Spinal injuries

Radiation exposure as a consequence of spinal immobilization and extrication

BACKGROUND

Extrication and spinal immobilization in the trauma patient with unknown injuries is a common practice of emergency medical services. High-speed crashes occurring in open-wheel racing seldom result in extrication or spinal immobilization.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the safety of self-extrication in IndyCar® (Indianapolis, IN) by comparing drivers self extricated with full spinal immobilization and subsequent radiation exposure.

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospectively collected de-identified IndyCar® crash and drivers' medical records was performed at treating Level I trauma centers. One hundred thirty-five crash incidents involving drivers evaluated by a medical team were included. Any driver with severe multiple trauma was excluded due to distracting injuries. Drivers underwent standard protocol for postcrash injury. Diagnostic and treatment outcomes including spinal and neurologic injury, need for surgery, and radiation exposure were collected for review.

RESULTS

Self-extrication occurred in 121 (90%) crashes, and overall cumulative radiation exposure ranged from 100 to 250 mSv, or 0.82-2.06 mSv per driver. Extrication with full spinal immobilization occurred in 14 (10%) drivers, with overall cumulative radiation exposure ranging from 140 to 350 mSv, or 10-25 mSv per driver. A total of 29 injuries were identified, nine of which (31%) were spinal. In these, six were emergency medical services extricated and three self extricated. None were unstable spinal fractures resulting in surgical care, surgical disease, or neurologic deficit.

CONCLUSION

In our IndyCar® racing experience, a protocol-led self-extrication system resulted in neither a mismanagement of an unstable spinal fracture nor neurological deficit, and reduced radiation exposure.

Long backboard versus vacuum mattress splint to immobilize whole spine in trauma victims in the field: a randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Patients with possible spinal injury must be immobilized properly during transport to medical facilities. The aim of this research was comparing spinal immobilization using a long backboard (LBB) with using a vacuum mattress splint (VMS) in trauma victims transported by an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system.

METHODS

In this randomized clinical trial, 60 trauma victims with possible spinal trauma were divided to two groups, each group immobilized with one of the two instruments. Speed and ease of application, immobilization rate, and the patients' comfort were recorded.

RESULTS

In this survey, LBB was faster to apply: 211.66 (SD = 28.53) seconds vs 654.00 (SD = 16.61) seconds. Various measures of immobilization were better by LBB. Also, LBB offered a significant improvement in comfort over a VMS for the patient with possible spinal injury. All of the results were statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study showed that immobilization using LBB was easier, faster, and more comfortable for the patient, and provided additional decrease in spinal movement when compared with a VMS.

Cuffed endotracheal tube use in paediatric prehospital intubation: challenging the doctrine?

Questioning traditional doctrines is essential if patient care is to improve and progress. Historically accepted teaching is to use uncuffed tubes in all children up to puberty. This has been the practice in anaesthesia, intensive care and paediatric resuscitation both in and out of hospital. The use of cuffed endotracheal tubes (ETTs) in pre-pubertal children is evolving in general anaesthesia and intensive care in hospital practice. In contrast, uncuffed tubes are still widely recommended for use in the prehospital environment in this age group. There are a number of good reasons why a cuffed tube should be considered in preference to an uncuffed tube in children intubated out of hospital, regardless of their age or size. There are also some counterarguments which are worthy of consideration. This article presents the arguments for and against the use of cuffed tubes in children in prehospital care with a view to stimulating open discussion and debate.