Spine-board transfer techniques and the unstable cervical spine

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.

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.

Quantitative Approach Based on Wearable Inertial Sensors to Assess and Identify Motion and Errors in Techniques Used during Training of Transfers of Simulated c-Spine-Injured Patients

Patients with suspected spinal cord injuries undergo numerous transfers throughout treatment and care. Effective c-spine stabilization is crucial to minimize the impacts of the suspected injury. Healthcare professionals are trained to perform those transfers using simulation; however, the feedback on the manoeuvre is subjective. This paper proposes a quantitative approach to measure the efficacy of the c-spine stabilization and provide objective feedback during training. Methods. 3D wearable motion sensors are positioned on a simulated patient to capture the motion of the head and trunk during a training scenario. Spatial and temporal indicators associated with the motion can then be derived from the signals. The approach was developed and tested on data obtained from 21 paramedics performing the log-roll, a transfer technique commonly performed during prehospital and hospital care. Results. In this scenario, 55% of the c-spine motion could be explained by the difficulty of rescuers to maintain head and trunk alignment during the rotation part of the log-roll and their difficulty to initiate specific phases of the motion synchronously. Conclusion. The proposed quantitative approach has the potential to be used for personalized feedback during training sessions and could even be embedded into simulation mannequins to provide an innovative training solution.

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.

Comparison of the Vacuum Mattress versus the Spine Board Alone for Immobilization of the Cervical Spine Injured Patient: A Biomechanical Cadaveric Study

STUDY DESIGN

A biomechanical cadaveric study.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine the amount of motion generated in an unstable cervical spine fracture with use of the vacuum mattress versus the spine board alone. Our hypothesis is that the vacuum mattress will better immobilize an unstable cervical fracture.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Trauma patients in the United States are immobilized on a rigid spine board, whereas in many other places, vacuum mattresses are used with the proposed advantages of improved comfort and better immobilization of the spine.

METHODS

Unstable subaxial cervical injuries were surgically created in five fresh whole human cadavers. The amount of motion at the injured motion segment during testing was measured using a Fastrak, three-dimensional, electromagnetic motion analysis device (Polhemus Inc.). The measurements recorded in this investigation included maximum displacements during application and removal of the device, while tilting to 90°, during a bed transfer, and a lift onto a gurney. Linear and angular displacements were compared using the Generalized Linear Model analysis of variance for repeated measures for each of the six dependent variables (three planes of angulations and three axes of displacement).

RESULTS

There was more motion in all six planes of motion during the application process with use of the spine board alone, and this was statistically significant for axial rotation (P = 0.011), axial distraction (P = 0.035), medial-lateral translation (P = 0.027), and anteroposterior translation (P = 0.026). During tilting, there was more motion with just the spine board, but this was only statistically significant for anteroposterior translation (P = 0.033). With lifting onto the gurney, there was more motion with the spine board in all planes with statistical significance, except lateral bending. During the removal process, there was more motion with the spine board alone, and this was statistically significant for axial rotation (P = 0.035), lateral bending (P = 0.044), and axial distraction (P = 0.023).

CONCLUSION

There was more motion when using a spine board alone during typical maneuvers performed during early management of the spine injured patient than the vacuum mattress. There may be benefit of use of the vacuum mattress versus the spine board alone in preventing motion at an unstable, subaxial cervical spine injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

2.

Does the novel lateral trauma position cause more motion in an unstable cervical spine injury than the logroll maneuver?

OBJECTIVE

Prehospital personnel who lack advanced airway management training must rely on basic techniques when transporting unconscious trauma patients. The supine position is associated with a loss of airway patency when compared to lateral recumbent positions. Thus, an inherent conflict exists between securing an open airway using the recovery position and maintaining spinal immobilization in the supine position. The lateral trauma position is a novel technique that aims to combine airway management with spinal precautions. The objective of this study was to compare the spinal motion allowed by the novel lateral trauma position and the well-established log-roll maneuver.

METHODS

Using a full-body cadaver model with an induced globally unstable cervical spine (C5-C6) lesion, we investigated the mean range of motion (ROM) produced at the site of the injury in six dimensions by performing the two maneuvers using an electromagnetic tracking device.

RESULTS

Compared to the log-roll maneuver, the lateral trauma position caused similar mean ROM in five of the six dimensions. Only medial/lateral linear motion was significantly greater in the lateral trauma position (1.4mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4, 2.4mm)).

CONCLUSIONS

In this cadaver study, the novel lateral trauma position and the well-established log-roll maneuver resulted in comparable amounts of motion in an unstable cervical spine injury model. We suggest that the lateral trauma position may be considered for unconscious non-intubated trauma patients.

Safety of the lateral trauma position in cervical spine injuries: a cadaver model study

Background

Endotracheal intubation is not always an option for unconscious trauma patients. Prehospital personnel are then faced with the dilemma of maintaining an adequate airway without risking deleterious movement of a potentially unstable cervical spine. To address these two concerns various alternatives to the classical recovery position have been developed. This study aims to determine the amount of motion induced by the recovery position, two versions of the HAINES (High Arm IN Endangered Spine) position, and the novel lateral trauma position (LTP).

Method

We surgically created global cervical instability between the C5 and C6 vertebrae in five fresh cadavers. We measured the rotational and translational (linear) range of motion during the different maneuvers using an electromagnetic tracking device and compared the results using a general linear mixed model (GLMM) for regression.

Results

In the recovery position, the range of motion for lateral bending was 11.9°. While both HAINES positions caused a similar range of motion, the motion caused by the LTP was 2.6° less (P = 0.037). The linear axial range of motion in the recovery position was 13.0 mm. In comparison, the HAINES 1 and 2 positions showed significantly less motion (−5.8 and −4.6 mm, respectively), while the LTP did not (−4.0 mm, P = 0.067).

Conclusion

Our results indicate that in unconscious trauma patients, the LTP or one of the two HAINES techniques is preferable to the standard recovery position in cases of an unstable cervical spine injury.

Controlled Laboratory Comparison Study of Motion With Football Equipment in a Destabilized Cervical Spine: Three Spine-Board Transfer Techniques

Background

Numerous studies have shown that there are better alternatives to log rolling patients with unstable spinal injuries, although this method is still commonly used for placing patients onto a spine board. No previous studies have examined transfer maneuvers involving an injured football player with equipment in place onto a spine board.

Purpose

To test 3 different transfer maneuvers of an injured football player onto a spine board to determine which method most effectively minimizes spinal motion in an injured cervical spine model.

Study Design

Controlled laboratory study.

Methods

Five whole, lightly embalmed cadavers were fitted with shoulder pads and helmets and tested both before and after global instability was surgically created at C5-C6. An electromagnetic motion analysis device was used to assess the amount of angular and linear motion with sensors placed above and below the injured segment during transfer. Spine-boarding techniques evaluated were the log roll, the lift and slide, and the 8-person lift.

Results

The 8-person lift technique resulted in the least amount of angular and linear motion for all planes tested as compared with the lift-and-slide and log-roll techniques. This reached statistical significance for lateral bending (P = .031) and medial-lateral translation (P = .030) when compared with the log-roll maneuver. The lift-and-slide technique was significantly more effective at reducing motion than the log roll for axial rotation (P = .029) and lateral bending (P = .006).

Conclusion

The log roll resulted in the most motion at an unstable cervical injury as compared with the other 2 spine-boarding techniques examined. The 8-person lift and lift-and-slide techniques may both be more effective than the log roll at reducing unwanted cervical spine motion when spine boarding an injured football player. Reduction of such motion is critical in the prevention of iatrogenic injury.

Horizontal Slide Creates Less Cervical Motion When Centering an Injured Patient on a Spine Board

BACKGROUND

A patient with a suspected cervical spine injury may be at risk for secondary neurologic injury when initially placed and repositioned to the center of the spine board.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine which centering adjustment best limits cervical spine movement and minimizes the chance for secondary injury.

METHODS

Using five lightly embalmed cadaveric specimens with a created global instability at C5-C6, motion sensors were anchored to the anterior surface of the vertebral bodies. Three repositioning methods were used to center the cadavers on the spine board: horizontal slide, diagonal slide, and V-adjustment. An electromagnetic tracking device measured angular (degrees) and translation (millimeters) motions at the C5-C6 level during each of the three centering adjustments. The dependent variables were angular motion (flexion-extension, axial rotation, lateral flexion) and translational displacement (anteroposterior, axial, and medial-lateral).

RESULTS

The nonuniform condition produced significantly less flexion-extension than the uniform condition (p = 0.048). The horizontal slide adjustment produced less cervical flexion-extension (p = 0.015), lateral bending (p = 0.003), and axial rotation (p = 0.034) than the V-adjustment. Similarly, translation was significantly less with the horizontal adjustment than with the V-adjustment; medial-lateral (p = 0.017), axial (p < 0.001), and anteroposterior (p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Of the three adjustments, our team found that horizontal slide was also easier to complete than the other methods. The horizontal slide best limited cervical spine motion and may be the most helpful for minimizing secondary injury based on the study findings.

The Effect of Cricoid Pressure on the Unstable Cervical Spine

BACKGROUND

It has been proposed that cricoid pressure can exacerbate an unstable cervical injury and lead to neurologic deterioration.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to examine the amount of motion cricoid pressure could cause at an unstable subaxial cervical spine injury, and whether posterior manual support is of any benefit.

METHODS

Five fresh, whole cadavers had complete segmental instability at C5-C6 surgically created by a fellowship-trained spine surgeon. Cricoid pressure was applied to the anterior cricoid by an attending anesthesiologist. In addition, the effect of posterior cervical support was tested during the trials. The amount of angular and linear motion between C5 and C6 was measured using a Fastrak, three-dimensional, electromagnetic motion analysis device (Polhemus Inc., Colchester, VT).

RESULTS

When cricoid pressure is applied, the largest angular motion was 3 degrees and occurred in flexion-extension at C5-C6. The largest linear displacement was 1.36 mm and was in anterior-posterior displacement of C5-C6. When manual posterior cervical support was applied, the flexion-extension was improved to less than half this value (1.43 degrees), and this reached statistical significance (p = 0.001). No other differences were observed to be significant in the other planes of motion with the applications of support.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the evidence presented, we believe that the application of cricoid pressure to a patient with a globally unstable subaxial cervical spine injury causes small displacements. There may be some benefit to the use of manual posterior cervical spine support for reducing motion at such an injured segment.

Does turning trauma patients with an unstable spinal injury from the supine to a lateral position increase the risk of neurological deterioration?--A systematic review

Background

Airway protection and spinal precautions are competing concerns in the treatment of unconscious trauma patients. The placement of such patients in a lateral position may facilitate the acquisition of an adequate airway. However, trauma dogma dictates that patients should be transported in the supine position to minimize spinal movement. In this systematic review, we sought to answer the following question: Given an existing spinal injury, will changing a patient’s position from supine to lateral increase the risk of neurological deterioration?

Methods

The review protocol was published in the PROSPERO database (Reg. no. CRD42012001190). We performed literature searches in PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL and the British Nursing Index and included studies of traumatic spinal injury, lateral positioning and neurological deterioration. The search was updated prior to submission. Two researchers independently completed each step in the review process.

Results

We identified 1,164 publications. However, none of these publications reported mortality or neurological deterioration with lateral positioning as an outcome measure. Twelve studies used movement of the injured spine with lateral positioning as an outcome measure; eleven of these investigations were cadaver studies. All of these cadaver studies reported spinal movement during lateral positioning. The only identified human study included eighteen patients with thoracic or lumbar spinal fractures; according to the study authors, the logrolling technique did not result in any neurological deterioration among these patients.

Conclusions

We identified no clinical studies demonstrating that rotating trauma patients from the supine position to a lateral position affects mortality or causes neurological deterioration. However, in various cadaver models, this type of rotation did produce statistically significant displacements of the injured spine. The clinical significance of these cadaver-based observations remains unclear. The present evidence for harm in rotating trauma patients from the supine position to a lateral position, including the logroll maneuver, is inconclusive.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13049-015-0143-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Is it safe to use a kinetic therapy bed for care of patients with cervical spine injuries?

INTRODUCTION

Bedrest is often used for temporary management, as well as definitive treatment, for many spinal injuries. Under such circumstances patients cannot remain flat for extended periods due to possible skin breakdown, blood clots, or pulmonary complications. Kinetic therapy beds are often used in the critical care setting, although this is felt to be unsafe for turning patients with spine fractures. We sought to evaluate whether a kinetic therapy bed would cause as much spinal motion at an unstable cervical injury as occurs during manual log-rolling on a standard intensive care unit bed.

METHODS

Unstable C5-C6 ligamentous injuries were surgically created in 15 fresh, whole cadavers. Sensors were affixed to C5 and C6 posteriorly and electromagnetic motion tracking analysis performed. In all cases a cervical collar was applied by an orthotist after creation of the injury. The amount of angular motion and linear displacement that occurred at this injured level was measured during manual log-rolling and patient turning using a kinetic therapy bed. For statistical analysis, the range of motion for angles about each axis and displacement in each direction was analyzed by multivariate analysis of variance with repeated measures.

RESULTS

When comparing manual log-rolling and kinetic bed therapy, significantly more angular motion was created by the log-roll manoeuvre in flexion-extension (p=0.03) and lateral bending (p=0.01). There was no significant difference in axial rotation between the two methods (p=0.80). There were no significant differences demonstrated in medial-lateral and anterior-posterior translation. There was almost two times the axial displacement between manual log-rolling and the kinetic therapy bed and this reached statistical significance (p=0.05).

CONCLUSION

There is less motion at an unstable cervical injury in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial displacement when turning a patient using a kinetic therapy bed as opposed to traditional manual log-rolling. It may be preferable to use a kinetic therapy bed rather than manual log-rolling for patients with cervical spine injuries to decrease unwanted spinal motion. In addition, it may be easier and less physically demanding on nursing staff that must regularly turn the patient if manual log-rolling is implemented.

Motion generated in the unstable upper cervical spine during head tilt-chin lift and jaw thrust maneuvers

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Although it is essential to maintain a secure airway in a trauma patient, it is also critical to protect the potentially injured cervical spine. It has previously been suggested that the jaw thrust maneuver be used in place of the head tilt-chin lift in the suspected spine-injured patient.

PURPOSE

We sought to examine whether the jaw thrust was in fact safer to use in the setting of an unstable upper cervical spine injury.

METHODS

Unstable, dissociative C1-C2 injuries were surgically created in nine fresh, lightly embalmed human cadaver specimens. An electromagnetic motion analysis device was used to assess the amount of angular and linear motion with sensors placed above and below the injured segment. Measurements were recorded during execution of the two airway maneuvers. Trials were performed both with and without a cervical immobilization collar in place.

RESULTS

There was almost twice as much angular motion in all planes when performing a head tilt-chin lift as compared with the jaw thrust, and this was statistically significant (p<.013). In addition, there was more displacement at the injured level with a head tilt-chin lift as compared with the jaw thrust. This was statistically significant for axial displacement and anteroposterior translation (p=.003 for both), and approached significance for mediolateral translation (p=.056).

CONCLUSIONS

The jaw thrust maneuver results in less motion at an unstable C1-C2 injury as compared with the head tilt-chin lift maneuver. We therefore recommend the use of the jaw thrust to improve airway patency in the trauma patient with suspected cervical spine injury.

Comparison of circumferential pelvic sheeting versus the T-POD on unstable pelvic injuries: A cadaveric study of stability

OBJECTIVES

Commercially available binder devices are commonly used in the acute treatment of pelvic fractures, while many advocate simply placing a circumferential sheet for initial stabilization of such injuries. We sought to determine whether or not the T-POD would provide more stability to an unstable pelvic injury as compared to circumferential pelvic sheeting.

METHODS

Unstable pelvic injuries (OTA type 61-C-1) were surgically created in five fresh, lightly embalmed whole human cadavers. Electromagnetic sensors were placed on each hemi-pelvis. The amount of angular motion during testing was measured using a Fastrak, three-dimensional, electromagnetic motion analysis device (Polhemus Inc., Colchester, VT). Either a T-POD or circumferential sheet was applied in random order for testing. The measurements recorded in this investigation included maximum displacements for sagittal, coronal, and axial rotation during application of the device, bed transfer, log-rolling, and head of bed elevation.

RESULTS

There were no differences in motion of the injured hemi-pelvis during application of either the T-POD or circumferential sheet. During the bed transfer, log-rolling, and head of bed elevation, there were no significant differences in displacements observed when the pelvis was immobilized with either a sheet or pelvic binder (T-POD).

CONCLUSIONS

A circumferential pelvic sheet is more readily available, costs less, is more versatile, and is equally as efficacious at immobilizing the unstable pelvis as compared to the T-POD. We advocate the use of circumferential sheeting for temporary stabilization of unstable pelvic injuries.

Motion in the unstable cervical spine when transferring a patient positioned prone to a spine board

CONTEXT

Two methods have been proposed to transfer an individual in the prone position to a spine board. Researchers do not know which method provides the best immobilization.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if motion produced in the unstable cervical spine differs between 2 prone logrolling techniques and to evaluate the effect of equipment on the motion produced during prone logrolling.

DESIGN

Crossover study.

SETTING

Laboratory.

PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS

Tests were performed on 5 fresh cadavers (3 men, 2 women; age = 83 ± 8 years, mass = 61.2 ± 14.1 kg).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Three-dimensional motions were recorded during 2 prone logroll protocols (pull, push) in cadavers with an unstable cervical spine. Three equipment conditions were evaluated: football shoulder pads and helmet, rigid cervical collar, and no equipment. The mean range of motion was calculated for each test condition.

RESULTS

The pull technique produced 16% more motion than the push technique in the lateral-bending angulation direction (F1,4 = 19.922, P = .01, η(2) = 0.833). Whereas the collar-only condition and, to a lesser extent, the football-shoulder-pads-and-helmet condition demonstrated trends toward providing more stability than the no-equipment condition, we found no differences among equipment conditions. We noted an interaction between technique and equipment, with the pull maneuver performed without equipment producing more anteroposterior motion than the push maneuver in any of the equipment conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

We saw a slight difference in the motion measured during the 2 prone logrolling techniques tested, with less lateral-bending and anteroposterior motion produced with the logroll push than the pull technique. Therefore, we recommend adopting the push technique as the preferred spine-boarding maneuver when a patient is found in the prone position. Researchers should continue to seek improved methods for performing prone spine-board transfers to further decrease the motion produced in the unstable spine.

A comparison of 4 airway devices on cervical spine alignment in cadaver models of global ligamentous instability at c1-2

BACKGROUND

The effects of advanced airway management on cervical spine alignment in patients with upper cervical spine instability are uncertain.

METHODS

To examine the potential for mechanical disruption during endotracheal intubation in cadavers with unstable cervical spines, we performed a prospective observational cohort study with 3 cadaver subjects. We created an unstable, type II odontoid fracture with global ligamentous instability at C1-2 in lightly embalmed cadavers, followed by repetitive intubations with 4 different airway devices (Airtraq laryngoscope, Lightwand, intubating laryngeal mask airway [LMA], and Macintosh laryngoscope) while manual in-line stabilization was applied. Motion analysis data were collected using an electromagnetic device to assess the degree of angular movement in 3 axes (flexion-extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending) during the intubation trials with each device. Intubation was performed by either an emergency medical technician or attending anesthesiologist.

RESULTS

Overall, 153 intubations were recorded with the 4 devices. The Lightwand technique resulted in significantly less flexion-extension and axial rotation at C1-2 than with the intubating LMA (mean difference in flexion-extension 3.2° [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.9°-5.5°], P = 0.003; mean difference in axial rotation 1.6° [95% CI, 0.3°-2.8°], P = 0.01) and Macintosh laryngoscope (mean difference in flexion-extension 3.1° [95% CI, 0.8°-5.4°], P = 0.005; mean difference in axial rotation 1.4° [95% CI 0.1°-2.6°], P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

In cadavers with instability at C1-2, the Lightwand technique produced less motion than the Macintosh and intubating LMA.

Cervical spine alignment during on-field management of potential catastrophic spine injuries

Context:

When cervical spine injuries are suspected, the cervical spine should be immobilized in a neutral position and neck motion controlled in preparation for transport to an emergency facility. Protocols for emergency transport utilizing common devices (cervical collars) and methods (transfer techniques) during these procedures are not entirely evidence based.

Evidence Acquisition:

The medical literature search covered the time period of January 1966 to June 2008 using the following keywords, either alone or in combination: extrication collars, cervical collars, spine orthoses, spinal immobilization, spine board, spinal board, transfer techniques, and back board. Biomedical databases searched included Medline, Web of Science, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL [1982 to 2008]). The reference lists of all trials identified were also searched for additional trials.

Methods:

Only trials that directly compared the efficacy or safety of transfer methods and/or immobilization devices were included. Studies that measured voluntary head movement after the fitting of the cervical orthoses and those that did not evaluate motion across individual spinal segments were not included.

Results:

A lift-and-slide transfer method with a full body immobilization device creates less motion than a log-roll maneuver. Extrication-type cervical immobilization collars are limited in their ability to control neck motion in the injured cadaveric model.

Conclusion:

Allied health professionals responsible for the management of the cervical spine–injured patient should become familiar with and employ a lift-and-slide transfer technique in appropriate situations and should not rely exclusively on extrication-type collars to immobilize the neck.

Motion generated in the unstable cervical spine during the application and removal of cervical immobilization collars

BACKGROUND

Many studies have compared the restriction of motion that immobilization collars provide to the injured victim. No previous investigation has assessed the amount of motion that is generated during the fitting and removal process. The purpose of this study was to compare the three-dimensional motion generated when one-piece and two-piece cervical collars are applied and removed from cadavers intact and with unstable cervical spine injuries.

METHODS

Five fresh, lightly embalmed cadavers were tested three times each with either a one-piece or two-piece cervical collar in the supine position. Testing was performed in the intact state, following creation of a global ligamentous instability at C5-C6. The amount of angular motion resulting from the collar application and removal was measured using a Fastrak, three-dimensional, electromagnetic motion analysis device (Polhemus Inc., Colchester, VT). The measurements recorded in this investigation included maximum values for flexion/extension, axial rotation, medial/lateral flexion, anterior/posterior displacement, axial distraction, and medial/lateral displacement at the level of instability.

RESULTS

There was statistically more motion observed with application or removal of either collar following the creation of a global instability. During application, there was a statistically significant difference in flexion/extension between the one-piece (1.8 degrees) and two-piece (2.6 degrees) collars, p = 0.009. There was also a statistically significant difference in anterior/posterior translation between the one-piece (3.6 mm) and two-piece (3.4 mm) collars, p = 0.015. The maximum angulation and displacement during the application of either collar was 3.4 degrees and 4.4 mm. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences between the one-piece and two-piece collars during the removal process. The maximum angulation and displacement during removal of either collar type was 1.6 degrees and 2.9 mm.

CONCLUSIONS

There were statistically significant differences in motion between the one-piece and two-piece collars during the application process, but it was only 1.2 degrees in flexion/extension and 0.2 mm in anterior/posterior translation. Overall, the greatest amount of angulation and displacement observed during collar application was 3.4 degrees and 4.4 mm. Although the exact amount of motion that could be deleterious to a cervical spine-injured patient is unknown, collars can be placed and removed with manual in-line stabilization without large displacements. Only trained practitioners should do so and with great care given that some motion in all planes does occur during the process.

Methods for evaluating cervical range of motion in trauma settings

Immobilisation of the cervical spine is a common procedure following traumatic injury. This is often precautionary as the actual incidence of spinal injury is low. Nonetheless, stabilisation of the head and neck is an important part of pre-hospital care due to the catastrophic damage that may follow if further unrestricted movement occurs in the presence of an unstable spinal injury. Currently available collars are limited by the potential for inadequate immobilisation and complications caused by pressure on the patient's skin, restricted airway access and compression of the jugular vein. Alternative approaches to cervical spine immobilisation are being considered, and the investigation of these new methods requires a standardised approach to the evaluation of neck movement. This review summarises the research methods and scientific technology that have been used to assess and measure cervical range of motion, and which are likely to underpin future research in this field. A systematic search of international literature was conducted to evaluate the methodologies used to assess the extremes of movement that can be achieved in six domains. 34 papers were included in the review. These studies used a range of methodologies, but study quality was generally low. Laboratory investigations and biomechanical studies have gradually given way to methods that more accurately reflect the real-life situations in which cervical spine immobilisation occurs. Latterly, new approaches using virtual reality and simulation have been developed. Coupled with modern electromagnetic tracking technology this has considerable potential for effective application in future research. However, use of these technologies in real life settings can be problematic and more research is needed.

Eliminating log rolling as a spine trauma order

BACKGROUND

Currently, up to 25% of patients with spinal cord injuries may experience neurologic deterioration during the initial management of their injuries. Therefore, more effective procedures need to be established for the transportation and care of these to reduce the risk of secondary neurologic damage. Here, we present more acceptable methods to minimize motion in the unstable spine during the management of patients with traumatic spine injuries.

METHODS

This review summarizes more than a decade of research aimed at evaluating different methods of caring for patients with spine trauma.

RESULTS

The most commonly utilized technique to transport spinal cord injured patients, the log rolling maneuver, produced more motion than placing a patient on a spine board, removing a spine board, performing continuous lateral therapy, and positioning a patient prone for surgery. Alternative maneuvers that produced less motion included the straddle lift and slide, 6 + lift and slide, scoop stretcher, mechanical kinetic therapy, mechanical transfers, and the use of the operating table to rotate the patient to the prone position for surgical stabilization.

CONCLUSIONS

The log roll maneuver should be removed from the trauma response guidelines for patients with suspected spine injuries, as it creates significantly more motion in the unstable spine than the readily available alternatives. The only exception is the patient who is found prone, in which case the patient should then be log rolled directly on to the spine board utilizing a push technique.

Total motion generated in the unstable cervical spine during management of the typical trauma patient: a comparison of methods in a cadaver model

STUDY DESIGN

Biomechanical cadaveric study.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to analyze the amount of motion generated in the unstable cervical spine during various maneuvers and transfers that a trauma patient would typically be subjected to prior to definitive fixation, using 2 different protocols.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

From the time of injury until the spine is adequately stabilized in the operating room, every step in management of the spine-injured patient can result in secondary injury to the spinal cord.

METHODS

The amount of angular motion between C5 and C6, after a surgically created unstable injury, was measured using an electromagnetic motion analysis device (Polhemus Inc., Colchester, VT). A total sequence of maneuvers and transfers was then performed that a patient would be expected to go through from the time of injury until surgical fixation. This included spine board placement and removal, bed transfers, lateral therapy, and turning the patient prone onto the operating table. During each of these, we performed what has been shown to be the best and commonly used (log-roll) techniques.

RESULTS

During bed transfers and the turn prone for surgery, there was statistically more angular motion in each plane for traditional transfer with the spine board and manually turning the patient prone as commonly done (P < 0.01). During spine board placement, there was more motion in all 3 planes with log-rolling, and this reached statistical significance for axial rotation (P = 0.015) and lateral bending (P = 0.004). There was more motion during board removal with log-rolling in all 3 planes. This was statistically significant for lateral bending (P = 0.009) and approached significance in flexion-extension (P = 0.058) and axial rotation (P = 0.058). During lateral therapy, there was statistically more motion in flexion-extension and lateral bending with the manual log-roll technique (P < 0.001). The total motion was decreased by more than 50% in each plane when using an alternative to log-roll techniques during the total sequence (P < 0.006).

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated the total angular motion incurred to the unstable cervical spine as experienced by the typical trauma patient from the field to stabilization in the operating room using the best compared with the most commonly used techniques. As previously reported, using log-roll techniques consistently results in unwanted motion at the injured spinal segment.

Total motion generated in the unstable thoracolumbar spine during management of the typical trauma patient: a comparison of methods in a cadaver model

OBJECT

The proper prehospital and inpatient management of patients with unstable spinal injuries is critical for prevention of secondary neurological compromise. The authors sought to analyze the amount of motion generated in the unstable thoracolumbar spine during various maneuvers and transfers that a trauma patient would typically be subjected to prior to definitive fixation.

METHODS

Five fresh cadavers with surgically created unstable L-1 burst fractures were tested. The amount of angular motion between the T-12 and L-2 vertebral segments was measured using a 3D electromagnetic motion analysis device. A complete sequence of maneuvers and transfers was then performed that a patient would be expected to go through from the time of injury until surgical fixation. These maneuvers and transfers included spine board placement and removal, bed transfers, lateral therapy, and turning the patient prone onto the operating table. During each of these, the authors performed what they believed to be the most commonly used versus the best techniques for preventing undesirable motion at the injury level.

RESULTS

When placing a spine board there was more motion in all 3 planes with the log-roll technique, and this difference reached statistical significance for axial rotation (p = 0.018) and lateral bending (p = 0.003). Using logrolling for spine board removal resulted in increased motion again, and this was statistically significant for flexion-extension (p = 0.014). During the bed transfer and lateral therapy, the log-roll technique resulted in more motion in all 3 planes (p ≤ 0.05). When turning the cadavers prone for surgery there was statistically more angular motion in each plane for manually turning the patient versus the Jackson table turn (p ≤ 0.01). The total motion was decreased by almost 50% in each plane when using an alternative to the log-roll techniques during the complete sequence (p ≤ 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Although it is unknown how much motion in the unstable spine is necessary to cause secondary neurological injury, the accepted tenet is to minimize motion as much as possible. This study has demonstrated the angular motion incurred by the unstable thoracolumbar spine as experienced by the typical trauma patient from the field to positioning in the operating room using the best and most commonly used techniques. As previously reported, using the log-roll technique consistently results in unwanted motion at the injured spinal segment.

Comparison of 4 airway devices on cervical spine alignment in a cadaver model with global ligamentous instability at C5-C6

STUDY DESIGN

Human cadaveric study using various intubation devices in a cervical spine instability model.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to evaluate various intubation techniques and determine which device results in the least cervical motion in the setting of a global ligamentous instability model.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Many patients presenting with a cervical spine injury have other injuries that may require rapid airway management with endotracheal intubation. Secondary neurologic injuries may occur in these patients because of further displacement at the level of injury, vascular insult, or systemic decrease in oxygen delivery. The most appropriate technique for achieving endotracheal intubation in the patient with a cervical spine injury remains controversial.

METHODS

A global ligamentous instability at the C5-C6 vertebral level was created in lightly embalmed cadavers. An electromagnetic motion analysis device (Liberty; Polhemus, Colchester, VT) was used to assess the amount of angular and linear translation in 3 planes during intubation trials with each of 4 devices (Airtraq laryngoscope, lighted stylet, intubating LMA, and Macintosh laryngoscope). The angular motions measured were flexion-extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending. Linear translation was measured in the medial-lateral (ML), axial, and anteroposterior planes. Intubation was performed by either an emergency medical technician or by a board-certified attending anesthesiologist. Both time to intubate as well as failure to intubate (after 3 attempts) were recorded.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference shown with regards to time to successfully intubate using the various devices. It was shown that the highest failure-to-intubate rate occurred with use of the intubating LMA (ILMA) (23%) versus 0% for the others. In flexion/extension, we were able to demonstrate that the Lightwand (P = 0.005) and Airtraq (P = 0.019) resulted in significantly less angular motion than the Macintosh blade. In anterior/posterior translation, the Lightwand (P = 0.005), Airtraq (P = 0.024), and ILMA (P = 0.021) all caused significantly less linear motion than the Macintosh blade. In axial rotation, the Lightwand (P = 0.017) and Airtraq (P = 0.022) resulted in significantly less angular motion than the Macintosh blade. In axial translation (P = 0.037) and lateral bending (P = 0.003), the Lightwand caused significantly less motion than the Macintosh blade.

CONCLUSION

In a cadaver model of C5-C6 instability, the greatest amount of motion was caused by the most commonly used intubation device, the Macintosh blade. Intubation with the Lightwand resulted in significantly less motion in all tested parameters (other than ML translation) as compared with the Macintosh blade. It should also be noted that the Airtraq caused less motion than the Macintoshblade in 3 of the 6 tested planes. There were no significant differences in failure rate or the amount of time it took to successfully intubate in comparing these techniques. We therefore recommend the use of the Lightwand, followed by the Airtraq, in the setting of a presumed unstable cervical spine injury over the Macintosh laryngoscope.

Removing a patient from the spine board: is the lift and slide safer than the log roll?

BACKGROUND

After spine board immobilization of the trauma victim and transport to the hospital, the patient is removed from the spine board as soon as practical. Current Advanced Trauma Life Support's recommendations are to log roll the patient 90 degrees, remove the spine board, inspect and palpate the back, and then log roll back to supine position. There are several publications showing unacceptable motion in an unstable spine when log rolling.

METHODS

Cervical spine motion was evaluated during spine board removal. A C5 to C6 instability was surgically created in cadavers. A three-dimensional electromagnetic tracking system was used to assess motion between C5 and C6. The log roll was compared with a lift-and-slide technique. Throughout the log roll procedure, manual inline cervical stabilization was provided by a trained individual in a series of trials. In other trials, the lift-and-slide technique was used. In the final stage, the amount of motion generated was assessed when the spine board removal techniques were completed by experienced and novice persons in maintaining inline stabilization of the head and neck.

RESULTS

Motion between C5 and C6 was reduced during the lift-and-slide technique in five of six parameters. The reduction was statistically significant in four parameters. When performing the log roll, motion was not reduced with increased head holder experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Spine boards can be removed using a lift-and-slide maneuver with less motion and potentially less risk to the patient's long-term neurologic function than expected using the log roll.

Effectiveness of cervical spine stabilization techniques

OBJECTIVE

To compare head motions that occur when trained professionals perform the head squeeze (HS) and trap squeeze (TS) C-spine stabilization techniques.

DESIGN

Cross-over design.

PARTICIPANTS

Twelve experienced lead rescuers.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Peak head motion with respect to initial conditions using inertial measurement units attached to the forehead and trunk of the simulated patient. We compared both HS and TS during lift-and-slide (L&S) and log-roll (LR) placement on spinal board, and agitated patient trying to sit up (AGIT-Sit) or rotate his head (AGIT-Rot). The a priori minimal important difference (MID) was 5 degrees for flexion or extension and 3 degrees for rotation or lateral flexion.

RESULTS

The L&S technique was statistically superior to the LR technique. The only differences to exceed the MID were extension and rotation during LR (HS > TS). In the AGIT-Sit test scenario, differences in motion exceeded MID (HS > TS) for flexion, rotation, and lateral flexion. In the AGIT-Rot scenario, differences in motion exceeded MID for rotation only (HS >TS). There was similar intertrial variability of motion for HS and TS during L&S and LR but significantly more variability with HS compared with TS in the agitated patient.

CONCLUSIONS

The L&S is preferable to the LR when possible for minimizing unwanted C-spine motion. There is little overall difference between HS and TS in a cooperative patient. When a patient is confused, the HS is much worse than the TS at minimizing C-spine motion.

Motion within the unstable cervical spine during patient maneuvering: the neck pivot-shift phenomenon

BACKGROUND

Cervical extrication collars are applied to millions of blunt trauma victims despite the lack of any evidence that a collar can protect against secondary injuries to the cervical spine. Cadaver studies support that in the presence of a dissociative injury, substantial motion can occur within the occipitocervical spine with collar application or during patient transfers. Little is known about the biomechanics of cervical stabilization; hence, it is difficult to develop and test improved immobilization strategies.

MATERIALS

Severe unstable injuries were created in seven fresh whole human cadavers. Rigid collars were applied with the body in a neutral position. Computed tomographic examinations were obtained before and after tilting the body or backboard as would be done during patient transport or to inspect the back. Relative displacements between vertebrae at the site of the injury were measured from the Computed tomographic examinations. The overall relative alignment between body and collar was assessed to understand the mechanisms that may facilitate motion at the injury site.

RESULTS

Intervertebral motion averaged 7.7 mm±6.8 mm in the axial plain and 2.9 mm±2.5 mm in the cranial-caudal direction. The rigid collars appeared to create pivot points where the collar contacts the head in the region under the ear and where the collar contacts the shoulders.

DISCUSSION

Rigid cervical collars appear to create pivot points that shift the center of rotation lateral to the spine and contribute to the intervertebral motions that were measured. Immobilization strategies that avoid these neck pivot-shift phenomena may help to reduce secondary injuries to the cervical spine. The whole cadaver model with simulation of patient maneuvers may provide an effective test method for cervical immobilization.

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.

Are scoop stretchers suitable for use on spine-injured patients?

INTRODUCTION

In the prehospital setting, spine-injured patients must be transferred to a spine board to immobilize the spine. This can be accomplished using both manual techniques and mechanical devices.

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the scoop stretcher to limit cervical spine motion as compared to 2 commonly used manual transfer techniques.

METHODS

Three-dimensional angular motion generated across the C5-C6 spinal segment during execution of 2 manual transfer techniques and the application of a scoop stretcher was recorded first on cadavers with intact spines and then repeated after C5-C6 destabilization. A 3-dimensional electromagnetic tracking device was used to measure the maximum angular and linear motion produced during all test sessions.

RESULTS

Although not statistically significant, the execution of the log roll maneuver created more motion in all directions than either the lift-and-slide technique or with scoop stretcher application. The scoop stretcher and lift-and-slide techniques were able to restrict motion to a comparable degree.

CONCLUSION

The effectiveness of the scoop stretcher to limit spinal motion in the destabilized spine is comparable or better than manual techniques currently being used by primary responders.

Cervical spine motion generated with manual versus jackson table turning methods in a cadaveric c1-c2 global instability model

STUDY DESIGN.: Cadaveric biomechanical study. OBJECTIVE.: To quantify spinal motion created by transfer methods from supine to prone position in a cadaveric C1-C2 global instability model. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA.: Patients who have sustained a spinal cord injury remain at high risk for further secondary injury until their spine is adequately stabilized. To date, no study has evaluated the effect of patient transfer methods from supine to prone position in the operating room, on atlantoaxial cervical spine motion. METHODS.: A global instability was surgically created at the C1-C2 level in 4 fresh cadavers. Two transfer protocols were tested on each cadaver. The log-roll technique entailed performing a standard 180 degrees log-roll rotation of the supine patient from a stretcher to the prone position onto the operating room Jackson table (OSI, Union City, CA). The "Jackson technique" involved sliding the supine patient to the Jackson table, securing them to the table, and then rotating them into a prone position. An electromagnetic tracking device registered motion between the C1 and C2 vertebral segments. Three different head holding devices (Mayfield, Prone view, and blue foam pillow) were also compared for their ability to restrict C1-C2 motion. Six motion parameters were tracked. Repeated measures statistical analysis was performed to evaluate angular and translational motion. RESULTS.: For 6 of 6 measures of angulation and translation, manual log-roll prone positioning generated significantly more C1-C2 motion than the Jackson table turning technique. Out of 6 motion parameters, 5 were statistically significant (P < 0.001-0.005). There was minimal difference in C1-C2 motion generated when comparing all 3 head holding devices. CONCLUSION.: The data demonstrate that manual log-roll technique generated significantly more C1-C2 motion compared to the Jackson table technique. Choice of headrest has a minimal effect on the amount of motion generated during patient transfer, except that the Mayfield device demonstrates a slight trend toward increased C1-C2 motion.

Summary of the National Athletic Trainers' Association position statement on the acute management of the cervical spine-injured athlete

The 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 timeliness of transfer to a controlled environment for diagnosis and treatment. The objective of the National Athletic Trainers' Association (NATA) position statement on the acute care of the cervical spine-injured athlete is to provide the certified athletic trainer, team physician, emergency responder, and other health care professionals with recommendations on how to best manage a catastrophic cervical spine injury in an athlete. 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 imaging considerations in the emergency department.

Comparison of thoracolumbar motion produced by manual and Jackson-table-turning methods. Study of a cadaveric instability model

BACKGROUND

Patients who have sustained a spinal cord injury remain at risk for further neurologic deterioration until the spine is adequately stabilized. To our knowledge, no study has previously addressed the effects of different bed-to-operating room table transfer techniques on thoracolumbar spinal motion in an instability model. We hypothesized that the conventional logroll technique used to transfer patients from a supine position to a prone position on the operating room table has the potential to confer significantly more motion to the unstable thoracolumbar spine than the Jackson technique.

METHODS

Three-column instability was surgically created at the L1 level in seven cadavers. Two protocols were tested. The manual technique entailed performing a standard logroll of a supine cadaver to a prone position on an operating room Jackson table. The Jackson technique involved sliding the supine cadaver to the Jackson table, securing it to the table, and then rotating it into a prone position. An electromagnetic tracking device measured motion--i.e., angular motion (flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial rotation) and linear translation (axial, medial-lateral, and anterior-posterior) between T12 and L2.

RESULTS

The logroll technique created significantly more motion than the Jackson technique as measured with all six parameters. Manual logroll transfers produced an average of 13.8 degrees to 18.1 degrees of maximum angular displacement and 16.6 to 28.3 mm of maximum linear translation. The Jackson technique resulted in an average of 3.1 degrees to 5.8 degrees of maximum angular displacement (p < 0.001) and 4.0 to 10.0 mm of maximum linear translation (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the logroll, the Jackson-table transfer method provides superior immobilization of an unstable thoracolumbar spine during transfer of supine cadavers to a prone position on the operating room table.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This study addresses in-hospital patient safety. Performing the Jackson turn requires approximately half as many people as required for a manual logroll. This study suggests that the Jackson technique should be considered for supine-to-prone transfer of patients with known or suspected instability of the thoracolumbar spine.

Transferring patients with thoracolumbar spinal instability: are there alternatives to the log roll maneuver?

STUDY DESIGN

Using a cadaveric model, the amount of spinal motion generated during the execution of various prehospital transfer techniques was evaluated using a crossover study design.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the quantity of segmental motion generated across a globally unstable thoracolumbar spine during the execution of the log roll (LR), lift-and-slide, and 6-plus-person (6+) lift.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The LR has been reported to be inappropriate for transferring patients with thoracolumbar injuries. Although potentially safer methods have been identified for use with cervical spine injuries, alternatives to the LR have not been recognized in the case of thoracolumbar injuries. METHODS.: Three-dimensional angular motion was recorded across the T12-L2 vertebrae during execution of 3 transfer techniques using cadavers with intact spines and then repeated following an L1 corpectomy. Using a three-dimensional electromagnetic tracking device, the maximum angular motion was measured 3 times for each technique, and the mean value from the 3 trials was included in the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Statistical tests revealed that there was a significant difference in axial rotation between the LR and lift-and-slide (P = 0.008) but only when these were executed in the presence of a destabilized T12-L1 segment. In addition, analysis of lateral flexion data identified a main effect for technique with the LR generating greater motion than either lifting technique. Finally, no significant difference was noted for flexion-extension among techniques.

CONCLUSION

The execution of the LR maneuver tends to generate more motion than either of the lifting methods examined in this investigation. More research is needed to identify the safest possible method for transferring or moving patients with thoracolumbar instability.

The 6-plus-person lift transfer technique compared with other methods of spine boarding

CONTEXT

To achieve full spinal immobilization during on-the-field management of an actual or potential spinal injury, rescuers transfer and secure patients to a long spine board. Several techniques can be used to facilitate this patient transfer.

OBJECTIVE

To compare spinal segment motion of cadavers during the execution of the 6-plus-person (6+) lift, lift-and-slide (LS), and logroll (LR) spine-board transfer techniques.

DESIGN

Crossover study.

SETTING

Laboratory.

PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS

Eight medical professionals (1 woman, 7 men) with 5 to 32 years of experience were enlisted to help carry out the transfer techniques. In addition, test conditions were performed on 5 fresh cadavers (3 males, 2 females) with a mean age of 86.2 +/- 11.4 years.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S)

Three-dimensional angular and linear motions initially were recorded during execution of transfer techniques, initially using cadavers with intact spines and then after C5-C6 spinal segment destabilization. The mean maximal linear displacement and angular motion obtained and calculated from the 3 trials for each test condition were included in the statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Flexion-extension angular motion, as well as anteroposterior and distraction-compression linear motion, did not vary between the LR and either the 6+ lift or LS. Compared with the execution of the 6+ lift and LS, the execution of the LR generated significantly more axial rotation (P = .008 and .001, respectively), more lateral flexion (P = .005 and .003, respectively), and more medial-lateral translation (P = .003 and .004, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

A small amount of spinal motion is inevitable when executing spine-board transfer techniques; however, the execution of the 6+ lift or LS appears to minimize the extent of motion generated across a globally unstable spinal segment.

[Prehospital treatment of severely injured patients in the field: an update]

Life or extremity threatening injuries have to be diagnosed and treated rapidly by emergency physicians during prehospital care for severely injured patients. The cooperation with other rescue services, the fire brigade and the police must be coordinated and early transportation has to be organized. Rapid sequence intubation by trained personnel for correct indications, such as head injury or severe chest trauma is recommended as well as prehospital chest tube placement in cases of severe or penetrating thoracic injury. Crystalloids and colloidal solutions remain the first choice for intravenous volume replacement. The amount of fluid depends on the individual response, such as palpable peripheral and central pulse for blunt or penetrating trauma. Ultrasound or near infrared spectroscopy could not be routinely implemented for extended prehospital diagnostic procedures. Transportation to the closest appropriate hospital has to be accomplished as early as possible. Helicopters show positive outcomes if the destination is a level I trauma center, even if secondary alarm calls or more extensive measures prolong the prehospital interval.

Motion in the unstable cervical spine: comparison of manual turning and use of the Jackson table in prone positioning

Object.

The purpose of this study was to compare manual maneuvering with the use of a Jackson table when moving patients with cervical spine instability from the supine to the surgically appropriate prone position.

Methods.

The range of motion (ROM) of the cervical spine of a fresh cadaver was measured. A ligamentous instability was created at the C5–6 level, and the increased ROM was confirmed. Sensors for an electromagnetic motion analysis device were fixed to the anterior portions of the C-5 and C-6 vertebral bodies (VBs) using machined polyethylene mounts and carbon fiber rods that were inserted into the VBs. The sensors were used to measure cervical flexion, lateral bending, and axial rotation during the two transfer procedures. The cadaver was then moved from the supine position on a hospital bed to the prone position for surgery. The manual technique was performed by four trained individuals who moved the cadaver from the hospital bed while rotating it 180° axially onto the surgical table. In using the Jackson table, the cadaver was moved from the bed to the table in the supine position and then the Jackson table rotated the cadaver to the prone position. The two techniques were tested with and without the use of a collar and were repeated five times.

Results.

Analysis of the data indicated that when moving a patient into the prone surgical position, the use of a cervical collar and the Jackson table significantly reduced the cervical motion in all angular planes compared with that of manual transfer.

Conclusions.

The use of a cervical collar and the Jackson table may reduce the possibility of further spinal cord compromise. Because manual transfers are performed routinely, this warrants further study.

Log-rolling technique producing unacceptable motion during body position changes in patients with traumatic spinal cord injury

Object

The purpose of the present study was to compare spinal motion generated during log-rolling and kinetic therapy with that generated when using a kinetic treatment table (KTT). The authors' hypothesis was that the KTT would produce less spinal motion while maintaining the benefits of body position changes.

Methods

Cervical and lumbar instability was created in three fresh, unembalmed cadavers. Electromagnetic sensors were fixed to the C5–6 and T12–L2 segments to measure cervical and lumbar spine segmental motion. Body position changes were performed using the traditional log-roll method and a KTT. Spinal motion was measured during each maneuver.

Turning the cadaveric specimens on the KTT bed caused significantly less cervical motion than the log-roll technique as measured in flexion and axial rotation. The log-roll technique caused significantly greater cervical motion during body position changes than turning using the KTT.

Conclusions

Although the global instability will require surgical stabilization, consideration should be given to initial immobilization on a KTT to decrease the likelihood of secondary injury.

Biomechanical Analysis of Cervical and Thoracolumbar Spine Motion in Intact and Partially and Completely Unstable Cadaver Spine Models With Kinetic Bed Therapy or Traditional Log Roll

BACKGROUND

The main comorbidities associated with spinal cord injury patients are secondary to immobilization. Kinetic bed therapy is used currently to reduce the complications associated with immobilization, but the effect on the unstable spine has not been quantified. The purpose of this study was to compare the motion in the cervical and thoracolumbar spine when cadavers with spinal instabilities are log rolled (LR) on a standard hospital bed or rotated on a RotoRest kinetic treatment table (KTT).

METHODS

Cervical and lumbar instabilities were created surgically in three embalmed cadavers. An electromagnetic tracking device was used to measure the three-dimensional segmental motion generated at C5 to C6 and T12 to L2 during LR and KTT treatments.

RESULTS

In both the cervical and lumbar spine, significantly more motion was observed during LR than KTT treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that in cadavers with severely unstable cervical spine, rotation using a KTT produced less flexion and lateral bending than the LR. Also, in cadavers with severely unstable lumbar spine, treatment with the KTT produced less axial rotation than the LR. Currently, we think that the best way to immobilize the spine while still allowing therapeutic motion is through the use of a KTT.

Initial radiographic evaluation of the spine after trauma: when, what, where, and how to image the acutely traumatized spine

BACKGROUND

Radiographic evaluation of the spine after an acute traumatic event is an integral part of the initial assessment of the patient. Despite this, an imaging protocol that includes detailed recommendations of the views, modalities, and techniques of radiographic work-up is lacking in the peer-reviewed literature.

STUDY PURPOSE

The goal of the current review was to suggest a uniform protocol for initial imaging in the traumatized patient and provide a rationale and guidelines to assist in deciding which studies are indicated and at what time they are best obtained.

METHODS

The authors' reviewed the available modern, published, English literature, including both peer-reviewed articles and commonly used textbooks, for recommendations concerning which imaging studies are most effective and cost-efficient in detecting spinal injuries in the acute trauma setting. A list of radiologic studies was compiled. A panel of spine surgeon members of the Spine Trauma Study Group, all of whom were highly experienced in trauma management, evaluated the utility and necessity of these imaging studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons agreed that the mainstay of initial radiographic evaluation of the spine after acute trauma remains plain radiographs. CT scanning remains the best mode of delineating the bony details of a spinal injury and should be used to characterize all bony injuries identified on plain radiographs. As CT technology continues to improve, it is likely to play an even greater role as an initial screening tool. The role for MRI continues to expand, particularly in detecting the soft tissue components of injuries.

Motion Generated in the Unstable Spine during Hospital Bed Transfers

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to compare the motion generated when executing the bed transfer procedure in cadavers with unstable lower cervical spines.

METHODS

Five cadavers received a global instability at the C5-6 level. Each cadaver was moved with and without a rigid cervical collar. The amount of translation resulting from the bed transfer was measured.

RESULTS

Statistical analysis revealed no difference in spinal movement between treatments (with or without a collar). Anterior/posterior (AP) and medial/lateral motions were similar in magnitude and much higher than longitudinal motion.

CONCLUSIONS

There was very little resistance to motion in the AP and lateral directions. Thus, it may not be surprising that no difference in the amount of motion was noted between transfers conducted by skilled hands with or without a collar. Current hospital transfer techniques have the potential to inflict an unacceptably large displacement on an unstable spine.