Spinal immobilisaton in pre-hospital and emergency care: A systematic review of the literature

Prehospital guidelines on in-water traumatic spinal injuries for lifeguards and prehospital emergency medical services: an international Delphi consensus study

BACKGROUND

Trauma guidelines on spinal motion restriction (SMR) have changed drastically in recent years. An international group of experts explored whether consensus could be reached and if guidelines on SMR performed by trained lifeguards and prehospital EMS following in-water traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) should also be changed.

METHODS

An international three-round Delphi process was conducted from October 2022 to November 2023. In Delphi round one, brainstorming resulted in an exhaustive list of recommendations for handling patients with suspected in-water TSCI. The list was also used to construct a preliminary flowchart for in-water SMR. In Delphi round two, three levels of agreement for each recommendation and the flowchart were established. Recommendations with strong consensus (≥ 85% agreement) underwent minor revisions and entered round three; recommendations with moderate consensus (75-85% agreement) underwent major revisions in two consecutive phases; and recommendations with weak consensus (< 75% agreement) were excluded. In Delphi round 3, the level of consensus for each of the final recommendations and each of the routes in the flowchart was tested using the same procedure as in Delphi round 2.

RESULTS

Twenty-four experts participated in Delphi round one. The response rates for Delphi rounds two and three were 92% and 88%, respectively. The study resulted in 25 recommendations and one flowchart with four flowchart paths; 24 recommendations received strong consensus (≥ 85%), and one recommendation received moderate consensus (81%). Each of the four paths in the flowchart received strong consensus (90-95%). The integral flowchart received strong consensus (93%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study produced expert consensus on 25 recommendations and a flowchart on handling patients with suspected in-water TSCI by trained lifeguards and prehospital EMS. These results provide clear and simple guidelines on SMR, which can standardise training and guidelines on SMR performed by trained lifeguards or prehospital EMS.

The effect of ATLS/PHTLS spinal motion restriction protocol on the incidence of spinal cord injury, a nationwide database study

PURPOSE

To study trends in incidence and outcome of patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) in the Netherlands before, during and after implementation of the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS®) and Pre-Hospital Trauma Life Support (PHTLS®)- Spinal Motion Restriction(SMR) protocol.

METHODS

In an observational database we studied national hospital admission and emergency department databases to analyse incidence rates and outcome of traumatic spinal cord injury and spinal fractures in the emergency department and in admittances in The Netherlands between 1986 and 2021.

RESULTS

A significant increase of 39% in TSCI in admitted patients with spinal fractures over the past 35 years (p < 0.001). This increase was especially prevalent in cervical spinal fractures (132%), while thoracic and lumbosacral spinal fractures showed a decrease in accompanied TSCI (64% and 88% respectively). The overall increase in spinal fractures was not significant. The duration of hospital admission decreased for spinal fractures without TSCI and with TSCI (66% and 56% respectively).

CONCLUSION

Since implementation of the SMR-protocol was aiming to limit TSCI in patients who suffered a spinal fracture, the increase in TSCI is an unexpected finding. Exact explanation for this increase is unclear and the contribution of the SMR-protocol is not fully understood due to confounders in the used datasets. Either way, the scientific evidence supporting this costly time- and labor-intensive SMR-protocol remains debated, along with evidence contradicting it. Therefore it stresses the need for clear, evidencebased reasoning for spinal immobilization according to ATLS, as this is currently lacking.

Change from semi-rigid to soft collars for prehospital management of trauma patients: An observational study

Objectives

Protection of the cervical spine is recommended following multisystem injury. In 2021, Ambulance Victoria changed clinical practice guidelines to apply soft collars instead of semi-rigid collars for suspected cervical spine injury. The aim of this study was to describe associated changes in imaging practices and diagnoses of pressure sores, hospital acquired pneumonia, and spinal cord injury.

Methods

A retrospective pre- and postintervention study was conducted including all consecutive patients that presented to an adult major trauma center in Melbourne, Australia with a cervical collar placed by emergency medical services over two 3-month periods.

Results

There were 1762 patients included. A computed tomography (CT) of the cervical spine was performed in 795 (88.4%) patients in the semi-rigid collar period and 810 (93.8%) in the soft collar period (p = 0.001). Soft collars were associated with higher rates of clearance of the cervical spine in the emergency department (ED) (odds ratio [OR] 4.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.36-5.09). There were no differences in diagnosis of pressure sores (0.11% vs. 0.23%, p = 0.97) or hospital acquired pneumonia (2.0% vs. 2.7%; p = 0.44) or cervical spinal cord injury (0.45% vs. 0.81%; p = 0.50).

Conclusions

Following a change from prehospital semi-rigid collars to soft collars, more patients were investigated with a CT scan and more frequent clearance of the cervical spine occurred in the ED. There were no differences in the rates of spinal cord injuries, pressure sores or hospital acquired pneumonia, but the study was underpowered to detect significant differences. The practice of soft collars for prehospital care of patients with suspected neck injury requires ongoing surveillance.

Cervical spine immobilisation following blunt trauma in pre-hospital and emergency care: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether different cervical spine immobilisation strategies (full immobilisation, movement minimisation or no immobilisation), impact neurological and/or other outcomes for patients with suspected cervical spinal injury in the pre-hospital and emergency department setting.

DESIGN

Systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and two research registers were searched until September 2023.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All comparative studies (prospective or retrospective) that examined the potential benefits and/or harms of immobilisation practices during pre-hospital and emergency care of patients with a potential cervical spine injury (pre-imaging) following blunt trauma.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two authors independently selected and extracted data. Risk of bias was appraised using the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies. Data were synthesised without meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Six observational studies met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality was variable, with most studies having serious or critical risk of bias. The effect of cervical spine immobilisation practices such as full immobilisation or movement minimisation during pre-hospital and emergency care did not show clear evidence of benefit for the prevention of neurological deterioration, spinal injuries and death compared with no immobilisation. However, increased pain, discomfort and anatomical complications were associated with collar application during immobilisation.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limited evidence, weak designs and limited generalisability, the available data suggest that pre-hospital cervical spine immobilisation (full immobilisation or movement minimisation) was of uncertain value due to the lack of demonstrable benefit and may lead to potential complications and adverse outcomes. High-quality randomised comparative studies are required to address this important question.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO REGISTRATION Fiona Lecky, Abdullah Pandor, Munira Essat, Anthea Sutton, Carl Marincowitz, Gordon Fuller, Stuart Reid, Jason Smith. A systematic review of cervical spine immobilisation following blunt trauma in pre-hospital and emergency care. PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022349600 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022349600.

Triage tools for detecting cervical spine injury in paediatric trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Paediatric cervical spine injury (CSI) after blunt trauma is rare but can have severe consequences. Clinical decision rules (CDRs) have been developed to guide clinical decision-making, minimise unnecessary tests and associated risks, whilst detecting all significant CSIs. Several validated CDRs are used to guide imaging decision-making in adults following blunt trauma and clinical criteria have been proposed as possible paediatric-specific CDRs. Little information is known about their accuracy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy of CDRs or sets of clinical criteria, alone or in comparison with each other, for the evaluation of CSI following blunt trauma in children.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases from 1 January 2015 to 13 December 2022. As we expanded the index test eligibility for this review update, we searched the excluded studies from the previous version of the review for eligibility. We contacted field experts to identify ongoing studies and studies potentially missed by the search. There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included cross-sectional or cohort designs (retrospective and prospective) and randomised controlled trials that compared the diagnostic accuracy of any CDR or clinical criteria compared with a reference standard for the evaluation of paediatric CSI following blunt trauma. We included studies evaluating one CDR or comparing two or more CDRs (directly and indirectly). We considered X-ray, computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the cervical spine, and clinical clearance/follow-up as adequate reference standards.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts for relevance, and carried out eligibility, data extraction and quality assessment. A third review author arbitrated. We extracted data on study design, participant characteristics, inclusion/exclusion criteria, index test, target condition, reference standard and data (diagnostic two-by-two tables) and calculated and plotted sensitivity and specificity on forest plots for visual examination of variation in test accuracy. We assessed methodological quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Version 2 tool. We graded the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies with 21,379 enrolled participants, published between 2001 and 2021. Prevalence of CSI ranged from 0.5% to 1.85%. Seven CDRs were evaluated. Three studies reported on direct comparisons of CDRs. One study (973 participants) directly compared the accuracy of three index tests with the sensitivities of NEXUS, Canadian C-Spine Rule and the PECARN retrospective criteria being 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 1.00), 1.00 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.00) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.00), respectively. The specificities were 0.56 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.59), 0.52 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.55) and 0.32 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.35), respectively (moderate-certainty evidence). One study (4091 participants) compared the accuracy of the PECARN retrospective criteria with the Leonard de novo model; the sensitivities were 0.91 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.96) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.83 to 0.97), respectively. The specificities were 0.46 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.47) and 0.50 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.52) (moderate- and low-certainty evidence, respectively). One study (270 participants) compared the accuracy of two NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) head injury guidelines; the sensitivity of the CG56 guideline was 1.00 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.00) compared to 1.00 (95% CI 0.48 to 1.00) with the CG176 guideline. The specificities were 0.46 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.52) and 0.07 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.11), respectively (very low-certainty evidence). Two additional studies were indirect comparison studies. One study (3065 participants) tested the accuracy of the NEXUS criteria; the sensitivity was 1.00 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.00) and specificity was 0.20 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.21) (low-certainty evidence). One retrospective study (12,537 participants) evaluated the PEDSPINE criteria and found a sensitivity of 0.93 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.99) and specificity of 0.70 (95% CI 0.69 to 0.72) (very low-certainty evidence). We did not pool data within the broader CDR categories or investigate heterogeneity due to the small quantity of data and the clinical heterogeneity of studies. Two studies were at high risk of bias. We identified two studies that are awaiting classification pending further information and two ongoing studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine the diagnostic test accuracy of CDRs to detect CSIs in children following blunt trauma, particularly for children under eight years of age. Although most studies had a high sensitivity, this was often achieved at the expense of low specificity and should be interpreted with caution due to a small number of CSIs and wide CIs. Well-designed, large studies are required to evaluate the accuracy of CDRs for the cervical spine clearance in children following blunt trauma, ideally in direct comparison with each other.

Impact of rigid cervical collars on the vital signs and cervical vasculature: Should we be on the alert for anything?

OBJECTIVE

In this study, it was aimed to reveal the effect of RCC application on vital signs and physiology of the neck vascular structures.

METHODS

The study was designed as a prospective interventional study on 11 volunteers. The factors that would affect the hemodynamics of the volunteers were standardized before the measurements. The vital signs before and after RCC were measured and under the guidance of ultrasonography (USG), internal jugular vein cross-sectional area (CSA), diameter of the common carotid artery (CCAD), peak systolic velocity (PSV). end-diastolic velocity (EDV), time-averaged maximum velocity (TAMAX), Pulsatility Index, Resistivity Index, time averaged mean velocity (TAMEAN), Volume Flow (FV) measurements were made and compared with each other.

RESULTS

Among 11 volunteers, the study included 5 women (45.5%). 10 min of RCC application was associated with a reduction of the heart rate by 7.9 bpm (95% CI 4.84-10.98) (pre-collar 74.73 + -8.84, post-collar 66.82 + -9.05, p < 0.001). A corresponding 7.18 mmHg (95% CI 2.11-12.25) decrease in systolic blood pressure (pre-collar mean 115.82 mmHg + -12.55, post-collar mean 108.64 mmHg + -11.46, p = 0.01) and 108.55 mL/min reduction of mean common carotid artery blood volume (95% CI 22.28-194.82) (pre-collar 590.14 mL/min + -194.63, post-collar 481.59 mL/min + -279.36, p = 0.019) were noted. Internal jugular vein CSA has decreased for 0.17 cm² (95% CI 0.05-0.29) (pre-collar CSA 0.53 + -0.29, post-collar CSA 0.36 + -0.17, p = 0.012).

CONCLUSION

In healthy volunteers, RCC application lasting for ten minutes may reduce systolic blood pressure and heart rate, while decreasing blood volume in both the common carotid artery and the internal jugular vein. It has also been noted that the collapse is larger in the internal jugular vein than in the common carotid artery following the pressure applied by RCC.

The Immo Traffic Light System as a Decision-Making Tool for Prehospital Spinal Immobilization

BACKGROUND

Spinal injuries are difficult injuries to assess yet can be associated with significant neurological damage. To avoid secondary damage, immobilization is considered state of the art trauma care. The indication for spinal immobilization must be assessed, however, for potential complications as well as its advantages and disadvantages.

METHODS

This systematic review addressing the question of the correct indication for spinal immobilization in trauma patients was compiled on the basis of our previously published analysis of possible predictors from the Trauma Registry of the German Society for Trauma Surgery. A Delphi procedure was then used to develop suggestions for action regarding immobilization based on the results of this review.

RESULTS

The search of the literature yielded 576 publications. The 24 publications included in the qualitative analysis report of 2 228 076 patients. A decision tool for spinal immobilization in prehospital trauma care was developed (Immo traffic light system) based on the results of the Delphi procedure. According to this system, severely injured patients with blunt trauma, severe traumatic brain injury, peripheral neurological symptoms, or spinal pain requiring treatment should be immobilized. Patients with a statistically increased risk of spinal injury as a result of the four cardinal features (fall >3m, severe trunk injury, supra clavicular injury, seniority [age >65 years]) should only have their spinal motion restricted after weighing up the pros and cons. Isolated penetrating trunk injuries should not be immobilized.

CONCLUSION

High-quality studies demonstrating the benefit of prehospital spinal immobilization are still lacking. Decision tools such as the Immo traffic light system can help weigh up the pros and cons of immobilization.

Prehospital interventions to reduce discomfort caused by immobilization in adult trauma victims: a scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to identify the level of discomfort caused by immobilization as reported by trauma victims, and to map all the interventions in the prehospital context where they have been implemented and evaluated in order to reduce discomfort in adult victims of trauma.

INTRODUCTION

Immobilization is a cause of discomfort for trauma victims, which has important implications for the deterioration of vital signs and quality of life. However, discomfort caused by immobilization remains an under-explored topic by the scientific community.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This scoping review will consider studies of adult victims of trauma, aged 18 years or over, in prehospital emergency care. Studies that focus on interventions designed to reduce immobilization discomfort, implemented and evaluated by health professionals, of any form, duration, frequency, and dose will be considered.

METHODS

An initial search of PubMed and CINAHL will be undertaken, followed by a second search for published and unpublished studies without time restrictions, in major health care-related electronic databases. Studies in English, French, Spanish, and Portuguese will be included. Data extraction will be performed independently by 2 reviewers in a tabular format and will include details about the level of discomfort, interventions, populations, study methods, and outcomes of interest. A narrative synthesis will accompany the results and will describe how they relate to the review objectives.

REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

OSF https://osf.io/4scg5/.

Evaluating prehospital care of patients with potential traumatic spinal cord injury: scoping review

PURPOSE

To gain insight into current research regarding prehospital care (PHC) in patients with potential traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) and to disseminate the findings to the research community.

METHODS

In March 2019, we performed a literature search of publications from January 1990 to March 2019 indexed in PubMed, gray literature including professional websites; and reference sections of selected articles for other relevant literature. This review was performed according to Arksey and O'Malley's framework.

RESULTS

There were 42 studies selected based on the inclusion criteria for review; 18 articles regarding immobilization; 12 articles regarding movement, positioning and transport; four for spinal clearance; three for airway protection; and two for the role of PHC providers. There were some articles that covered two topics: one article was regarding movement, positioning and transport and airway protection, and two were regarding spinal clearance and the role of PHC providers.

CONCLUSION

There was no uniform opinion about spinal immobilization of patients with suspected TSCI. The novel lateral trauma position and one of two High Arm IN Endangered Spine (HAINES) methods are preferred methods for unconscious patients. Controlled self-extrication for patients with stable hemodynamic status is recommended. Early and proper identifying of potential TSCI by PHC providers can significantly improve patients' outcomes and can result in avoiding unwanted spinal immobilization. Future prospective studies with a large sample size in real-life settings are needed to provide clear and evidence-based data in PHC of patients with suspected TSCI.

The Impact of Prehospital Spinal Immobilization in Patients with Penetrating Spinal Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Penetrating injuries, such as gunshot or stab wounds, may cause spinal cord injuries and require prehospital spinal immobilization (PHSI) to stabilize the spine. However, the use of PHSI in penetrating spinal injuries remains controversial. This systematic review aimed to investigate the efficacy of prehospital PHSI in patients with penetrating trauma. We systematically searched Google Scholar, Medline (PubMed), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and EMBASE between January 2000 and July 2021. All studies in English that assessed PHSI in patients (>16 years) with penetrating spinal injuries were included. Quality and risk of bias assessments were performed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A narrative synthesis and a meta-analysis was conducted. Our search identified 928 studies but only 6 met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. All of the included studies were conducted in the US and the number of patients ranged from 156–75,567 over 3–9 study years. The majority of patients were gunshot or stab wounds. Three studies demonstrated an increased risk of mortality with spinal collars whilst the remaining three studies failed to show any benefits or the benefits remained unproven. All studies were retrospective studies with some risks of bias. This review highlights that the evidence from the literature on PHSI in penetrating trauma outweigh its benefits; thus, its use is discouraged in penetrating spinal trauma. However, further high-quality research is necessary to reach definitive conclusions and to possibly identify suitable alternatives to PHSI for penetrating spinal trauma.

A multicenter cohort study on the association between prehospital immobilization and functional outcome of patients following spinal injury in Asia

Prehospital spinal immobilization is a widely used procedure in the emergency medical service (EMS) system worldwide, while the incidence of patients with spinal injury (SI) is relatively low, and unnecessary prehospital spinal immobilization is associated with patient complications. This study aimed to determine the association between prehospital spine immobilization and favorable functional outcomes at hospital discharge among trauma patients with SI. We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Pan-Asia Trauma Outcomes Study (PATOS) registry data from January 1, 2016, to November 30, 2018. A total of 759 patients with SI were enrolled from 43,752 trauma patients in the PATOS registry during the study period. The subjects had a median age of 58 years (Q1-Q3, 41-72), and 438 (57.7%) patients had prehospital spine immobilization. Overall, prehospital spinal immobilization was not associated with favorable functional outcomes at discharge in multivariable logistic regression (aOR 1.06; 95% CI 0.62-1.81, p = 0.826). However, in the subgroup of cervical SI, prehospital spinal immobilization was associated with favorable functional outcomes at discharge (aOR 3.14; 95% CI 1.04-9.50; p = 0.043). Therefore, we suggest that paramedics should be more careful when determining the presence of a cervical SI and should apply full spine immobilization if possible.

Development of a New Emergency Medicine Spinal Immobilization Protocol for Pediatric Trauma Patients and First Applicability Test on Emergency Medicine Personnel

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to (i) develop a protocol that supports decision making for prehospital spinal immobilization in pediatric trauma patients based on evidence from current scientific literature and (ii) perform an applicability test on emergency medicine personnel.

METHODS

A structured search of the literature published between 1980 and 2019 was performed in MEDLINE using PubMed. Based on this literature search, a new Emergency Medicine Spinal Immobilization Protocol for pediatric trauma patients (E.M.S. IMMO Protocol Pediatric) was developed. Parameters found in the literature, such as trauma mechanism and clinical findings that accounted for a high probability of spinal injury, were included in the protocol. An applicability test was administered to German emergency medicine personnel using a questionnaire with case examples to assess correct decision making according to the protocol.

RESULTS

The E.M.S. IMMO Protocol Pediatric was developed based on evidence from published literature. In the applicability test involving 44 emergency medicine providers revealed that 82.9% of participants chose the correct type of immobilization based on the protocol. A total of 97.8% evaluated the E.M.S. IMMO Protocol Pediatric as helpful.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the current literature, the E.M.S. IMMO Protocol Pediatric was developed in accordance with established procedures used in trauma care. The decision regarding immobilization is made on based on the cardiopulmonary status of the patient, and life-threatening injuries are treated with priority. If the patient presents in stable condition, the necessity for full immobilization is assessed based upon the mechanisms of injury, assessment of impairment, and clinical examination.

Analysis of remaining motion using one innovative upper airway opening cervical collar and two traditional cervical collars

The aim of this study was to compare the remaining motion of an immobilized cervical spine using an innovative cervical collar as well as two traditional cervical collars. The study was performed on eight fresh human cadavers. The cervical spine was immobilized with one innovative (Lubo Airway Collar) and two traditional cervical collars (Stifneck and Perfit ACE). The flexion and lateral bending of the cervical spine were measured using a wireless motion tracker (Xsens). With the Weinman Lubo Airway Collar attached, the mean remaining flexion was 20.0 ± 9.0°. The mean remaining flexion was lowest with the Laerdal Stifneck (13.1 ± 6.6°) or Ambu Perfit ACE (10.8 ± 5.8°) applied. Compared to that of the innovative Weinmann Lubo Airway Collar, the remaining cervical spine flexion was significantly decreased with the Ambu Perfit ACE. There was no significant difference in lateral bending between the three examined collars. The most effective immobilization of the cervical spine was achieved when traditional cervical collars were implemented. However, all tested cervical collars showed remaining motion of the cervical spine. Thus, alternative immobilization techniques should be considered.

Vacuum mattress or long spine board: which method of spinal stabilisation in trauma patients is more time consuming? A simulation study

BACKGROUND

Spinal stabilisation is recommended for prehospital trauma treatment. In Germany, vacuum mattresses are traditionally used for spinal stabilisation, whereas in anglo-american countries, long spine boards are preferred. While it is recommended that the on-scene time is as short as possible, even less than 10 minutes for unstable patients, spinal stabilisation is a time-consuming procedure. For this reason, the time needed for spinal stabilisation may prevent the on-scene time from being brief. The aim of this simulation study was to compare the time required for spinal stabilisation between a scoop stretcher in conjunction with a vacuum mattress and a long spine board.

METHODS

Medical personnel of different professions were asked to perform spinal immobilizations with both methods. A total of 172 volunteers were immobilized under ideal conditions as well as under realistic conditions. A vacuum mattress was used for 78 spinal stabilisations, and a long spinal board was used for 94. The duration of the procedures were measured by video analysis.

RESULTS

Under ideal conditions, spinal stabilisation on a vacuum mattress and a spine board required 254.4 s (95 % CI 235.6-273.2 s) and 83.4 s (95 % CI 77.5-89.3 s), respectively (p < 0.01). Under realistic conditions, the vacuum mattress and spine board required 358.3 s (95 % CI 316.0-400.6 s) and 112.6 s (95 % CI 102.6-122.6 s), respectively (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal stabilisation for trauma patients is significantly more time consuming on a vacuum mattress than on a long spine board. Considering that the prehospital time of EMS should not exceed 60 minutes and the on-scene time should not exceed 30 minutes or even 10 minutes if the patient is in extremis, based on our results, spinal stabilisation on a vacuum mattress may consume more than 20 % of the recommended on-scene time. In contrast, stabilisation on a spine board requires only one third of the time required for that on a vacuum mattress. We conclude that a long spine board may be feasible for spinal stabilisation for critical trauma patients with timesensitive life threatening ABCDE-problems to ensure the shortest possible on-scene time for prehospital trauma treatment, not least if a patient has to be rescued from an open or inaccessible terrain, especially that with uneven overgrown land.

Evidence-Based Nursing Care for Spinal Nursing Immobilization: A Systematic Review

INTRODUCTION

A high degree of suspicion for spinal injury after trauma is commonplace in an emergency department, and spinal immobilization is considered an accepted intervention to prevent the progression of a potential injury. This systematic review was conducted to gain insight into the best research evidence related to nursing interventions for patients with trauma presenting with a suspected spinal injury.

METHODS

A systematic search of online databases was conducted in April 2019 for relevant research using specific search terms. The studies were selected on the basis of pre-established eligibility criteria, and the quality was appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool.

RESULTS

Nineteen included articles were synthesized thematically on the basis of the outcomes from interventions directed at a suspected spinal injury. The main findings were that spinal immobilization may compromise pulmonary function and airway management, cause pain and pressure ulcers, and be inappropriate with penetrating trauma. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence to support the safety and efficacy of the hard neck collar and long backboard.

DISCUSSION

Patients would benefit from a more selective and cautious approach to spinal immobilization. Emergency nurses should use the evidence to facilitate informed decision-making in balancing the benefits of spinal immobilization against harm when considering the needs and values of the patient.

Epidemiology and predictors of traumatic spine injury in severely injured patients: implications for emergency procedures

PURPOSE

This study aimed to identify the prevalence and predictors of spinal injuries that are suitable for immobilization.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study drawing from the multi-center database of the TraumaRegister DGU^®, spinal injury patients ≥ 16 years of age who scored ≥ 3 on the Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) between 2009 and 2016 were enrolled.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 145,833 patients enrolled was 52.7 ± 21.1 years. The hospital mortality rate was 13.9%, and the mean injury severity score (ISS) was 21.8 ± 11.8. Seventy percent of patients had no spine injury, 25.9% scored 2-3 on the AIS, and 4.1% scored 4-6 on the AIS. Among patients with isolated traumatic brain injury (TBI), 26.8% had spinal injuries with an AIS score of 4-6. Among patients with multi-system trauma and TBI, 44.7% had spinal injuries that scored 4-6 on the AIS. Regression analysis predicted a serious spine injury (SI; AIS 3-6) with a prevalence of 10.6% and cervical spine injury (CSI; AIS 3-6) with a prevalence of 5.1%. Blunt trauma was a predictor for SI and CSI (OR 4.066 and OR 3.640, respectively; both p < 0.001) and fall > 3 m for SI (OR 2.243; p < 0.001) but not CSI (OR 0.636; p < 0.001). Pre-hospital shock was predictive for SI and CSI (OR 1.87 and OR 2.342, respectively; both p < 0.001), and diminished or absent motor response was also predictive for SI (OR 3.171) and CSI (OR 7.462; both p < 0.001). Patients over 65 years of age were more frequently affected by CSI.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to the clinical symptoms of pain, we identify '4S' [spill (fall) > 3 m, seniority (age > 65 years), seriously injured, skull/traumatic brain injury] as an indication for increased attention for CSIs or indication for spinal motion restriction.

Prehospital Protocols Reducing Long Spinal Board Use Are Not Associated with a Change in Incidence of Spinal Cord Injury

Introduction: Many emergency medical services (EMS) agencies have de-emphasized or eliminated the use of long spinal boards (LSB) for patients with possible spinal injury. We sought to determine if implementation of spinal motion restriction (SMR) protocols, which reduce LSB use, was associated with an increase in spinal cord injury (SCI). Methods: This retrospective observational study includes EMS encounters from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2015 submitted by SMR-adopting ground-based agencies to a state EMS database with hospital discharge data. Encounters were excluded if SMR implementation date was unknown, occurred during a 3-month run-in period, or were duplicates. Study samples include patients with traumatic injury (TI), possible spinal trauma (P-ST), and verified spinal trauma (V-ST) using hospital discharge ICD-9/10 diagnosis codes. The incidence of SCI before and after implementation of SMR was compared using Chi-squared and logistic regression. Results: From 1,005,978 linked encounters, 104,315 unique encounters with traumatic injury and known SMR implementation date were identified with 51,199 cases of P-ST and 5,178 V-ST cases. The incidence of SCI in the pre-SMR and post-SMR interval for each group was: TI, 0.20% vs. 0.22% (p = 0.390); P-ST, 0.40% vs. 0.45% (p = 0.436); and V-ST, 4.04% vs. 4.37% (p = 0.561). Age and injury severity adjusted odds ratio of SCI in the highest risk cohort of patients with V-ST was 1.097 after SMR implementation (95% CI 0.818-1.472). Conclusion: In this limited study, no change in the incidence of SCI was identified following implementation of SMR protocols. Prospective evaluation of this question is necessary to evaluate the safety of SMR protocols.

Effects of spinal immobilization at 20° on end-tidal carbon dioxide

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to determine the effect on end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO₂) of spinal immobilization (SI) at a conventional 0° angle and to investigate the usefulness of immobilization at a 20° angle for preventing possible hypoventilation.

METHODS

The study included 80 healthy volunteers, randomly divided into two groups. Spinal backboards and cervical collars were applied in Group 1 using a 0° angle and in Group 2 using a 20° angle, with the head up. SI was continued for 1 h, and ETCO₂ values were measured at the 0th, 30th and 60th minute.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the groups in 0th and 30th minute ETCO₂. However, after 60th minute, results showed a statistically significant increase in ETCO₂ in Group 1 (35.5 mmHg [IQR 25-75:35-38]) compared to Group 2 (34 mmHg [IQR 25-75:33-36]) (p < 0.001). During SI, there was a statistically significant increase in ETCO₂ in Group 1 (35 mmHg [IQR 25-75:34-36], 35.5 mmHg [IQR 25-75:34-37] and 36 mmHg [IQR 25-75:35-38] respectively at the 0th, 30th and 60th minute after SI) (p < 0.001) and no change in Group 2. Also, we found statistically significant differences between ΔETCO₂ levels in Groups 1 and 2 at all 3 time intervals.

CONCLUSION

Conventional SI with an angle of 0° led to an increase in ETCO₂ while subjects immobilization at a 20° angle maintained their initial ETCO₂ values. Immobilization at 20° may prevent decompensation in patients who have thoracic trauma or lung diseases or those who are elderly, pregnant, or obese.

[Development and first application testing of a new protocol for preclinical spinal immobilization in children : Assessment of indications based on the E.M.S. IMMO Protocol Pediatric]

BACKGROUND

To protect the spine from secondary damage, spinal immobilization is a standard procedure in prehospital trauma management. Immobilization protocols aim to support emergency medicine personnel in quick decision making but predominantly focus on the adult spine; however, trauma mechanisms and injury patterns in adults differ from those in children and applying adult prehospital immobilization protocols to pediatric patients may be insufficient. Adequate protocols for children with spinal injuries are currently unavailable.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was (i) to develop a protocol that supports decision making for prehospital spinal immobilization in pediatric trauma patients based on evidence from current scientific literature and (ii) to perform a first analysis of the quality of results if the protocol is used by emergency personnel.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Based on a structured literature search a new immobilization protocol was developed. Analysis of the quality of results was performed by a questionnaire containing four case scenarios in order to assess correct decision making. The decision about spinal immobilization was made without and with the utilization of the protocol.

RESULTS

The E.M.S. IMMO Protocol Pediatric was developed based on the literature. The analysis of the quality of results was performed involving 39 emergency medicine providers. It could be shown that if the E.M.S. IMMO Protocol Pediatric was used, the correct type of immobilization was chosen more frequently. A total of 38 out of 39 participants evaluated the protocol as helpful.

CONCLUSION

The E.M.S. IMMO Protocol Pediatric provides decision-making support whether pediatric spine immobilization is indicated with respect to the cardiopulmonary status of the patient. In a first analysis, the E.M.S. IMMO Protocol Pediatric improves decision making by emergency medical care providers.

New clinical guidelines on the spinal stabilisation of adult trauma patients - consensus and evidence based

Traumatic spinal cord injury is a relatively rare injury in Denmark but may result in serious neurological consequences. For decades, prehospital spinal stabilisation with a rigid cervical collar and a hard backboard has been considered to be the most appropriate procedure to prevent secondary spinal cord injuries during patient transportation. However, the procedure has been questioned in recent years, due to the lack of high-quality studies supporting its efficacy. A national interdisciplinary task force was therefore established to provide updated clinical guidelines on prehospital procedures for spinal stabilisation of adult trauma patients in Denmark. The guidelines are based on a systematic review of the literature and grading of the evidence, in addition to a standardised consensus process.This process yielded five main recommendations:A strong recommendation against spinal stabilisation of patients with isolated penetrating trauma; a weak recommendation against the prehospital use of a rigid cervical collar and a hard backboard for ABCDE-stable patients; and a weak recommendation for the use of a vacuum mattress for patient transportation. Finally, our group recommends the use of our clinical algorithm to ensure good clinical practice.

Patient experience of spinal immobilisation after trauma

Background

Spinal immobilisation of blunt trauma victims with potential spinal cord injury is considered standard of care. The traditional management has, however, been increasingly questioned and concerns about harm have been raised. Few studies have described the perspective of the trauma patient regarding the spinal immobilisation.

The objective of this study was therefore to evaluate the patient experience of immobilisation after trauma.

Methods

We prospectively screened adult trauma patients admitted to a level 1 trauma centre for eligibility. We included adult trauma patients who had been, and remembered being, immobilised for spinal protection with a cervical collar and a spine board prehospitally or upon arrival at the trauma centre. A semi-structured interview was conducted 2 to 72 h after admission either in person or by telephone.

Results

One hundred and fourteen patients were eligible for inclusion based on the patient charts. Out of 98 patients assessed for participation, 48 (49%) had no memory of being immobilised.

We thus included 50 patients with a median age of 37 years (IQR: 26–60) of whom 38 (76%) were men. The median injury severity score was 9 (IQR: 3–15) and the median time with a cervical collar from initial application to in-hospital removal or until the interview was given was 91 min (IQR: 72–136).

Nineteen patients (38%) reported discomfort and 12 patients (24%) experienced pain related to the immobilisation. Forty patients (80%) reported a sense of protection related to the immobilisation.

Conclusion

Discomfort related to spinal immobilisation was reported in 38% of trauma patients. However, a sense of protection was a recurring theme in 80% of the trauma patients, who recalled being immobilised. Nearly half of the awake trauma patients had no memory of being immobilised.

The effects of spinal immobilization at 20° on intracranial pressure

OBJECTIVE

In this study, it was aimed to evaluate whether spinal immobilization at 20°, instead of the traditional 0°, affects intracranial pressure (ICP) via the ultrasonographic (USG) measurement of optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD).

METHODS

140 healthy, adult, non-smoking volunteers who had no acute or chronic diseases were included this study. Volunteers were randomly divided into two groups; performed spinal immobilization at 0° (Group 1) and at 20° (Group 2). After spinal immobilization (at 0 or 20°), measurements of ONSD were performed at 0, 30, and 60 min in an immobilized position.

RESULTS

When evaluating the change in ONSD over time (at 30 and 60 min) as compared to basal measurements at 0 min, it was found that the ONSD values of both sides (the right and left eyes) were significantly increased in Group 1 and Group 2. For Groups 1 and 2, these differences existed both between 0 and 30 min and between 30 and 60 min. In addition, in this study, the amounts of increase in the ONSD measurements from 0 to 30 min and from 30 to 60 min (ΔONSD0-30 min and ΔONSD30-60 min) in both groups were compared. The results showed that there was no significant difference between Group 1 and Group 2 in terms of ΔONSD measurements.

CONCLUSIONS

Spinal immobilization at 0° as a part of routine trauma management increased ONSD and thus ICP. Secondly, we found that similar to immobilization at 0°, spinal immobilization at 20° increased ONSD.

Prehospital care of spinal injuries: a historical quest for reasoning and evidence

PURPOSE

The practice of prehospital immobilization is coming under increasing scrutiny. Unravelling the historical sequence of prehospital immobilization might shed more light on this matter and help resolve the situation. Main purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the development and reasoning behind the implementation of prehospital spine immobilization.

METHODS

An extensive search throughout historical literature and recent evidence based studies was conducted.

RESULTS

The history of treating spinal injuries dates back to prehistoric times. Descriptions of prehospital spinal immobilization are more recent and span two distinct periods. First documentation of its use comes from the early 19th century, when prehospital trauma care was introduced on the battlefields of the Napoleonic wars. The advent of radiology gradually helped to clarify the underlying pathology. In recent decades, adoption of advanced trauma life support has elevated in-hospital trauma-care to an high standard. Practice of in-hospital spine immobilization in case of suspected injury has also been implemented as standard-care in prehospital setting. Evidence for and against prehospital immobilization is equally divided in recent evidence-based studies. In addition, recent studies have shown negative side-effects of immobilisation in penetrating injuries.

CONCLUSION

Although widely implementation of spinal immobilization to prevent spinal cord injury in both penetrating and blunt injury, it cannot be explained historically. Furthermore, there is no high-level scientific evidence to support or reject immobilisation in blunt injury. Since evidence in favour and against prehospital immobilization is equally divided, the present situation appears to have reached something of a deadlock. These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.

Value of prehospital assessment of spine fracture by paramedics

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines state that trauma patients at risk of spine injury should undergo prehospital spine immobilization to reduce the risk of neurological deterioration. Although this approach has been accepted and implemented as a standard for decades, there is little scientific evidence to support it. Furthermore, the potential dangers and sequelae of spine immobilization have been extensively reported. The role of the paramedic in this process has not yet been examined. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of prehospital evaluations for the presence of spine fractures made by paramedics.

METHODS

All patients who presented with prehospital spine immobilization at our level II trauma center between January 2013 and January 2014 were prospectively included in a database. Prior to the diagnosis, paramedics recorded the probability of a spine fracture after a prehospital examination. These predictions were compared with patient outcomes. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were calculated.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-nine patients were included that positive predictive value was 22%, negative predictive value was 95%, sensitivity was 92%, specificity was 30%, and accuracy was 41%.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest that paramedics cannot accurately predict spinal fractures.

Compulsory Use of the Backboard is Associated with Increased Frequency of Thoracolumbar Imaging

BACKGROUND

Backboards have been shown to cause pain in uninjured patients. This may alter physical exam findings, leading emergency department (ED) providers to suspect a spinal injury when none exists resulting in additional imaging of the thoracolumbar spine. New York had previously employed a "Spinal Immobilization" protocol that included compulsory backboard application for all patients with suspected spinal injuries. In 2015, New York instituted a new "Spinal Motion Restriction" protocol that made backboard use optional for these patients. The objective of this study was to determine if this protocol change was associated with decreased backboard utilization and ED thoracolumbar spine imaging.

METHODS

This was a retrospective before-and-after chart review of subjects transported by a single emergency medical services (EMS) agency to one of four EDs for emergency calls dispatched as motor vehicle collisions (MVC). EMS and ED data were included for all calls within a 6-month interval before and after the protocol change. The protocol change was implemented in the second half of 2015. Subject demographics, backboard use, and spine imaging were reviewed for the intervals January-June 2015 and January-June 2016.

RESULTS

There were 818 subjects in the before period and 796 subjects in the after period. Subjects were similar in terms of gender, age and type of MVC in both periods. A backboard was utilized for 440 (54%) subjects in the before period and 92 (12%) subjects in the after period (p < 0.001). ED thoracic spine imaging was performed on 285 (35%) subjects in the before period, and 235 (30%) subjects in the after period (p = 0.02). ED lumbar spine imaging was performed for 335 (41%) subjects in the before period, and 281 (35%) subjects in the after period (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

A shift from a spinal immobilization protocol to a spinal motion restriction protocol was associated with a decrease in backboard utilization by EMS providers and a decrease in thoracolumbar spine imaging by ED providers.

Evidence based emergency nursing: Designing a research question and searching the literature

The purpose of research is to discover new knowledge. All good research starts with a clear, answerable question that addresses an important and significant problem or phenomenon of interest. In this paper, emergency nurses and other clinicians will be provided with a practical guide to successfully developing a quality research question as the basis of quality research. In this paper, how to plan and prepare question development using the PICO Framework, develop a literature search strategy, and perform a search, extracting and analysing information will be detailed.

On-scene treatment of spinal injuries in motor sports

Because spinal cord injuries can have fatal consequences for injured race car drivers, prehospital treatment of spinal injuries is a major concern in motor sports. A structured procedure for assessing trauma patients and their treatment should follow established ABCDE principles. Only then, a stable patient could be further examined and appropriate measures can be undertaken. For patients in an acute life-threatening condition, rapid transport must be initiated and should not be delayed by measures that are not indicated. If a competitor must first be extricated from the racing vehicle, the correct method of extrication must be chosen. To avoid secondary injury to the spine after a racing accident, in-line extrication from the vehicle and immobilization of the patient are standard procedures in motor sports and have been used for decades. Since immobilization can be associated with disadvantages and complications, the need for immobilization of trauma patients outside of motor sports medicine has become the subject of an increasing number of reports in the scientific literature. Even in motor sports, where specific safety systems that offer spinal protection are present, the indications for spinal immobilization need to be carefully considered rather than being blindly adopted as a matter of course. The aim of this article is to use recent literature to present an overview about the treatment of spinal injuries in motor sports. Further, we present a new protocol for indications for immobilizing the spine in motor sports that is based on the ABCDE principles and takes into account the condition of the patient.

Development of a new Emergency Medicine Spinal Immobilization Protocol for trauma patients and a test of applicability by German emergency care providers

Background

In order to match the challenges of quickly recognizing and treating any life-threatening injuries, the ABCDE principles were established for the assessment and treatment of trauma patients. The high priority of spine protection is emphasized by the fact that immobilization of the cervical spine is performed at the very first step in the ABCDE principles. Immobilization is typically performed to prevent or minimize secondary damage to the spinal cord if instability of the spinal column is suspected. Due to increasing reports about disadvantages of spinal immobilization, the indications for performing spinal immobilization must be refined.

The aim of this study was (i) to develop a protocol that supports decision-making for spinal immobilization in adult trauma patients and (ii) to carry out the first applicability test by emergency medical personnel.

Methods

A structured literature search considering the literature from 1980 to 2014 was performed. Based on this literature and on the current guidelines, a new protocol that supports on scene decision-making for spinal immobilization has been developed. Parameters found in the literature concerning mechanisms and factors increasing the likelihood of spinal injury have been included in the new protocol. In order to test the applicability of the new protocol two surveys were performed on German emergency care providers by means of a questionnaire focused on correct decision-making if applying the protocol.

Results

Based on the current literature and guidelines, the Emergency Medicine Spinal Immobilization Protocol (E.M.S. IMMO Protocol) for adult trauma patients was developed. Following a fist applicability test involving 21 participants, the first version of the E.M.S. IMMO Protocol has to be graphically re-organized. A second applicability test comprised 50 participants with the current version of the protocol confirmed good applicability. Questions regarding immobilization of trauma patients could be answered properly using the E.M.S. IMMO Protocol.

Discussion

Current literature increasingly reports of disadvantages that may be associated with immobilization. Based on the requirements of the current guidelines, a new protocol that supports decision-making for indications for out-of-hospital spinal immobilization has been developed in this study. In contrast to established protocols, the new protocol offers different options for immobilization as well as a decicion-support.

Conclusions

The E.M.S. IMMO protocol provides a decision-support tool for indications for spinal immobilization in adult trauma patients that permits variable decision-making depending on the current condition of the trauma patient and the pattern of injuries for immobilization in general and for immobilization method in particular.

Can emergency nurses safely and accurately remove cervical spine collars in low risk adult trauma patients: An integrative review

BACKGROUND

Well validated clinical decision rules exist to facilitate the safe removal of collars in the alert, orientated, low risk adult trauma patient, however this practice is traditionally conducted by medical staff. The aim of this review is to synthesise current evidence to determine the efficacy of emergency nurses in safely and accurately removing cervical spine collars using cervical spine rules, in alert, orientated, low risk trauma adult patients.

METHODS

A multi-method search strategy was used to find primary research studies followed by a rigorous screening and quality appraisal process. Data from included articles were extracted, grouped and synthesised.

RESULTS

Nine quantitative research articles resulted in four key findings: the inter-rater reliability between nurses and doctors clearing the cervical spine was high (kappa range (0.61-0.80)); nurses can safely implement the cervical spine clinical decision rule; use of a cervical spine clinical decision rule decreases the time patients are immobilised and; nurses felt confident applying a cervical spine clinical decision rule.

CONCLUSION

Appropriately trained emergency nurses can safely apply cervical spine rules to alert, orientated, low risk adult trauma patients. Implementation of nurses clearing cervical spines should include training and ongoing monitoring.