Mortality risk factors for adult trauma patients treated with halo brace for cervical spine fracture.

Kim Hoang, Jeffrey Santos, Areg Grigorian, Lourdes Swentek, Hansen Bow, Jeffry Nahmias
{"title":"Mortality risk factors for adult trauma patients treated with halo brace for cervical spine fracture.","authors":"Kim Hoang, Jeffrey Santos, Areg Grigorian, Lourdes Swentek, Hansen Bow, Jeffry Nahmias","doi":"10.1016/j.neucie.2024.09.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction and objectives: </strong>Halo braces treat upper cervical spine fractures and serve as the most rigid form of external immobilization. Recently, halo braces have lost favor due to known complications and advances in surgical stabilization. This study aims to determine the contemporary incidence for use of halo braces and identify risk factors associated with mortality in trauma patients undergoing halo brace for cervical spine fractures.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The 2017-2019 Trauma Quality Improvement Program Database was queried for patients ≥18 years-old with a cervical spine fracture undergoing halo brace. Patients sustaining penetrating trauma and severe torso injuries (abbreviated injury scale >3 for the abdomen or thorax) were excluded. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 144,434 patients with a cervical spine fracture, 272 (0.2%) underwent halo brace and 14 (5%) of these died. Those who died were older (73.5 vs. 53 years-old, p = 0.011) and had higher rates of hypertension (78.6% vs 33.1%, p < 0.001) and chronic kidney disease (14.3% vs. 1.2%, p < 0.001). Glasgow Coma Scale ≤8 (46.2% vs. 8.2%, p < 0.001) and cervical spinal cord injury (71.4% vs. 21.3%, p < 0.001) were more common in patients who died. In addition, those who died more often sustained respiratory complications (7.1% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.004) and sepsis (7.1% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.004). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, only Glasgow Coma Scale ≤8 (OR 19.77, 3.04-128.45, p = 0.002) was associated with increased mortality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Only 5% of cervical spine fracture patients undergoing halo brace died. Respiratory complications and sepsis were more common in those who died. On multivariable analysis only Glasgow Coma Scale ≤8 remained an independent associated risk factor for mortality.</p>","PeriodicalId":74273,"journal":{"name":"Neurocirugia (English Edition)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurocirugia (English Edition)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neucie.2024.09.003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction and objectives: Halo braces treat upper cervical spine fractures and serve as the most rigid form of external immobilization. Recently, halo braces have lost favor due to known complications and advances in surgical stabilization. This study aims to determine the contemporary incidence for use of halo braces and identify risk factors associated with mortality in trauma patients undergoing halo brace for cervical spine fractures.

Materials and methods: The 2017-2019 Trauma Quality Improvement Program Database was queried for patients ≥18 years-old with a cervical spine fracture undergoing halo brace. Patients sustaining penetrating trauma and severe torso injuries (abbreviated injury scale >3 for the abdomen or thorax) were excluded. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed.

Results: From 144,434 patients with a cervical spine fracture, 272 (0.2%) underwent halo brace and 14 (5%) of these died. Those who died were older (73.5 vs. 53 years-old, p = 0.011) and had higher rates of hypertension (78.6% vs 33.1%, p < 0.001) and chronic kidney disease (14.3% vs. 1.2%, p < 0.001). Glasgow Coma Scale ≤8 (46.2% vs. 8.2%, p < 0.001) and cervical spinal cord injury (71.4% vs. 21.3%, p < 0.001) were more common in patients who died. In addition, those who died more often sustained respiratory complications (7.1% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.004) and sepsis (7.1% vs. 0.4%, p = 0.004). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, only Glasgow Coma Scale ≤8 (OR 19.77, 3.04-128.45, p = 0.002) was associated with increased mortality.

Conclusions: Only 5% of cervical spine fracture patients undergoing halo brace died. Respiratory complications and sepsis were more common in those who died. On multivariable analysis only Glasgow Coma Scale ≤8 remained an independent associated risk factor for mortality.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用 Halo 支架治疗颈椎骨折的成年创伤患者的死亡风险因素。
简介和目的:光环支架用于治疗上颈椎骨折,是最坚固的外固定方式。近来,由于已知的并发症和手术稳定的进步,光环支架已失去了人们的青睐。本研究旨在确定光环支架的当代使用率,并识别与接受光环支架治疗颈椎骨折的创伤患者死亡率相关的风险因素:对2017-2019年创伤质量改进计划数据库中年龄大于18岁、接受光环支架治疗的颈椎骨折患者进行查询。不包括穿透性创伤和严重躯干损伤(腹部或胸部缩写损伤量表>3)的患者。进行了二元和多变量逻辑回归分析:在144434名颈椎骨折患者中,有272人(0.2%)接受了光环支撑,其中14人(5%)死亡。死亡患者年龄较大(73.5 岁对 53 岁,P = 0.011),高血压发病率较高(78.6% 对 33.1%,P 结论:只有 5%的颈椎骨折患者接受了光环支撑治疗:接受光环支撑治疗的颈椎骨折患者中仅有5%死亡。在死亡患者中,呼吸系统并发症和败血症更为常见。在多变量分析中,只有格拉斯哥昏迷量表<8仍是死亡的独立相关风险因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Relationship between optic nerve length and interoptic angle in the prediction of optic chiasm location. Epidemiological aspects of syringomyelia in a 19-year old cohort of spinal cord injury patients. Mortality risk factors for adult trauma patients treated with halo brace for cervical spine fracture. Endovascular treatment of chronic subdural hematoma in a dual-trained neurosurgical unit: Results and proposal of a randomized controlled trial protocol. Cervical spine spondylodiscitis due to neglected esophageal perforation after a dilation procedure 30 years after a laringectomy and radiotherapy. Report of a case and review of literature.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1