English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

: The Canadian C-Spine rule (CCR) was validated for use by paramedics to selectively immobilize stable trauma patients. However, the CCR “Dangerous Mechanism” is highly prevalent in sports. Our objective was to compare the CCR performance in sport-related vs. non-sport-related injuries and describe sport-related mechanisms of injury.  Methods : We reviewed data from the prospective paramedic CCR validation and implementation studies in 7 Canadian cities, which already included identification of sport-related injuries. A single trained reviewer further categorized mechanisms of injury using a pilot-tested standardized form, with the aid of a sport medicine physician in 15 ambiguous cases. We compared the CCR's recommendation to immobilize sport-injured versus non-sport-injured patients using chi-square and relative risk statistics with 95% confidence intervals.  Results : There were 201 amateur sport-injuries among the 5,978 patients. Sport-injured patients were younger (mean age 36.2 vs. 42.4) and more predominantly male (60.5% vs 46.8%) than non-sport-injured patients. Paramedics did not miss any c-spine injuries when using the CCR. Although cervical spine injury rates were similar between sport (2/201; 1.0%) and non-sport injured patients (47/5,777; 0.8%), the absolute number of sport-related injuries was very small. Although CCR recommended immobilization equally between the two groups (46.4% vs 42.5% p = 0.29; RR 1.17 95%CI 0.87-1.57), the reason for immobilization was more likely to be a dangerous mechanism in sport injuries (68.6% vs 54.5%, p = 0.012). Although we observed a wide range of mechanisms, the most common dangerous mechanism responsible for immobilization in sport was axial load.  Conclusion : The CCR identified all significant c-spine injuries in a cohort of patients assessed and transported by paramedics. Although an equal proportion of sport and non-sports related injuries were immobilized, a dangerous mechanism was most often responsible for immobilization in sport-related cases. These findings do not address the potential impact of using the CCR to evaluate all sport-related injuries in collegiate or pro athletes evaluated by sport medicine therapists and physicians, as these patients are rarely assessed by paramedics or transported to a hospital. It does support the safety and benefit of using the CCR in sport-injured patients for which paramedics are called.

LO71: Evaluating the application of the prehospital Canadian C-Spine Rule by paramedics in sport-related injuries