Canadian c-spine criteria and nexus in the spinal trauma: comparison at a tertiary referral hospital in Turkey. Cilem Caltili 1 , Derya Ozturk 1 , Ertugrul Altinbilek 1 , Nikola Yapar 1 , Mehmet Serin 1 , Harika Gündüz 1 , Afsin Emre Kayipmaz 2 , Cemil Kavalci 2* 1 Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital, Emergency Department, Istanbul/Turkey 2 Baskent University Faculty of Medicine, Emergency Department, Ankara/Turkey Abstract Objective: Spinal trauma and the ensuing neurological problems transform a person’s social life and result in significant economic and non-economic burden. We compared the diagnostic performances of the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) Low-Risk Criteria (NLC) with the Canadian C-Spine Rule (CCSR) criteria in identifying lesions. Methods: This retrospective study was conducted on 724 patients after obtaining approval from the ethical board of the hospital. The demographic characteristics of the patients (age, gender), their medical histories, season, trauma occurrence mechanism, hospital arrival time following the development of spinal trauma, their Glasgow Coma Score at the time of admission, their complaints at the time of admission (such as pain, paresthesia, and loss of muscle strength), their spinal trauma lesion levels, and compatibility of the applied viewing methods with the NEXUS and CCSR criteria were collected from the patients’ files. Results: A total of 2,442 cases were diagnosed with spinal trauma. For patients with a spinal fracture, the sensitivity and specificity of CCSR were 99.7% and 17.9%, respectively, while the sensitivity and specificity of NEXUS were 97.6% and 27.2%, respectively. Positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of CCSR were, respectively, 16.3% and 99.7%, while the PPV and NPV of NEXUS were 17.7% and 98.6%, respectively. Conclusions: This study showed that the CCSR criteria are more sensitive than the Nexus criteria. Keywords: Spinal injury, Emergency, NEXUS. Accepted on January 03, 2017 Introduction Spinal trauma and the ensuing neurological problems transform a person’s social life and result in significant economic and non-economic burden [1]. The incidence of spinal trauma in developing countries was reported to be 25.5 per million in 2013. Spinal traumas are frequently observed in young people aged 15-25 years, with a male:female ratio is 4:1. The most common reasons for spinal traumas are motor vehicle accidents (50%), falls and occupational accidents (30%), violent crimes (11%), and sports injuries (9%) [2-5]. Magnetic resonance imaging plays an important role in the management of spinal trauma [6]. In this study, we aimed to compare the diagnostic performances of the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) Low-Risk Criteria (NLC) with the The Canadian C-Spine Rule (CCSR) criteria in identifying lesions. Material and Methods This was a retrospective study conducted in Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital involving 724 patients after obtaining approval from the ethical board of the hospital. Sisli Etfal Training and Research Hospital is a tertiary training hospital located in the European side of Istanbul. We examined a total of 2,442 patients who were admitted to the emergency service due to spinal trauma and vertebral pathology between July 1, 2013, and June 30, 2014. The demographic characteristics of the patients (age, gender), their medical histories, season, trauma occurrence mechanism, hospital arrival time following the development of spinal trauma, their Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) at the time of admission, their complaints at the time of admission (such as pain, paraesthesia, and loss of muscle strength), their spinal trauma lesion levels, and compatibility of the applied viewing methods with the NEXUS and CCSR criteria were collected from the patients’ files. Statistical analysis was performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS version 17.0; SPSS, ISSN 0970-938X www.biomedres.info Biomed Res- India 2017 Volume 28 Issue 8 3598 Biomedical Research 2017; 28 (8): 3598-3602