The effectiveness of strapping techniques in spinal immobilization

Acute and Emergent Spinal Injury Assessment and Treatment

Sports participation is a leading cause of catastrophic cervical spine injury (CSI) in the United States. Appropriate prehospital care for athletes with suspected CSIs should be available at all levels of sport. Planning the process of transport for home venues before the start of the season and ensuring that a medical time out occurs at home and away games can reduce complications of transport decisions on the field of play and expedite transport of the spine-injured athlete.

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.

Best Practices and Current Care Concepts in Prehospital Care of the Spine-Injured Athlete in American Tackle Football March 2-3, 2019; Atlanta, GA

Sport-related spine injury can be devastating and have long-lasting effects on athletes and their families. Providing evidence-based care for patients with spine injury is essential for optimizing postinjury outcomes. When caring for an injured athlete in American tackle football, clinicians must make decisions that involve unique challenges related to protective equipment (eg, helmet and shoulder pads). The Spine Injury in Sport Group (SISG) met in Atlanta, Georgia, March 2-3, 2019, and involved 25 health care professionals with expertise in emergency medicine, sports medicine, neurologic surgery, orthopaedic surgery, neurology, physiatry, athletic training, and research to review the current literature and discuss evidence-based medicine, best practices, and care options available for the prehospital treatment of athletes with suspected cervical spine injuries.1,2 That meeting and the subsequent Mills et al publication delineate the quality and quantity of published evidence regarding many aspects of prehospital care for the athlete with a suspected cervical spine injury. This paper offers a practical treatment guide based on the experience of those who attended the Atlanta meeting as well as the evidence presented in the Mills et al article. Ongoing research will help to further advance clinical treatment recommendations.

Removal of the Long Spine Board From Clinical Practice: A Historical Perspective

Since the early 1970s, initial management of patients with suspected spinal injuries has involved the use of a cervical collar and long spine board for full immobilization, which was thought to prevent additional injury to the cervical spine. Despite a growing body of literature demonstrating the detrimental effects and questionable efficacy of spinal immobilization, the practice continued until 2013, when the National Association of EMS Physicians issued a position statement calling for a reduction in the use of spinal immobilization and a shift to spinal-motion restriction. This article examines the literature that prompted the change in spinal-injury management and the virtual elimination of the long spine board as a tool for transport.

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.

The Norwegian guidelines for the prehospital management of adult trauma patients with potential spinal injury

The traditional prehospital management of trauma victims with potential spinal injury has become increasingly questioned as authors and clinicians have raised concerns about over-triage and harm. In order to address these concerns, the Norwegian National Competence Service for Traumatology commissioned a faculty to provide a national guideline for pre-hospital spinal stabilisation. This work is based on a systematic review of available literature and a standardised consensus process. The faculty recommends a selective approach to spinal stabilisation as well as the implementation of triaging tools based on clinical findings. A strategy of minimal handling should be observed.

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

BACKGROUND

Spinal immobilisation has been a mainstay of trauma care for decades and is based on the premise that immobilisation will prevent further neurological compromise in patients with a spinal column injury. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the evidence related to spinal immobilisation in pre-hospital and emergency care settings.

METHODS

In February 2015, we performed a systematic literature review of English language publications from 1966 to January 2015 indexed in MEDLINE and Cochrane library using the following search terms: 'spinal injuries' OR 'spinal cord injuries' AND 'emergency treatment' OR 'emergency care' OR 'first aid' AND immobilisation. EMBASE was searched for keywords 'spinal injury OR 'spinal cord injury' OR 'spine fracture AND 'emergency care' OR 'prehospital care'.

RESULTS

There were 47 studies meeting inclusion criteria for further review. Ten studies were case series (level of evidence IV) and there were 37 studies from which data were extrapolated from healthy volunteers, cadavers or multiple trauma patients. There were 15 studies that were supportive, 13 studies that were neutral, and 19 studies opposing spinal immobilisation.

CONCLUSION

There are no published high-level studies that assess the efficacy of spinal immobilisation in pre-hospital and emergency care settings. Almost all of the current evidence is related to spinal immobilisation is extrapolated data, mostly from healthy volunteers.

EMS spinal precautions and the use of the long backboard - resource document to the position statement of the National Association of EMS Physicians and the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma

Field spinal immobilization using a backboard and cervical collar has been standard practice for patients with suspected spine injury since the 1960s. The backboard has been a component of field spinal immobilization despite lack of efficacy evidence. While the backboard is a useful spinal protection tool during extrication, use of backboards is not without risk, as they have been shown to cause respiratory compromise, pain, and pressure sores. Backboards also alter a patient's physical exam, resulting in unnecessary radiographs. Because backboards present known risks, and their value in protecting the spinal cord of an injured patient remains unsubstantiated, they should only be used judiciously. The following provides a discussion of the elements of the National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP) and American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT) position statement on EMS spinal precautions and the use of the long backboard. This discussion includes items where there is supporting literature and items where additional science is needed.

Pre-hospital care management of a potential spinal cord injured patient: a systematic review of the literature and evidence-based guidelines

An interdisciplinary expert panel of medical and surgical specialists involved in the management of patients with potential spinal cord injuries (SCI) was assembled. Four key questions were created that were of significant interest. These were: (1) what is the optimal type and duration of pre-hospital spinal immobilization in patients with acute SCI?; (2) during airway manipulation in the pre-hospital setting, what is the ideal method of spinal immobilization?; (3) what is the impact of pre-hospital transport time to definitive care on the outcomes of patients with acute spinal cord injury?; and (4) what is the role of pre-hospital care providers in cervical spine clearance and immobilization? A systematic review utilizing multiple databases was performed to determine the current evidence about the specific questions, and each article was independently reviewed and assessed by two reviewers based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Guidelines were then created related to the questions by a national Canadian expert panel using the Delphi method for reviewing the evidence-based guidelines about each question. Recommendations about the key questions included: the pre-hospital immobilization of patients using a cervical collar, head immobilization, and a spinal board; utilization of padded boards or inflatable bean bag boards to reduce pressure; transfer of patients off of spine boards as soon as feasible, including transfer of patients off spinal boards while awaiting transfer from one hospital institution to another hospital center for definitive care; inclusion of manual in-line cervical spine traction for airway management in patients requiring intubation in the pre-hospital setting; transport of patients with acute traumatic SCI to the definitive hospital center for care within 24 h of injury; and training of emergency medical personnel in the pre-hospital setting to apply criteria to clear patients of cervical spinal injuries, and immobilize patients suspected of having cervical spinal injury.

National athletic trainers' association position statement: acute management of the cervical spine-injured athlete

OBJECTIVE

To provide certified athletic trainers, team physicians, emergency responders, and other health care professionals with recommendations on how to best manage a catastrophic cervical spine injury in the athlete.

BACKGROUND

The relative incidence of catastrophic cervical spine injury in sports is low compared with other injuries. However, cervical spine injuries necessitate delicate and precise management, often involving the combined efforts of a variety of health care providers. The outcome of a catastrophic cervical spine injury depends on the efficiency of this management process and the timeliness of transfer to a controlled environment for diagnosis and treatment.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Recommendations are based on current evidence pertaining to prevention strategies to reduce the incidence of cervical spine injuries in sport; emergency planning and preparation to increase management efficiency; maintaining or creating neutral alignment in the cervical spine; accessing and maintaining the airway; stabilizing and transferring the athlete with a suspected cervical spine injury; managing the athlete participating in an equipment-laden sport, such as football, hockey, or lacrosse; and considerations in the emergency department.

Acquiring and maintaining competence in the application of extrication cervical collars by a group of first responders

INTRODUCTION

Research on skill acquisition and retention in the prehospital setting has focused primarily on resuscitation and defibrillation. Investigation into other first aid skills is required in order to validate practices and support training regimes. No studies have investigated competency using an extrication cervical collar for cervical spine immobilization.

OBJECTIVE

This study was conducted to confirm that a group of first responders could acquire and maintain competency in the application of an extrication cervical collar over a 12-month period.

METHODS

Participants attended a standardized training session that addressed the theory of application of an extrication cervical collar followed by hands-on practice. The training was presented by the same instructor and covered the nine key elements necessary in order to be deemed competent in extraction cervical collar application. Following the practical session, the competency of the participants was assessed. Participants were requested not to practice the skill during the 12-month period. Following the 12-month period, their skills were re-assessed by the same assessor.

RESULTS

Of the 64 subjects who participated in the study, 100% were competent after the initial first assessment. Forty-one participants (64%) were available for the second assessment (12 months later); of these, 25 (61%) maintained competence.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the sample size was small, this research demonstrates that first responders are able to acquire competence in applying an extrication cervical collar. However, skill retention in the absence of usage or re-training is poor. Larger studies should be conducted to validate these results. In addition, there is a need for research on the clinical practice and outcomes associated with spinal immobilization in the prehospital setting.

Prehospital spinal immobilization and the backboard quality assessment study

INTRODUCTION

Prehospital spinal immobilization (PSI) for patients with suspected spinal injury has been the universal standard of practice for emergency medical services (EMS) in the United States since the early 1970s. PSI research has faced numerous methodological difficulties, including an inability to evaluate whether the immobilizations being studied were carried out appropriately. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of spinal immobilization to a long spine board in patients presenting via EMS to an emergency department (ED).

METHODS

All noncritically ill patients presenting to a tertiary care academic trauma center who had been immobilized on a long spine board for EMS transport were approached for enrollment. Each subject was evaluated for the number and location of restraining straps and their degree of tightness.

RESULTS

Of 50 consenting subjects, 15 (30%) had at least one unattached strap or piece of tape that should have attached their head to the board. Of 50 subjects, 44 (88%) were found to have greater than 2 cm of slack between their body and at least one strap. Among those with any straps looser than 2 cm, the average number of loose straps was 3.4.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that many patients are not well immobilized on arrival at the Emergency department.

Effects of prehospital spinal immobilization: a systematic review of randomized trials on healthy subjects

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of spinal immobilization on healthy participants.

METHODS

A systematic review of randomized, controlled trials of spinal immobilization on healthy participants.

RESULTS

Seventeen randomized, controlled trials compared different types of immobilization devices, including collars, backboards, splints, and body strapping. For immobilization efficacy, collars, spine boards, vacuum splints, and abdominal/torso strapping provided a significant reduction in spinal movement. Adverse effects of spinal immobilization included a significant increase in respiratory effort, skin ischemia, pain, and discomfort.

CONCLUSIONS

Data from this review provide the best available evidence to support the well-recognized efficacy and potential adverse effects of spinal immobilization. However, comparisons of different immobilization strategies on trauma victims must be considered in order to establish an evidence base for this practice.

Cervical spine immobilization before admission to the hospital

STANDARDS

There is insufficient evidence to support treatment standards.

GUIDELINES

There is insufficient evidence to support treatment guidelines.

OPTIONS

All trauma patients with a cervical spinal column injury or with a mechanism of injury having the potential to cause cervical spine injury should be immobilized at the scene and during transport by using one of several available methods. A combination of a rigid cervical collar and supportive blocks on a backboard with straps is effective in limiting motion of the cervical spine and is recommended. The long-standing practice of attempted cervical spine immobilization using sandbags and tape alone is not recommended.

Spinal immobilisation for trauma patients

BACKGROUND

Spinal immobilisation involves the use of a number of devices and strategies to stabilise the spinal column after injury and thus prevent spinal cord damage. The practice is widely recommended and widely used in trauma patients with suspected spinal cord injury in the pre-hospital setting.

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the effect of different methods of spinal immobilisation (including immobilisation versus no immobilisation) on mortality, neurological disability, spinal stability and adverse effects in trauma patients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trial Register (CCTR), the specialised register of the Cochrane Injuries Group, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PubMed and the National Research Register. We checked reference lists of all articles and contacted experts in the field to identify eligible trials. Manufacturers of spinal immobilisation devices were also contacted for information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing spinal immobilisation strategies in trauma patients with suspected spinal cord injury. Trials in healthy volunteers were excluded.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently applied eligibility criteria to trial reports and extracted data.

MAIN RESULTS

We found no randomised controlled trials of spinal immobilisation strategies in trauma patients.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

We did not find any randomised controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria. The effect of spinal immobilisation on mortality, neurological injury, spinal stability and adverse effects in trauma patients remains uncertain. Because airway obstruction is a major cause of preventable death in trauma patients, and spinal immobilisation, particularly of the cervical spine, can contribute to airway compromise, the possibility that immobilisation may increase mortality and morbidity cannot be excluded. Large prospective studies are needed to validate the decision criteria for spinal immobilisation in trauma patients with high risk of spinal injury. Randomised controlled trials in trauma patients are required to establish the relative effectiveness of alternative strategies for spinal immobilisation.

The efficacy of head immobilization techniques during simulated vehicle motion

STUDY DESIGN

Laboratory experiment.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy of different head immobilization techniques during motion simulating ambulance transport.

BACKGROUND

A significant number of neurologic injuries associated with cervical spine fractures arise or are aggravated during emergency extrication or patient transport. Previous studies have not addressed the effect of head immobilization on the passive motion that could occur across the neck during transport.

METHODS

Three different head-immobilization methods were compared in six healthy young adults by using a computer-controlled moving platform to simulate the swaying and jarring movements that can occur during ambulance transport. In all tests, the trunk was secured by means of a commonly used "criss-cross" strapping technique. Efficacy of head immobilization was evaluated using measures of head motion and neck rotation.

RESULTS

None of the three immobilization techniques was successful in eliminating head motion or neck rotation. Movement of the trunk contributed substantially to the lateral bending that occurred across the neck. A new product involving the placement of wedges underneath the head provided some small, but statistically significant improvements in fixation of the head to the fracture board; however, there was no improvement in terms of the relative motion occurring across the neck.

CONCLUSIONS

Somewhat improved fixation of the head to the fracture board can be achieved by placing wedges under the head; however, the benefits of any fixation method, in terms of cervical spine immobilization, are likely to be limited unless the motion of the trunk is also controlled effectively. Future research and development should address techniques to better control head and trunk motion.

The Kendrick extrication device used for pediatric spinal immobilization

Immobilizing a child presents a unique challenge for emergency medical services (EMS) personnel in addition to those challenges faced when immobilizing an adult. Most equipment commonly carried by EMS personnel is sized for adult use and as a result does not routinely provide adequate static or dynamic immobilization of a child. In addition, children often resist immobilization and can free themselves from standard strapping techniques. These problems have led to the modification of existing equipment and the development of several pediatric-specific devices. An ideal pediatric immobilization device would be one that uses an existing piece of equipment, is of limited additional cost, is routinely used by EMS providers, could be easily modified to immobilize a child, could easily be taught to EMS providers, and provides excellent static and dynamic immobilization. The Kendrick extrication device (KED) used as the authors describe meets these goals of an ideal pediatric immobilization device.

Can EMS providers adequately assess trauma patients for cervical spinal injury?

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether EMS providers can accurately apply the clinical criteria for clearing cervical spines in trauma patients.

METHODS

EMS providers completed a data form based on their initial assessments of all adult trauma patients for whom the mechanism of injury indicated immobilization. Data collected included the presence or absence of: neck pain/tenderness; altered mental status; history of loss of consciousness; drug/alcohol use; neurologic deficit; and other painful/distracting injury. After transport to the ED, emergency physicians (EPs) completed an identical data form based on their assessments. Immobilization was considered to be indicated if any one of the six criteria was present. The EPs and EMS providers were blinded to each other's assessments. Agreement between the EP and EMS assessments was analyzed using the kappa statistic.

RESULTS

Five-hundred seventy-three patients were included in the study. The EP and EMS assessments matched in 78.7% (n = 451) of the cases. There were 44 (7.7%) patients for whom EP assessment indicated immobilization, but the EMS assessment did not. The kappa for the individual components of the assessments ranged from 0.35 to 0.81, with the kappa for the decision to immobilize being 0.48. The EMS providers' assessments were generally more conservative than the EPs'.

CONCLUSION

EMS and EP assessments to rule out cervical spinal injury have moderate to substantial agreement. However, the authors recommend that systems allowing EMS providers to decide whether to immobilize patients should follow those patients closely to ensure appropriate care and to provide immediate feedback to the EMS providers.

Quantifying the scanty science of prehospital emergency care

Research can produce false-positive results just as can diagnostic tests. Uncontrolled studies have a specificity of only 11%, versus 88% for randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which have been designed to minimize the bias of investigators toward a positive outcome. A search of all the scientific studies in Medicine since 1985 revealed 5,842 publications on prehospital EMS, but only 54 were RCTs (and therefore unlikely to produce false-positive results). By way of comparison, during the same time hundreds of RCTs have been conducted on major medical emergency conditions, and RCTs on even minor topics such as urticaria and constipation exceed the scientific database on all of EMS. Of the 54 EMS RCTs, 4 (7%) reported harm from the new therapy, and 74% reported no effect of the new therapy at all. Only 7 (13%) RCTs showing a positive outcome of the intervention were uncontradicted; of these only 1 examined a major outcome such as survival, and only 1 compared the intervention with a placebo and could therefore evaluate the efficacy of EMS itself. Because there is such a paucity of scientific support for EMS interventions and because monitoring of outcomes and adverse effects is so poor, a serious reexamination of EMS practice is indicated.

The perceived importance of paramedic skills and the emphasis they receive during EMS education programs

OBJECTIVE

The National Standard Curriculum for paramedics is currently being revised. There is little scientific evidence of what does and what does not work in prehospital care, and of whether the National Standard Curriculum prepares paramedics for the field. To provide some basis for the current revisions to the National Standard Curriculum, the authors determined which prehospital skills are perceived by paramedics to be the most important, and whether the emphasis placed on those skills during initial and continuing education programs corresponds with the perceived importance.

METHODS

Surveys listing 21 paramedic skills were mailed to the directors of 41 EMS agencies who agreed to participate in the study. The directors distributed the surveys to 1,364 paramedics affiliated with their organizations. The participants were asked to rate the importance of each skill, and the emphasis placed on each skill during their initial and continuing education. Skills were ranked on a scale of 0 to 4, with 0 representing no importance or emphasis, and 4 representing the most possible importance or emphasis.

RESULTS

Six-hundred of the 1,364 (44%) surveys were returned. Respondents had a mean of 9.9 +/- 5.6 years of EMS experience, and 5.4 +/- 4.0 years of experience as paramedics. The three skills ranked highest in importance were: 1) endotracheal intubation; 2) defibrillation; and 3) assessment. Importance in prehospital care was ranked equal to or higher than emphasis in both initial and continuing education for all skills except splinting and urinary catheterization, which received higher rankings for emphasis in initial education. Emphasis in initial education equaled or exceeded the emphasis in continuing education for all skills except intraosseous infusion.

CONCLUSION

The perceived importance of most prehospital skills is very high, and exceeds the emphasis placed on those skills during both initial and continuing education programs. These findings have implications for medical directors, EMS instructors, and persons involved with the revision of the National Standard Curriculum.

Optimal positioning for cervical immobilization

STUDY OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that optimal positioning of the head and neck to protect the spinal cord during cervical spine immobilization can be determined with reference to external landmarks. In this study we sought to determine the optimal position for cervical spine immobilization using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and to define this optimal position in a clinically reproducible fashion.

METHODS

Our subjects were 19 healthy adult volunteers (11 women, 8 men). In each, we positioned the head to produce various degrees of neck flexion and extension. This positioning was followed by quantitative MRI of the cervical spine.

RESULTS

The mean ratio of spinal canal and spinal cord cross-sectional areas was smallest at C6 but exceeded 2.0 at all levels from C2 to T1 (P < .05). At the C5 and C6 levels, the maximal area ratio was most consistently obtained with slight flexion (cervical-thoracic angle of 14 degrees) (P < .05). For a patient lying flat on a backboard, this corresponds to raising the occiput 2 cm. More extreme flexion or extension produced variable results.

CONCLUSION

In healthy adults, a slight degree of flexion equivalent to 2 cm of occiput elevation produces a favorable increase in spinal canal/spinal cord ration at levels C5 and C6, a region of frequent unstable spine injuries.

A review of spinal immobilization techniques

Immobilization of the spine is an important skill for all emergency providers. This article reviews the literature regarding the equipment, adjuncts, and techniques involved in spinal immobilization. Current prehospital practice is to apply spinal immobilization liberally in cases of suspected neck or back injury. Rigid cervical collars, long backboards, and straps remain the standard implements for immobilizing supine patients. Tape, foam blocks, and towels can complement the basic items and improve stability. Padding may improve positioning and comfort. Intermediate-stage devices include the short backboard and newer commercial devices. Properly used, all provide reasonable immobilization of the sitting patient. Future directions for study include refinement of optimal body position, dynamic performance of all devices, and broadening study populations to include children and the elderly.