Cervical collar use in spinal cord injury management

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundThe use of cervical collars in the management of acute cervical spine injuries has been part of standard practice in the trauma setting for decades, aimed at preventing secondary injuries.ObjectivesTo review the recent evidence challenging the routine use of cervical collars, addressing the limited scientific support, associated risks, and guidelines for their use.MethodsA comprehensive literature review was conducted, analyzing recent studies and guidelines from authoritative bodies such as the American Association for Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. The review focused on the efficacy, risks, and recommendations regarding cervical collar use in acute cervical spine injuries.ResultsRecent evidence questions the routine use of cervical collars, highlighting limited scientific support and several associated risks, including pressure ulcers and decreased venous return. Cervical collars may also be contraindicated in individuals with abnormal spinal structures, such as those with Ankylosing Spondylitis. The efficacy of cervical collars is debated, particularly concerning undiagnosed spinal fractures, where delayed diagnosis can result in permanent injuries. Despite these risks, cervical collars may be beneficial in low‐resource areas and when used effectively with early clearance post‐injury. Current guidelines recommend immobilizing patients suspected of cervical spine injury but stress the importance of proper evaluation of the need for immobilization. Recent guidelines advocate for spinal motion restriction over traditional immobilization, emphasizing the need for better risk assessment and implementation strategies.Conclusions/Clinical ImportanceRe‐evaluating the routine use of cervical collars is crucial due to potential risks and limited supporting evidence, with a focus on individualized assessment and adherence to updated guidelines favoring spinal motion restriction.