 3 (7.5) 20-30 55 (32.5) 13 (32.5) 30-40 30 (17.7) 5 (12.5) 40-50 23 (13.6) 8 (20) 50-60 19 (11.2) 6 (15) > 60 21 (12.4) 5 (12.5) Fracture site Thoracic 17 (10) 17 (42.5) Lumbar 22 (13) 22 (55) Thoracolumbar 1 (0.6) 1 (2.5) Trauma mechanism Collision 93 (55) 20 (50) Falling down 49 (29) 14 (35) Assault 7 (1.4) 1 (2.5) Hard object collision 18 (10.7) 5 (12.5) Rubble 2 (1.1) 0 (0) Fracture type Compression or wedge 15 (9) 15 (37.5) Burst 6 (4) 6 (15) Chance 1 (0.6) 1 (2.5) Fracture-dislocation 2 (1.1) 2 (5) Body and process 4 (2.3) 4 (10) Transverse process 9 (5.3) 9 (22.5) Spinous process 2 (1.1) 2 (5) Facet or articular process 0 (0) 0 (0) Pars inter-articular or listhesis 1 (0.6) 1 (2.5) This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Copyright © 2016 Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. All rights reserved. Downloaded from: www.jemerg.com 129 Emergency (2016); 4(3): 127-131 tenderness, bruises and laceration, step or gap touch, de- formity, neurological sensorimotor disorder) and thora- columbar CT scan findings regarding presence or ab- sence of fracture(s) were gathered and recorded using a checklist. History was obtained and physical examina- tion was performed by a third-year emergency medicine resident. All CT scans were interpreted by an independ- ent radiologist blind to the clinical findings. This study did not interfere with the treatment process and imaging performance in the patients. Statistical analyses SPSS version 21 was used for statistical analyses. The re- quired sample size for this study was estimated to be 160 cases, based on 48.2% sensitivity of the clinical find- ings compared to CT scan in vertebra fracture (16), α = 0.1, Z1-α/2 = 1.96, L = 0.1, and SN = 0.482. The results were reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD) for quanti- tative data and as frequency and percentage for qualita- tive ones. Quantitative data were compared using t-test and Mann-Whitney test and qualitative ones were com- pared using Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests. Correla- tion between quantitative variables was measured using Pearson correlation coefficient and Spearman rank cor- relation. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values (PPV and NPV), and positive and nega- tive likelihood ratios (PLR and NLR) of clinical findings in prediction of thoracolumbar fracture were deter- mined. Thoracolumbar CT scan was considered as the standard reference test. p < 0.05 was defined as signifi- cance level. Results: 169 patients with mean age of 37.8 ± 17.3 years (rage: 15-86) were evaluated (69.8% male). Table 1 shows baseline characteristics of the studied patients. The most frequent fractures are second and third lumbar verte- brae fractures with 11 (27.5%) and 8 (20%) cases, re- spectively, and 12th thoracic vertebra with (20%). Table 2 summarizes the findings of patients’ history and phys- ical examination. All fracture patients had at least 1 pos- itive finding in history and physical examination. The fracture was confirmed in only 24.6% of the patients with positive findings in physical examination or history. In 37.5% of patients the location of fracture, matched the area of positive physical examinations, while in 40% of the cases, the area affected with tenderness was bigger than the fractured vertebra. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, PLR, and NLR of clinical findings in comparison to thoracolumbar CT scan were 100 (95% CI: 89 - 100), 1.5 (95% CI: 0.2-6), 24.5 (95% CI: 18.3-31.9), 100 (95% CI: 19.7-100), 32.5 (95% CI: 24.6-43.03), and infinite, re- spectively. Discussion: Based on the results of this study, history and physical examination have 100% sensitivity and NPV in screen- ing thoracolumbar trauma patients. In fact, the probabil- ity of thoracolumbar fracture in conscious patients with stable hemodynamic, who have no positive finding in history and physical examination, is very low. In the pre- sent study, like previous ones, men were affected by trauma and thoracolumbar spinal fracture more than women, and the 20-30 years age range had the highest prevalence of fracture (4, 24-26). In this study, the most frequent trauma mechanism was traffic accidents, especially pedestrian-car accidents, which was in line with the results of Yousefzadeh and Inaba (17, 24). In contrast, studies by Heidary (25), Table 2: History and physical examination of the patients Findings Number of patients (%) Without fracture With fracture Back pain No 8 (4.7) 3 (1.8) Yes 121 (71.6) 37 (21.9) Midline tenderness No 101 (59.8) 10 (5.9) Yes 28 (16.6) 30 (17.8) Lateral tenderness No 90 (53.3) 19 (11.2) Yes 39 (23.1) 21 (12.4) Abrasion No 65 (38.5) 18 (10.7) Yes 64 (37.9) 22 (13) Neurologic examination Normal 128 (75.7) 37 (21.9) Abnormal 1 (0.6) 3 (1.8) Movement Not moving 2 (1.2) 3 (1.8) Just lateral 4 (2.4) 5 (3) Can sit 11 (6.5) 10 (5.9) Can stand up 5 (3) 5 (3) Can walk 107 (63.3) 17 (10.1) This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Copyright © 2016 Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. All rights reserved. Downloaded from: www.jemerg.com Shahrami et al 130 Rahimi-Movaghar (27), and Fakharian (26) in Iran, and Karamehmetoglu in Turkey (28) reported falling as the most prevalent mechanism for thoracolumbar spinal trauma. In most studies, as well as the present one, the most common type of fracture was compression (4, 16). While, Fakharian et al. showed that burst fracture was more common. They believed that the studied popula- tion being neurosurgery patients was the reason for this difference (26). In the present study, no difference was detected regard- ing clinical findings neither between men and women nor in various age ranges. Back pain was the most com- mon complaint in patients with or without spinal frac- ture. Also in patients with spinal fracture, midline ten- derness was the most common symptoms. The preva- lence of positive neurologic findings in physical exami- nation was 2.4%. In contrast, this rate was estimated to be 18% in Yousefzadeh et al. study, 17% in the Fakharian et al. study, and 20% in Hsu JM et al. study (9, 24, 26). The reason for the low rate of positive neurologic find- ings in the present study can be excluding patients with distracting pain, decreased level of consciousness, and intoxicated; as logically the prevalence of neurologic dis- orders may be higher in this group due to more severe trauma. In a study by Frankel et al. 60% and in the one by Cooper et al. 31% of the patients with thoracolumbar fracture were symptom-free (29, 30). In our study, 15% of these patients had normal physical examinations. In 37.5% of patients with fracture, the area of positive physical examinations was completely in agreement with the true site of injury in CT scan, and in 40% of the patients, the area affected with tenderness was bigger than the fractured area in the CT scan. In the Inaba et al. study, agreement rate between the site of pain and frac- ture was 61.6% (17). Sensitivity of physical examination in predicting trau- matic thoracolumbar spine injuries has been estimated to be about 48-85% in various studies (17, 31). The re- sults of the present study show 100% sensitivity of his- tory and physical examination in ruling out thoracolum- bar fractures. Samuel et al. also showed that normal his- tory and physical examination are enough to rule out the probability of fracture (16). In short, clinical findings seem to be valuable in management of patients pre- sented to the ED following traumatic thoracolumbar in- juries. Limitations and suggestions Since patients with distracting injuries (patients with ab- dominal or chest problems or big bone fracture) were excluded, calculation of injury severity score had no value. It is suggested to carry out a more comprehensive study without excluding these patients and calculate sensitivity and specificity of various items of physical ex- amination in all thoracolumbar trauma patients includ- ing conscious and unconscious ones, with and without distracting injuries. Short and long term follow-up of the patients, which are routinely managed based on clinical findings and discharged without undergoing imaging study, can be very helpful in confirmation and external validation of this management approach. Conclusion: The results of the present study, show the excellent screening performance characteristics of clinical find- ings in prediction of traumatic thoracolumbar fracture (100% sensitivity). It could be concluded that in con- scious patients with stable hemodynamic, who have no distracting pain and are not intoxicated, probability of thoracolumbar fracture is very low and near to zero in case of no positive clinical finding. Acknowledgments: We would like to thank all professors and staff of emer- gency department and radiology specialists at Imam Hossein Hospital, Tehran, Iran. Conflict of interest: None Funding support: None Authors’ contributions: All authors passed four criteria for authorship contribu- tion based on recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. References: 1. Diaz Jr JJ, Cullinane DC, Altman DT, et al. Practice management guidelines for the screening of thoracolumbar spine fracture. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2007;63(3):709-18. 2. Wood KB, Li W, Lebl DS, Ploumis A. Management of thoracolumbar spine fractures. The Spine Journal. 2014;14(1):145-64. 3. Forouzanfar MM, Safari S, Niazazari M, et al. Clinical decision rule to prevent unnecessary chest X-ray in patients with blunt multiple traumas. Emergency Medicine Australasia. 2014;26(6):561-6. 4. Kaji A, Hockberger S. Spinal column injuries in adults: Definitions, mechanisms, and radiographs. Uptodate com. 5. Sixta S, Moore FO, Ditillo MF, et al. Screening for thoracolumbar spinal injuries in blunt trauma: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma practice management guideline. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2012;73(5):S326-S32. 6. Jazayeri SB, Beygi S, Shokraneh F, Hagen EM, Rahimi- Movaghar V. Incidence of traumatic spinal cord injury worldwide: a systematic review. European Spine Journal. 2014:1-14. 7. Kariman H, Joorabian J, Shahrami A, Alimohammadi H, Noori Z, Safari S. Accuracy of emergency severity index of triage in Imam Hossein hospital-Tehran, Iran (2011). Journal of Gorgan University of Medical Sciences. 2013;15(1):115-20. This open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 3.0 License (CC BY-NC 3.0). Copyright © 2016 Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences. All rights reserved. Downloaded from: www.jemerg.com 131 Emergency (2016); 4(3): 127-131 8. Safari S, Baratloo A, Negida AS, Taheri MS, Hashemi B, Selkisari SH. Comparing the Interpretation of Traumatic Chest X-Ray by Emergency Medicine Specialists and Radiologists. Archives of trauma research. 2014;3(4). 9. Hsu JM, Joseph T, Ellis AM. Thoracolumbar fracture in blunt trauma patients: guidelines for diagnosis and imaging. Injury. 2003;34(6):426-33. 10. Gill DS, Mitra B, Reeves F, et al. Can initial clinical assessment exclude thoracolumbar vertebral injury? Emergency Medicine Journal. 2012:emermed-2011-201085. 11. Meldon SW, Moettus LN. Thoracolumbar spine fractures: clinical presentation and the effect of altered sensorium and major injury. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 1995;39(6):1110-4. 12. Boos N, Aebi M. Spinal disorders: fundamentals of diagnosis and treatment: Springer; 2008. p. 13. Kirkpatrick AW, McKevitt E. Thoracolumbar spine fractures: Is there a problem? Canadian journal of surgery. 2002;45(1):21. 14. Venkatesan M, Fong A, Sell P. DETECTION OF THORACOLUMBAR VERTEBRAL FRACTURES ON TRAUMA SERIES CT SCANS MISSED BY CLINICAL EXAMINATION. Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, British Volume. 2012;94(SUPP XXVI):24-. 15. Terregino CA, Ross SE, Lipinski MF, Foreman J, Hughes R. Selective indications for thoracic and lumbar radiography in blunt trauma. Annals of emergency medicine. 1995;26(2):126- 9. 16. Samuels LE, Kerstein MD. 'Routine'radiologic evaluation of the thoracolumbar spine in blunt trauma patients: a reappraisal. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 1993;34(1):85-9. 17. Inaba K, DuBose JJ, Barmparas G, et al. Clinical examination is insufficient to rule out thoracolumbar spine injuries. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2011;70(1):174-9. 18. Durham RM, Luchtefeld WB, Wibbenmeyer L, Maxwell P, Shapiro MJ, Mazuski JE. Evaluation of the thoracic and lumbar spine after blunt trauma. The American journal of surgery. 1995;170(6):681-5. 19. Woltmann A, Buhren V. Emergency room management of the multiply injured patient with spine injuries. A systematic review of the literature. Unfallchirurg. 2004;107(10):911-8. 20. Mower WR, Hoffman JR, Pollack CV, et al. Use of plain radiography to screen for cervical spine injuries. Annals of emergency medicine. 2001;38(1):1-7. 21. Hoffman JR, Mower WR, Wolfson AB, Todd KH, Zucker MI. Validity of a set of clinical criteria to rule out injury to the cervical spine in patients with blunt trauma. New England Journal of Medicine. 2000;343(2):94-9. 22. Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen KL, et al. The Canadian C- spine rule for radiography in alert and stable trauma patients. Jama. 2001;286(15):1841-8. 23. Holmes JF, Panacek EA, Miller PQ, Lapidis AD, Mower WR. Prospective evaluation of criteria for obtaining thoracolumbar radiographs in trauma patients. The Journal of emergency medicine. 2003;24(1):1-7. 24. Chabok SY, Safaee M, Alizadeh A, Dafchahi MA, Taghinnejadi O, Koochakinejad L. Epidemiology of traumatic spinal injury: a descriptive study. Acta Medica Iranica. 2010;48(5):308-11. 25. Pedram H, Reza ZM, Reza RM, Vaccaro AR, Vafa R-M. Spinal fractures resulting from traumatic injuries. Chinese Journal of Traumatology (English Edition). 2010;13(1):3-9. 26. Fakharian E, MASOUD S, Tabesh H. An epidemiologic study on spinal injuries in Kashan. 2004. 27. Rahimi-Movaghar V, Saadat S, Jafarpour S. Establishment of a regional multicenter traumatic spine fracture/dislocation registry. Chinese journal of traumatology. 2014;17(4):235-8. 28. Karamehmetoglu S, Nas K, Karacan I, et al. Traumatic spinal cord injuries in southeast Turkey: an epidemiological study. Spinal Cord. 1997;35(8):531-3. 29. Frankel HL, Rozycki GS, Ochsner MG, Harviel JD, Champion HR. Indications for obtaining surveillance thoracic and lumbar spine radiographs. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 1994;37(4):673-6. 30. Cooper C, Dunham CM, Rodriguez A. Falls and major injuries are risk factors for thoracolumbar fractures: cognitive impairment and multiple injuries impede the detection of back pain and tenderness. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 1995;38(5):692-6. 31. Sava J, Williams MD, Kennedy S, Wang D. Thoracolumbar fracture in blunt trauma: is clinical exam enough for awake patients? Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery. 2006;61(1):168-71.