>From: Sam Waddy <[log in to unmask]>
>Which is the reason, I presume, why lots of X-ray guidelines don't
>include injury mechanism, because when we get to see the patients we
>haven't seen the accident, and make all sorts of assumptions about the
>"mechanism" of injury which may be completely wrong, thus safer to
>assume nothing about the mechanism.
>
>The point is that the mechanism of injury to the SPINE is what forces go
>through the C-spine, not what go through the car/crash cage/seat or lack
>of these when coming off your horse/bike. We are not good at guessing
>the former from the latter.
>
>--
>Sam Waddy
...Good point there.
Warning : HEARSAY ONLY.
On subject of how unlikely C-spine lesion is as result of "minor" RTAs...
Have a friend who has a friend... He works for Insurance company in
Canada... He mentioned some of their statistics which seem to indicate a
potential problem... They have quite a collection of stories of drivers in
RTAs who then drive themselves to Emergency Department (i.e. their car still
runs well enough) and have abnormal C-spine findings. did not get into
details at the time re what findings or necessary RX or consequences. But
they do warn their operatives NOT to treat minor vehicle damage as an
indication of ANT MEDICAL IMPLICATION.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|