Vacuum mattress or long spine board: which method of spinal stabilisation in trauma patients is more time consuming? A simulation study

The effect of ATLS/PHTLS spinal motion restriction protocol on the incidence of spinal cord injury, a nationwide database study

PURPOSE

To study trends in incidence and outcome of patients with traumatic spinal cord injury (TSCI) in the Netherlands before, during and after implementation of the Advanced Trauma Life Support (ATLS®) and Pre-Hospital Trauma Life Support (PHTLS®)- Spinal Motion Restriction(SMR) protocol.

METHODS

In an observational database we studied national hospital admission and emergency department databases to analyse incidence rates and outcome of traumatic spinal cord injury and spinal fractures in the emergency department and in admittances in The Netherlands between 1986 and 2021.

RESULTS

A significant increase of 39% in TSCI in admitted patients with spinal fractures over the past 35 years (p < 0.001). This increase was especially prevalent in cervical spinal fractures (132%), while thoracic and lumbosacral spinal fractures showed a decrease in accompanied TSCI (64% and 88% respectively). The overall increase in spinal fractures was not significant. The duration of hospital admission decreased for spinal fractures without TSCI and with TSCI (66% and 56% respectively).

CONCLUSION

Since implementation of the SMR-protocol was aiming to limit TSCI in patients who suffered a spinal fracture, the increase in TSCI is an unexpected finding. Exact explanation for this increase is unclear and the contribution of the SMR-protocol is not fully understood due to confounders in the used datasets. Either way, the scientific evidence supporting this costly time- and labor-intensive SMR-protocol remains debated, along with evidence contradicting it. Therefore it stresses the need for clear, evidencebased reasoning for spinal immobilization according to ATLS, as this is currently lacking.

Traditional Spinal Immobilization versus Spinal Motion Restriction in Cervical Spine Movement; a Randomized Crossover Trial

Introduction

Proper cervical spine immobilization is essential to prevent further injury following trauma. This study aimed to compare the cervical range of motion (ROM) and the immobilization time between traditional spinal immobilization (TSI) and spinal motion restriction (SMR).

Methods

This study was a randomized 2x2 crossover design in healthy volunteers. Participants were randomly assigned by Sequential numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes (SNOSE) with permuted block-of-four randomization to TSI or SMR. We used an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor to measure the cervical ROM in three dimensions focusing on flexion-extension, rotation, and lateral bending. The immobilization time was recorded by the investigator.

Results

A total of 35 healthy volunteers were enrolled in the study. The SMR method had cervical spine movement lower than the TSI method about 3.18 degrees on ROM in flexion-extension (p < 0.001). The SMR method had cervical spine movement lower than the TSI method about 2.01 degrees on ROM in lateral bending (p = 0.022). The immobilization time for the SMR method was 11.88 seconds longer than for the TSI method (p < 0.001) but not clinically significant.

Conclusion

SMR that used scoop stretcher resulted in significantly less cervical spine movement than immobilization with a TSI that used long spinal board. We recommend implementing the SMR protocol for transporting trauma patients, as minimizing cervical motion may enhance patient outcomes.

Wilderness Medical Society Clinical Practice Guidelines for Spinal Cord Protection: 2024 Update

The Wilderness Medical Society reconvened an expert panel to update best practice guidelines for spinal cord protection during trauma management. This panel, with membership updated in 2023, was charged with the development of evidence-based guidelines for management of the injured or potentially injured spine in wilderness environments. Recommendations are made regarding several parameters related to spinal cord protection. These recommendations are graded based on the quality of supporting evidence and balance the benefits and risks/burdens for each parameter according to American College of Chest Physicians methodology. Key recommendations include the concept that interventions should be goal-oriented (spinal cord/column protection in the context of overall patient and provider safety) rather than technique-oriented (immobilization). An evidence-based, goal-oriented approach excludes the immobilization of suspected spinal injuries via rigid collars or backboards.

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.