Comparing the Efficacy of Long Spinal Board, Sked Stretcher, and Vacuum Mattress in Cervical Spine Immobilization; a Method-Oriented Experimental Study
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine,
Vol. 11 No. 1 (2023),
15 November 2022
,
Page e43
https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v11i1.2036
Abstract
Introduction: Inadequate spinal motion restriction in patients suffering from spinal injuries could lead to further neurological damage, ultimately worsening their prognosis. This study aimed to investigate the efficacy of long spinal boards (LSB), ske stretcher, and vacuum mattress for cervical spine immobilization during transportation of patients by measuring the angular motion of the cervical spine following lifting, transferring, and tilting. Methods: We conducted an experimental study using a box of three randomizations and crossover designs without a washout period effect for the long spinal board, sked stretcher, and vacuum mattress. We concealed the randomization with sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes (SNOSE). Kinematic data were collected using eight optoelectronic cameras at 200 Hz (BTS Bioengineering, Milan, Italy) in triangular planes (lateral bending, flexion-extension, and axial rotation) while performing all three motions (static lift-hold, transfer, and 90° tilt).
Results: 12 cases (7 males and 5 females) with the mean age of 20 ± 3.03 (range: 18-28) years were studied. The three highest angular motions were observed in the axial rotation plane during patient’s tilting under immobilization on all devices (Vacuum mattress having the highest value of 99.01±8.93, followed by the LSB at 89.89±34.35 and the sked stretcher at 86.30±7.73 degrees). During patient lifting, a higher angular motion was observed with vacuum mattress immobilization in flexion extension (Coefficient = 4.45; 95%CI: 0.46 – 8.45; p =0.029) and axial rotation (Coefficient = 3.70; 95%CI: 0.58 – 6.81; p =0.020) planes. During patient transfer, a higher angular motion was observed with sked stretcher in the flexion-extension plane (Coefficient = 2.98; 95%CI: 0.11 – 5.84; p = 0.042). During patient tilting to 90 degrees, a higher angular motion was observed with vacuum mattress immobilization in lateral bending (Coefficient = -4.08; 95%CI: -7.68 - -0.48; p = 0.026) for the vacuum mattress.
Conclusion: Based on the finding of the present study, patients on the vacuum mattress experience significantly higher angular motion in flexion extension and axial rotation during lifting, as well as lateral bending during 90-degree tilting. In addition, patients on the sked stretcher showed significantly higher angular motion in flexion-extension during the transferring. However, the predictive margins for immobilization across all devices did not demonstrate clinically significant differences among the three immobilization devices.
- Cervical vertebrae
- motion
- immobilization
- stretcher
- vacuum mattress
How to Cite
References
Athinartrattanapong N, Yuksen C, Leela-Amornsin S, Jenpanitpong C, Wongwaisayawan S, Leelapattana P. Prediction Score for Cervical Spine Fracture in Patients with Traumatic Neck Injury. Neurol Res Int. 2021;2021:6658679.
Vazirizadeh-Mahabadi M, Yarahmadi M. Canadian C-spine Rule versus NEXUS in Screening of Clinically Important Traumatic Cervical Spine Injuries; a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2023;11(1):e5.
Yuksen C, Sittichanbuncha Y, Patumanond J, Muengtaweepongsa S, Sawanyawisuth K. Clinical predictive score of intracranial hemorrhage in mild traumatic brain injury. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2018;14:213-8.
Feller R, Furin M, Alloush A, Reynolds C. EMS Immobilization Techniques. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing
Copyright © 2023, StatPearls Publishing LLC.; 2023.
Hauswald M, Braude D. Spinal immobilization in trauma patients: is it really necessary? Curr Opin Crit Care. 2002;8(6):566-70.
Hulldin M, Kängström J, Andersson Hagiwara M, Claesson A. Perceived exertion using two different EMS stretcher systems, report from a Swedish study. Am J Emerg Med. 2018;36(6):1040-4.
White CCt, Domeier RM, Millin MG. EMS spinal precautions and the use of the long backboard - resource document to the position statement of the National Association of EMS Physicians and the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2014;18(2):306-14.
Castro-Marin F, Gaither JB, Rice AD, R NB, Chikani V, Vossbrink A, et al. Prehospital Protocols Reducing Long Spinal Board Use Are Not Associated with a Change in Incidence of Spinal Cord Injury. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2020;24(3):401-10.
Clemency BM, Natalzia P, Innes J, Guarino S, Welch JV, Haghdel A, et al. A Change from a Spinal Immobilization to a Spinal Motion Restriction Protocol was Not Associated with an Increase in Disabling Spinal Cord Injuries. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2021;36(6):708-12.
Milland K, Al-Dhahir MA. EMS Long Spine Board Immobilization. StatPearls. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing
Copyright © 2023, StatPearls Publishing LLC.; 2023.
Prasarn ML, Hyldmo PK, Zdziarski LA, Loewy E, Dubose D, Horodyski M, et al. Comparison of the Vacuum Mattress versus the Spine Board Alone for Immobilization of the Cervical Spine Injured Patient: A Biomechanical Cadaveric Study. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017;42(24):E1398-e402.
Etier BE, Jr., Norte GE, Gleason MM, Richter DL, Pugh KF, Thomson KB, et al. A Comparison of Cervical Spine Motion After Immobilization With a Traditional Spine Board and Full-Body Vacuum-Mattress Splint. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017;5(12):2325967117744757.
Johnson DR, Hauswald M, Stockhoff C. Comparison of a vacuum splint device to a rigid backboard for spinal immobilization. Am J Emerg Med. 1996;14(4):369-72.
Pernik MN, Seidel HH, Blalock RE, Burgess AR, Horodyski M, Rechtine GR, et al. Comparison of tissue-interface pressure in healthy subjects lying on two trauma splinting devices: The vacuum mattress splint and long spine board. Injury. 2016;47(8):1801-5.
Nolte PC, Uzun DD, Häske D, Weerts J, Münzberg M, Rittmann A, et al. Analysis of cervical spine immobilization during patient transport in emergency medical services. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2021;47(3):719-26.
Rahmatalla S, DeShaw J, Stilley J, Denning G, Jennissen C. Comparing the Efficacy of Methods for Immobilizing the Cervical Spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2019;44(1):32-40.
Mahshidfar B, Mofidi M, Yari AR, Mehrsorosh S. Long backboard versus vacuum mattress splint to immobilize whole spine in trauma victims in the field: a randomized clinical trial. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2013;28(5):462-5.
Rozzelle CJ, Aarabi B, Dhall SS, Gelb DE, Hurlbert RJ, Ryken TC, et al. Management of pediatric cervical spine and spinal cord injuries. Neurosurgery. 2013;72 Suppl 2:205-26.
- Abstract Viewed: 484 times
- pdf Downloaded: 631 times
