Maximizing comfort and minimizing ischemia: a comparison of four methods of spinal immobilization

Patient outcomes before and after implementation of a selective pre-hospital spinal immobilization protocol: A comparative cohort pilot study in a level 2 trauma center

BACKGROUND

A new selective preventive spinal immobilization (PSI) protocol was introduced in the Netherlands. This may have led to an increase in non-immobilized spinal fractures (NISFs) and consequently adverse patient outcomes.

AIM

A pilot study was conducted to describe the adverse patient outcomes in NISF of the PSI protocol change and assess the feasibility of a larger effect study.

METHODS

Retrospective comparative cohort pilot study including records of trauma patients with a presumed spinal injury who were presented at the emergency department of a level 2 trauma center by the emergency medical service (EMS). The pre-period 2013-2014 (strict PSI protocol), was compared to the post-period 2017-2018 (selective PSI protocol). Primary outcomes were the percentage of records with a NISF who had an adverse patient outcome such as neurological injuries and mortality before and after the protocol change. Secondary outcomes were the sample size calculation for a larger study and the feasibility of data collection.

RESULTS

1,147 records were included; 442 pre-period, and 705 post-period. The NISF-prevalence was 10% (95% CI 7-16, n = 19) and 8% (95% CI 6-11, n = 33), respectively. In both periods, no neurological injuries or mortality due to NISF were found, by which calculating a sample size is impossible. Data collection showed to be feasible.

CONCLUSIONS

No neurological injuries or mortality due to NISF were found in a strict and a selective PSI protocol. Therefore, a larger study is discouraged. Future studies should focus on which patients really profit from PSI and which patients do not.

Impact of cervical spine immobilization on clinical outcomes in traumatic brain injury patients according to prehospital mean arterial pressure: A multinational and multicenter observational study

Cervical spine immobilization (CSI) has been considered an essential part of first aid management after severe trauma; however, the routine use of CSI for traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients is a matter of debate. The purpose of our study was to analyze the effect of CSI on the clinical outcomes of TBI patients and to analyze whether this effect depends on the prehospital mean arterial pressure (MAP) This was a prospective multi-national, multi-center cohort study using Pan-Asian trauma outcome study registry in Asian-Pacific, conducted on adult trauma patients. The main exposure was the implementation of CSI before hospital arrival. The main outcome was poor functional recovery at hospital discharge measured by the modified rankin scale. We performed multilevel logistic regression analysis to estimated the effect size of CSI for study outcomes. Interaction analysis between CSI and MAP on study outcomes were also conducted. CSI for TBI patients is significantly associated with an increased poor functional outcome (adjusted odd ratio, 95% confidence intervals: 1.23 [1.03 - 1.44]). The association of CSI with poor functional outcomes was maintained only in patients with decreased prehospital MAP (1.38 [1.14 - 1.56]), but not in patients with normal MAP (1.12 [0.93 - 1.24]) (P for interaction < .05). Routine use of CSI for patients with TBI, but without cervical spine injury, is associated with poor functional outcomes, but is significant only when the MAP, measured at the scene, was decreased.

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.

Comparing the Efficacy of Methods for Immobilizing the Cervical Spine

STUDY DESIGN

This was a prospective simulator study with 16 healthy male subjects.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the relative efficacy of immobilization systems in limiting involuntary movements of the cervical spine using a dynamic simulation model.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Relatively few studies have tested the efficacy of immobilization methods for limiting involuntary cervical movement, and only one of these studies used a dynamic simulation system to do so.

METHODS

Immobilization configurations tested were cot alone, cot with cervical collar, long spine board (LSB) with cervical collar and head blocks, and vacuum mattress (VM) with cervical collar. A motion platform reproduced shocks and vibrations from ambulance and helicopter field rides, as well as more severe shocks and vibrations that might be encountered on rougher terrain and in inclement weather (designated as an "augmented" ride). Motion capture technology quantitated involuntary cervical rotation, flexion/extension, and lateral bend. The mean and 95% confidence interval of the mean were calculated for the root mean square of angular changes from the starting position and for the maximum range of motion.

RESULTS

All configurations tested decreased cervical rotation and flexion/extension relative to the cot alone. However, the LSB and VM were significantly more effective in decreasing cervical rotation than the cervical collar, and the LSB decreased rotation more than the VM in augmented rides. The LSB and VM, but not the cervical collar, significantly limited cervical lateral bend relative to the cot alone.

CONCLUSION

Under the study conditions, the LSB and the VM were more effective in limiting cervical movement than the cervical collar. Under some conditions, the LSB decreased repetitive and acute movements more than the VM. Further studies using simulation and other approaches will be essential for determining the safest, most effective configuration should providers choose to immobilize patients with suspected spinal injuries.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

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.

Cervical spine trauma evaluation

Cervical spine trauma is a relatively rare but catastrophic event in sports. These critical situations depend on sports medicine personnel understanding every aspect of sideline care to ensure a safe and successful evaluation. This involves thorough preparation, vigilant observation of the sporting event to detect the possible mechanism of injury, and initiation of the appropriate action plan when a potentially catastrophic injury is suspected. Sideline management of cervical spine trauma requires the appropriate primary survey, with spine stabilization if necessary, secondary survey for concomitant injury, and, potentially, initiation of full spine stabilization with a spine board. In this chapter, our primary focus is discussion of the sideline evaluation of cervical spine trauma, and sideline practices designed to stabilize the athlete and minimize risk for further injury.

The Burden of Spine Fractures in India: A Prospective Multicenter Study

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were (1) to determine the characteristics of patients sustaining spinal trauma in India and (2) to explore the association between patient or injury characteristics and outcomes after spinal trauma.

METHODS

In affiliation with the ongoing INternational ORthopaedic MUlticentre Study (INORMUS), 192 patients with spinal injuries were recruited during an 8-week period (November 2011 to June 2012) from 14 hospitals in India and followed for 30-days. The primary outcome was a composite of mortality, complications, and reoperation. This was regressed on a set of 13 predictors in a multiple logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Most patients were middle-aged (mean age = 51.0 years; median age = 55.5 years; range = 18.0 to 72.0 years), male (60.4%), injured from falls (72.4%), and treated in a private setting (59.9%). Fractures in the lumbar region (51.0%) were most common, followed by thoracic (30.7%) and cervical (18.2%). More than 1 in 5 (21.6%) patients experienced a treatment delay greater than 24 hours, and 36.5% arrived by ambulance. Thirty-day mortality and complication rates were 2.6% and 10.0%, respectively. Care in the public hospital system (odds ratio [OR] = 6.7, 95% CI = 1.1-41.6), chest injury (OR = 11.1, 95% CI = 1.8-66.9), and surgical intervention (OR = 4.8, 95% CI = 1.2-19.6) were independent predictors of major complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment in the public health care system, increased severity of injury, and surgical intervention were associated with increased risk of major complications following spinal trauma. The need for a large-scale, prospective, multicenter study taking into account spinal stability and neurologic status is feasible and warranted.

Cervical spine immobilization in the elderly population

BACKGROUND

Immobilization of the cervical spine is a cornerstone of spinal injury management. In the context of suspected cervical spine injury, patients are immobilized in a 'neutral position' based on the head and trunk resting on a flat surface. It is hypothesized that the increased thoracic kyphosis and loss of cervical lordosis seen in elderly patients may require alternative cervical immobilization, compared with the 'neutral position'.

METHODS

To investigate this, an audit of pan-scan CT performed on consecutive major trauma patients aged over 65 years was carried out over a 6-month period. Utilizing the pan-CT's localizing scout film, a novel measurement, the 'chin-brow horizontal' angle was independently measured by a senior spine surgeon (RJM) and a neurosurgeon (PJR) with the gantry used as a horizontal zero- degree reference. The benefit of the 'chin-brow horizontal' angle in the trauma setting is it can be assessed from the bedside whilst the patient is immobilized against a flat surface.

RESULTS

During the 6-month study period, 58 patients were identified (30 male, 28 female), with an average age of 77.6 years (minimum 65, maximum 97). Results showed that 'chin-brow horizontal' angles varied widely, between +15.8 degrees in flexion to -30.5 degrees in extension (mean -12.4 degrees in extension, standard deviation 9.31 degrees. The interobserver correlation was 0.997 (95% CI: 0.995-0.998).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that, due to degenerative changes commonly seen in elderly patients, the routine use of the 'neutral position' adopted for cervical spine immobilization may not be appropriate in this population. We suggest that consideration be taken in cervical spine immobilization, with patients assessed on an individual basis including the fracture morphology, to minimize the risk of fracture displacement and worsened neurological deficit.

Ergonomics intervention on an alternative design of a spinal board

A spinal board is the evacuation tool of first aid to help the injured spinal cord. The existing spinal board has several weaknesses, both in terms of user comfort and the effectiveness and efficiency of the evacuation process. This study designs an ergonomic spinal board using the quality function deployment approach. A preliminary survey was conducted through direct observation and interviews with volunteers from the Indonesian Red Cross. Data gathered were translated into a questionnaire and answered by 47 participants in West Sumatra. The results indicate that the selection of materials, the application of strap systems as well as the addition of features are very important in designing an ergonomic spinal board. The data were used in designing an ergonomic spinal board. The use of anthropometric data ensures that this product can accommodate safety and comfort when immobilized, as well as the flexibility and speed of the rescue evacuation process.

Comparison of three prehospital cervical spine protocols for missed injuries

Introduction

We wanted to compare 3 existing emergency medical services (EMS) immobilization protocols: the Prehospital Trauma Life Support (PHTLS, mechanism-based); the Domeier protocol (parallels the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study [NEXUS] criteria); and the Hankins’ criteria (immobilization for patients <12 or >65 years, those with altered consciousness, focal neurologic deficit, distracting injury, or midline or paraspinal tenderness).To determine the proportion of patients who would require cervical immobilization per protocol and the number of missed cervical spine injuries, had each protocol been followed with 100% compliance.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study of patients ≥18 years transported by EMS post-traumatic mechanism to an inner city emergency department. Demographic and clinical/historical data obtained by physicians were recorded prior to radiologic imaging. Medical record review ascertained cervical spine injuries. Both physicians and EMS were blinded to the objective of the study.

Results

Of 498 participants, 58% were male and mean age was 48 years. The following participants would have required cervical spine immobilization based on the respective protocol: PHTLS, 95.4% (95% CI: 93.1–96.9%); Domeier, 68.7% (95% CI: 64.5–72.6%); Hankins, 81.5% (95% CI: 77.9–84.7%). There were 18 cervical spine injuries: 12 vertebral fractures, 2 subluxations/dislocations and 4 spinal cord injuries. Compliance with each of the 3 protocols would have led to appropriate cervical spine immobilization of all injured patients. In practice, 2 injuries were missed when the PHTLS criteria were mis-applied.

Conclusion

Although physician-determined presence of cervical spine immobilization criteria cannot be generalized to the findings obtained by EMS personnel, our findings suggest that the mechanism-based PHTLS criteria may result in unnecessary cervical spine immobilization without apparent benefit to injured patients. PHTLS criteria may also be more difficult to implement due to the subjective interpretation of the severity of the mechanism, leading to non-compliance and missed injury.

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.

Effects of unconsciousness during spinal immobilization on tissue-interface pressures: A randomized controlled trial comparing a standard rigid spineboard with a newly developed soft-layered long spineboard

BACKGROUND

Immobilization of the spine of patients with trauma at risk of spinal damage is usually performed using a rigid long spineboard or vacuum mattress, both during prehospital and in-hospital care. However, disadvantages of these immobilization devices in terms of discomfort and tissue-interface pressures have guided the development of soft-layered long spineboards. We compared tissue-interface pressures between awake and anaesthetized (unconscious) patients during immobilization on a rigid spineboard and a soft-layered long spineboard.

METHODS

In this comparative study, 30 anaesthetized patients were randomized to immobilization on either the rigid spineboard or the soft-layered spineboard for the duration of their elective surgery. Tissue-interface pressures measured using an Xsensor pressure-mapping device were compared with those of 30 healthy volunteers who were immobilized sequentially on the rigid spineboard and the soft-layered spineboard. Redness of the sacrum was also recorded for the anaesthetized patients immediately after the surgery.

RESULTS

For both anaesthetized patients and awake volunteers, tissue-interface pressures were significantly lower on the soft-layered spineboard than on the rigid spineboard, both at start and after 15min. On the soft-layered spineboard, tissue interface pressure and peak pressure index (PPI) for the sacrum were significantly lower for anaesthetized patients than for awake volunteers. Peak pressures and PPI on the rigid spineboard were equal for both groups. Tissue-interface pressures did not change significantly over time. Redness of the sacrum was significantly more pronounced on the rigid spineboard than on the soft-layered spineboard.

CONCLUSIONS

This prospective randomized controlled trial shows that using a soft-layered spineboard compared to a rigid spineboard for spinal immobilization resulted in lower tissue-interface pressures in both awake volunteers and anaesthetized patients. Moreover, tissue-interface pressures on the soft-layered spineboard were lower in anaesthetized patients than in awake volunteers. These findings show the importance of using a soft-layered spineboard to reduce tissue-interface pressure, especially for patients who cannot relieve pressure themselves by changing position.

Prehospital use of cervical collars in trauma patients: a critical review

The cervical collar has been routinely used for trauma patients for more than 30 years and is a hallmark of state-of-the-art prehospital trauma care. However, the existing evidence for this practice is limited: Randomized, controlled trials are largely missing, and there are uncertain effects on mortality, neurological injury, and spinal stability. Even more concerning, there is a growing body of evidence and opinion against the use of collars. It has been argued that collars cause more harm than good, and that we should simply stop using them. In this critical review, we discuss the pros and cons of collar use in trauma patients and reflect on how we can move our clinical practice forward. Conclusively, we propose a safe, effective strategy for prehospital spinal immobilization that does not include routine use of collars.

The effect of seat shape on the risk of pressure ulcers using discomfort and interface pressure measurements

BACKGROUND

It is clinically known that shape is important when selecting or designing a wheelchair support surface for the prevention of pressure ulcers (a £ 2 billion annual cost to the National Health Service, UK); however, the effect of different levels of shape contouring has not been adequately studied.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effect of seat shape on the risk of pressure ulcers using discomfort and interface pressure measurements.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomised, repeated trial.

METHODS

Thirty able-bodied participants sat with restricted movement for 30 min in three sessions to evaluate two cushion shapes against a flat baseline surface. Visual Analog Scaling and pressure mapping were used to measure surrogates for pressure ulcer risk, discomfort and interface pressures, respectively.

RESULTS

Linear regression revealed a reduction in discomfort (p < 0.05) on the custom contoured shapes. Interface pressures measured were also lower (p < 0.05) on the custom contoured shapes, and a negative Pearson's correlation (p < 0.05) indicated an association between smaller hip widths and increased discomfort for the commercially shaped cushion.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study confirm that custom contoured shapes were effective at reducing pressure ulcer surrogate measures in the participants of this study and therefore suggests that the contribution of a cushion's three-dimensional contours on pressure ulcer risk should be further researched.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The measurement of seat shape, discomfort and interface pressure in surrogate participants can help inform the design of wheelchair seating for individuals who are insensate or otherwise at risk of developing pressure ulcers. This knowledge can now be implemented using modern three-dimensional shape acquisition, analysis and fabrication technologies.

A numerical study to analyse the risk for pressure ulcer development on a spine board

BACKGROUND

Spine boards are used to immobilise accident victims suspected of having spinal injury. Guidelines about the maximum time patients remain on the board are often exceeded and on occasions may lead to pressure ulcers. Etiological research has shown that two processes ultimately lead to pressure ulcers:"Ischemic damage" which takes several hours to initiate and "deformation damage" at high strains. The latter process is very quick and the first signs of cell damage are already evident within minutes. Thus in order to minimise the risk of pressure ulcer development during prolonged loading, a new soft-layered long spine board has been designed.

METHODS

A subject specific numerical approach has been adopted to evaluate the prototype spine board in comparison to a conventional spine board, with reference to the estimated strains in the soft tissues adjacent to the sacrum in the supine position. The model geometry is derived from magnetic resonance images of three human volunteers in an unloaded situation. The loaded images are used to "tune" the material parameters of skin, fat and muscle. The prediction of the deformed contours on the soft-layered board is used to validate the model.

FINDINGS

Comparison of the internal strains in muscle tissue near the spine showed that internal strains on the soft-layered board are reduced and maximum strains are considerably less than the threshold at which deformation damage is possible. By contrast, on the rigid spine board this threshold is exceeded in all cases.

INTERPRETATION

The prototype comfort board is able to reduce the risk for deformation damage and thus reduces the risk of developing pressure ulcers.

Effect of spinal immobilization on heart rate, blood pressure and respiratory rate

INTRODUCTION

Vital signs remain important clinical indicators in the management of trauma. Tissue injury and ischemia cause tachycardia and hypertension, which are mediated via the sympathetic nervous system (SNS). Spinal immobilization is known to cause discomfort, and it is not known how this might influence the SNS and contribute to abnormal vital signs. Hypothesis This study aimed to establish whether the pain and discomfort associated with spinal immobilization and the maneuvers commonly used in injured patients (eg, log roll) affect the Heart rate (HR), Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) and Respiratory rate (RR). The null hypothesis was that there are no effects.

METHODS

A prospective, unblinded, repeated-measure study of 53 healthy subjects was used to test the null hypothesis. Heart rate, BP and RR were measured at rest (five minutes), after spinal immobilization (10 minutes), following log roll, with partial immobilization (10 minutes) and again at rest (five minutes). A visual analog scale (VAS) for both pain and discomfort were also collected at each stage. Results were statistically compared.

RESULTS

Pain VAS increased significantly during spinal immobilization (3.8 mm, P < .01). Discomfort VAS increased significantly during spinal immobilization, after log roll and during partial immobilization (17.7 mm, 5.8 mm and 8.9 mm, respectively; P < .001). Vital signs however, showed no clinically relevant changes. Discussion Spinal immobilization does not cause a change in vital signs despite a significant increase in pain and discomfort. Since no relationship appears to exist between immobilization and abnormal vital signs, abnormal vital signs in a clinical situation should not be considered to be the result of immobilization. Likewise, pain and discomfort in immobilized patients should not be disregarded due to lack of changes in vital signs.

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.

Evaluation of respiratory function during Reeves stretcher use

OBJECTIVE

We were aware of a small number of cases in our EMS system where patients in respiratory distress had a worsening of their condition after being removed from the home on a Reeves stretcher (RS). We sought to determine if this prehospital lifting device causes additional respiratory effort used in normal subjects by describing changes in heart rate, pulse oximetry, tidal volume, minute ventilation, and respiratory rate.

METHODS

Forty-nine subjects were entered into this study. Data were collected while the subject was supine on the floor in the RS and once while suspended over the floor in the device. A randomized crossover design was used. Ten subjects were excluded because of inadvertent omission of a nose plug during spirometry. Data points were recorded in the final minute of a 3-minute exposure. Three minutes was chosen to simulate a prehospital transport time from the scene to the ambulance. Minute ventilation, tidal volume, heart rate, pulse oximetry, and respiratory rate were recorded for each subject during each phase. Subjects were also asked to rate the difficulty of breathing using the modified Borg scale.

RESULTS

Data were obtained for 39 subjects. The mean respiratory rate while suspended was 9.9 +/- 3.0 breaths per minute compared to 9.1 +/- 2.5 breaths per minutes supine on the floor (p = 0.007). The mean minute ventilation while suspended in a RS was 8.17 +/- 3.25 L/min versus 7.37 +/- 2.37 while lying flat (p = 0.03). There was no difference in tidal volume, heart rate, pulse oximetry, or subjective modified Borg scale ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

Subjects suspended in a RS for 3 minutes had statistically higher respiratory rates and minute ventilation than the same subjects lying flat. Although these modest changes are clinically insignificant in normal subjects, they could present a significant challenge to subjects in respiratory distress.

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.

Comparison of a long spinal board and vacuum mattress for spinal immobilisation

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to compare the stability and comfort afforded by the long spinal board (backboard) and the vacuum mattress.

METHODS

Nine volunteers wearing standardised clothing and rigid neck collars were secured on to a backboard and vacuum mattress using a standard strapping arrangement. An operating department table was used to tilt the volunteers from 45 degrees head up to 45 degrees head down, and additionally 45 degrees laterally. Movements of the head, sternum, and pubic symphysis (pelvis) from a fixed position were then recorded. The comfort level during the procedure was assessed using a 10 point numerical rating scale (NRS) where 1=no pain and 10=worst pain imaginable.

RESULTS

The mean body movements in the head up position (23.3 v 6.66 mm), head down (40.89 v 8.33mm), and lateral tilt (18.33 v 4.26mm) were significantly greater on the backboard than on the vacuum mattress (p<0.01 for all planes of movement). Using the NRS the vacuum mattress (mean score=1.88) was significantly more comfortable than the backboard (mean score=5.22) (p<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

In the measured planes the vacuum mattress provides significantly superior stability and comfort than a backboard.

Spinal immobilization in trauma patients: is it really necessary?

The acute management of potential spinal injuries in trauma patients is undergoing radical reassessment. Until recently, it was mandatory that nearly all trauma patients be immobilized with a back board, hard cervical collar, head restraints, and body strapping until the spine could be cleared radiologically. This practice is still recommended by many references. It is now clear that this policy subjects most patients to expensive, painful, and potentially harmful treatment for little, if any, benefit. Low-risk patients can be safely cleared clinically, even by individuals who are not physicians. Patients at high risk for spinal instability should be removed from the hard surface to avoid tissue ischemia. Understanding the rationale for these changes requires knowledge of mechanisms of injury, physiology, and biomechanics as they apply to spinal injuries.

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.