title: Variation in surgical opinion regarding management of selected cervical spine injuries. A preliminary study.
abstract: METHODS
  The opinions of orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons were compared regarding appropriate management of selected cervical injuries and the timing of stabilization.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To determine whether there is consistency of opinion regarding the management of cervical trauma.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  Numerous forms of management for cervical trauma exist, but there are few consistent recommendations. No previous study has been done to determine uniformity of preferences of the surgeons who manage these injuries.
  
  
  METHODS
  Thirty-one orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons were given a brief clinical situation and pertinent radiographic studies of five selected cervical injuries. Management options included halo and nonhalo orthoses, traction, and various forms of anterior and/or posterior procedures. The surgeons rated, in whole numbers from 1 to 10, their opinions on the appropriateness of each technique. Each surgeon was given a case of a "generic" cervical injury, in which stabilization was required and for which preoperative alignment was adequate in traction. They gave opinions on the timing of stabilization, with a choice of four time frames. Four neurologic situations were rated, ranging from intact to complete cord injury.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Of 46 possible responses to the five test cases regarding appropriateness, 18 ranged from 1 to 10, the largest possible variation. Only 2 had a range of 5 or less, implying better consensus among tested surgeons. Mean values ranged from 1.9 to 9.5. Agreementamong respondents regarding appropriateness was slight with a range of kappa statistics from 0.09 to 0.14. Of 16 possible responses regarding timing, 14 were within a range of 8 or higher. Within 24 to 72 hours was the generally preferred time frame, with all possible responses showing a range of 3 or 4. Results of a multiple analysis of variance showed no significant differences among respondents.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There is a large variety of opinion regarding appropriateness of specific operative and nonoperative management procedures and surgical timing among the surgeons polled who manage cervical trauma. This implies that there is no widely accepted standard management procedure for many of these injuries.
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, USA.
authors.forename: J A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Glaser
authors.forename: B A
authors.initials: BA
authors.lastname: Jaworski
authors.forename: B G
authors.initials: BG
authors.lastname: Cuddy
authors.forename: T J
authors.initials: TJ
authors.lastname: Albert
authors.forename: J P
authors.initials: JP
authors.lastname: Hollowell
authors.forename: R F
authors.initials: RF
authors.lastname: McLain
authors.forename: S A
authors.initials: SA
authors.lastname: Bozzette
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D002574:Cervical Vertebrae / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging / Q000293:injuries*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008279:Magnetic Resonance Imaging; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009493:Neurosurgery / Q000592:standards; D009985:Orthopedics / Q000592:standards; D010865:Pilot Projects; D010818:Practice Patterns, Physicians' / Q000592:standards*; D011859:Radiography; D013119:Spinal Cord Injuries / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000209:etiology / Q000601:surgery; D016103:Spinal Fractures / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000209:etiology / Q000601:surgery*