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

Cervical immobilization in trauma patients: soft collars better than rigid collars? A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Rigid cervical spine following trauma immobilization is recommended to reduce neurological disability and provide spinal stability. Soft collars have been proposed as a good alternative because of the complications related to rigid collars. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review on soft and rigid collars in the prehospital management of cervical trauma.

METHOD

A systematic review was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. Search terms were (immobilization) AND (collar) AND ((neck) OR (cervical)) to evaluate the range of motion (ROM) and evidence of clinical outcome for soft and rigid collars.

RESULTS

A total of 18 studies met eligibility criteria including 2 clinical studies and 16 articles investigating the range of motion (ROM). Four hundred and ninety-six patients at a mean age of 32.5 years (SD 16.8) were included. Measurements were performed in a seated position in twelve studies. Eight articles reported the ROM without a collar, 7 with a soft collar, and 15 with a rigid collar. There was no significant difference in flexion/extension, bending and rotation following immobilization with soft collars compared to no collar. Rigid collars provided significantly higher stability compared to no collar (p < 0.005) and to soft collars in flexion/extension and rotation movements (p < 0.05). The retrospective clinical studies showed no significant differences in secondary spinal cord injuries for soft collar (0.5%) and for rigid collar (1.1%). One study, comparing immobilization without a collar compared to that with a rigid collar, found a significant difference in neurologic deficiency and supraclavicular nerve lesion.

CONCLUSION

Although rigid collars provide significant higher stability to no collar and to soft collars in flexion/ extension and rotation movements, clinical studies could not confirm a difference in neurological outcome.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II, Systematic Review.

A T2 Translational Science Modified Delphi Study: Spinal Motion Restriction in a Resource-Scarce Environment

INTRODUCTION

Emerging evidence is guiding changes in prehospital management of potential spinal injuries. The majority of settings related to current recommendations are in resource-rich environments (RREs), whereas there is a lack of guidance on the provision of spinal motion restriction (SMR) in resource-scarce environments (RSEs), such as: mass-casualty incidents (MCIs); low-middle income countries; complex humanitarian emergencies; conflict zones; and prolonged transport times. The application of Translational Science (TS) in the Disaster Medicine (DM) context was used to develop this study, leading to statements that can be used in the creation of evidence-based clinical guidelines (CGs).

OBJECTIVE

What is appropriate SMR in RSEs?

METHODS

The first round of this modified Delphi (mD) study was a structured focus group conducted at the World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine (WADEM) Congress in Brisbane Australia on May 9, 2019. The result of the focus group discussion of open-ended questions produced ten statements that were added to ten statements derived from Fischer (2018) to create the second mD round questionnaire.Academic researchers and educators, operational first responders, or first receivers of patients with suspected spinal injuries were identified to be mD experts. Experts rated their agreement with each statement on a seven-point linear numeric scale. Consensus amongst experts was defined as a standard deviation ≤1.0. Statements that were in agreement reaching consensus were included in the final report; those that were not in agreement but reached consensus were removed from further consideration. Those not reaching consensus advanced to the third mD round.For subsequent rounds, experts were shown the mean response and their own response for each of the remaining statements and asked to reconsider their rating. As above, those that did not reach consensus advanced to the next round until consensus was reached for each statement.

RESULTS

Twenty-two experts agreed to participate with 19 completing the second mD round and 16 completing the third mD round. Eleven statements reached consensus. Nine statements did not reach consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

Experts reached consensus offering 11 statements to be incorporated into the creation of SMR CGs in RSEs. The nine statements that did not reach consensus can be further studied and potentially modified to determine if these can be considered in SMR CGs in RSEs.