Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Are soft tissue measurements on lateral cervical spine X-rays reliable in the assessment of traumatic injuries?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Traumatic neck pain is a common presentation to the emergency department. Lateral plain radiographs remain the primary investigation in the assessment of these injuries. Soft tissue assessment forms an integral component of these radiographs. They can provide information on subtle injuries that may not be obvious. Many methods are used to assess the prevertebral soft tissue shadows. The two more commonly used techniques include the ‘seven at two and two at seven’ rule (method 1) and the ratio of the soft tissues with respect to the vertebral width (method 2).

Aim

To assess which of the above two methods in assessing cervical spine soft tissue shadows on lateral radiographs is more sensitive in the presence of cervical spine injuries.

Methods

A retrospective analysis of consecutive traumatic cervical spine films performed within a busy trauma tertiary centre over a period of 7 months. Patients were divided into two groups: group 1—fractures; group 2—no fractures. The prevertebral soft tissue shadows were measured at referenced points on the lateral cervical spine films with respect to the above two methods and comparisons between the groups were made.

Results

Thirty-nine patients in group 1 were compared to a control group of 60 patients in group 2. Both methods failed to identify any significant differences between the two groups. The sensitivity and specificity for method 1 was 7.6 and 93 %, and for method 2, they were 7.6 and 98 %, respectively.

Conclusion

There is no significant difference between the soft tissue shadows when comparing patients with and without cervical spine fractures on lateral radiographs. Both commonly used measures of soft tissue shadows in clinical practice are insensitive in identifying patients with significant osseous injuries. They, therefore, do not offer any further value in interpreting traumatic cervical spine radiographs. The management of patients with cervical spine trauma in the absence of obvious osseous injury on standard radiographs should warrant a computed tomography (CT) scan if clinically indicated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bailitz J, Starr F, Beecroft M, Bankoff J, Roberts R, Bokhari F, Joseph K, Wiley D, Dennis A, Gilkey S, Erickson P, Raksin P, Nagy K. CT should replace three-view radiographs as the initial screening test in patients at high, moderate, and low risk for blunt cervical spine injury: a prospective comparison. J Trauma. 2009;66(6):1605–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Di Mascio L, Sivaraman A. Cervical prevertebral soft tissue swelling in the traumatized patient: what is normality in the intubated patient? Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2009;35(2):165–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Dai LY. Significance of prevertebral soft tissue measurement in cervical spine injuries. Eur J Radiol. 2004;51(1):73–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Penning L. Prevertebral hematoma in cervical spine injury: incidence and etiologic significance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1981;136:556–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. McCormick CC. Prevertebral soft-tissue measurements in cervical spine injury: ‘seven at two; two at seven’. Australas Radiol. 1997;41:227–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Herdman RC, Saeed SR, Hinton EA. The lateral soft tissue neck X-ray in accident and emergency medicine. Arch Emerg Med. 1992;9:149–56.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Baren JM, Rothrock SG. Pediatric emergency medicine. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Chen MY, Bohrer SP. Radiographic measurement of prevertebral soft tissue thickness on lateral radiographs of the neck. Skeletal Radiol. 1999;28(8):444–6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Clark WM, Gehweiler JA Jr, Laib R. Twelve significant signs of cervical spine trauma. Skelet Radiol. 1979;3:201–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hay PD. Annals of roentgenology, vol. 9. New York: Paul B Hoeber; 1939.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dai LY. Significance of prevertebral soft tissue measurement in cervical spine injuries. Eur J Radiol. 2004;51(1):73–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. DeBehnke DJ, Havel CJ. Utility of prevertebral soft tissue measurements in identifying patients with cervical spine fractures. Ann Emerg Med. 1994;24(6):1119–24.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Marar BC. Hyperextension injuries of the cervical spine. The pathogenesis of damage to the spinal cord. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1974;56:1655–62.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Lusted LB, Keats TE. Atlas of roentgenographic measurement. 3rd ed. Chicago: Year Book; 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wholey MH, Bruwer AJ, Baker HL Jr. The lateral roentgenogram of the neck; with comments on the atlanto–odontoid–basion relationship. Radiology. 1958;71:350–6.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Markuske H. Radiologische Messungen der Retropharyngeal breite und des Retrotracheabraums im Kindesalter. Dtsch Gesundheitswes. 1978;33:1729–32.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kendall BE, Ashcroft K, Whiteside CG. A physiological variation in the barium-filled gullet. Br J Radiol. 1962;35:769–75.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Matar LD, Doyle AJ. Prevertebral soft-tissue measurements in cervical spine injury. Australas Radiol. 1997;41:229–37.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Bandiera G, Stiell IG, Wells GA, Clement C, De Maio V, Vandemheen KL, Greenberg GH, Lesiuk H, Brison R, Cass D, Dreyer J, Eisenhauer MA, Macphail I, McKnight RD, Morrison L, Reardon M, Schull M, Worthington J; Canadian C-Spine and CT Head Study Group. The Canadian C-spine rule performs better than unstructured physician judgment. Ann Emerg Med. 2003;42(3):395–402.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

There is no conflict of interest for this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Trauma and Orthopaedic Department, Leicester General Hospital, University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Gwendolen Road, Leicester, LE5 4PW, UK

    M. S. Patel, S. Grannum, A. Tariq, A. Qureshi, A. Watts & O. Gabbar

Authors
  1. M. S. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Grannum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Tariq
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. A. Qureshi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. Watts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. O. Gabbar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. S. Patel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Patel, M.S., Grannum, S., Tariq, A. et al. Are soft tissue measurements on lateral cervical spine X-rays reliable in the assessment of traumatic injuries?. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg 39, 613–618 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-013-0302-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00068-013-0302-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation