# Correlation of clinical and radiological findings in patients with spinal trauma at Inkosi Albert Luthuli Central Hospital

## TL;DR

This study shows that clinical exams alone may miss spinal injuries, so imaging like CT and MRI is important for accurate diagnosis.

## Contribution

The study provides evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of clinical versus radiological assessments in spinal trauma.

## Key findings

- Clinical findings had a 69.2% sensitivity and 85.4% specificity for predicting abnormal CT results.
- MRI showed higher sensitivity (85.1%) but lower specificity (52.8%) for motor and sensory findings.
- False negatives in clinical exams highlight the need for imaging to avoid misdiagnosis.

## Abstract

Assessment of spinal trauma entails a full neurological examination and radiological assessment to determine the level of spinal cord injury.

This study aimed to determine if further imaging is always required, whether the clinical picture correlates with imaging results and to compare clinical and radiological prediction accuracy.

This retrospective chart review compared and correlated clinical findings with radiological findings in patients with spinal trauma at Inkosi Albert Luthuli Central Hospital over a period of 6 years. Demographics and sensitivity and specificity of clinical to imaging correlation with positive predictive ratios were assessed.

A total of 290 patients admitted with spinal injury, who received CT and/or MRI, were evaluated. Cervical-spine injuries were common. For predicting abnormal CT findings, the sensitivity of motor and sensory findings was 69.2% with a specificity of 85.4%. The positive predictive value (PPV) of motor and sensory findings was 96.2%. The negative predictive value (NPV) of motor and sensory findings was 34.0%. On MRI, sensitivity for motor and sensory findings was 85.1% for correctly predicting abnormal MRI findings, while the specificity was 52.8%. The PPV of motor and sensory findings was 82.5% with a NPV of 57.6%.

In this trauma population, correlation of clinical findings with abnormal CT findings was 84.4% and for MRI findings was 72.3%, indicating that clinical findings alone may not be sufficient to rule out the need for imaging; false negatives could lead to missed or incorrect level of injury diagnoses.

This study adds to the proof that while clinical findings are reasonably accurate for the determination of neurological spinal cord injury level, both CT and MRI add additional information, making these tests invaluable.