Do flexion extension plain films facilitate treatment after XXXX ?

@entity1 @entity772 @entity130
We hypothesized that flexion extension (FE) films do not facilitate the diagnosis or treatment of @entity130 of the cervical spine after blunt @entity130 . From January 2000 to December 2008 we reviewed all @entity1 who underwent FE films and compared five-view plain films (5 view) and cervical spine CTC with FE in the diagnosis of @entity130 . There were 22,929 @entity1 with blunt @entity130 and of these, 271 @entity1 underwent 303 FE films. Average age was 39.6 years, Injury Severity Score was 10.8, Glasgow @entity772 Score was 14.1, lactate was 2.6 mmol/L, and hospital length of stay was 6 days. Compared with FE, 5 view and CTC had a sensitivity of 80 per cent (8 of 10), positive predictive value of 47.1 per cent (8 of 17), specificity of 96.55 per cent (252 of 261), and negative predictive value of 99.21 per cent (252 of 254). For purposes of analysis, incomplete and ambiguous FE films were listed as negative; however, 20.5 per cent (62 of 303) were incomplete and 9.2 per cent (28 of 303) were ambiguous. Management did not change for the 2 @entity1 with missed ligament injuries. The 303 studies cost  162,105.00 to obtain. FEs are often incomplete and unreliable making it difficult to use them to base management decisions. They do not facilitate treatment and may lead to increased cost and prolonged cervical collars.
