Traditional Spinal Immobilization versus Spinal Motion Restriction in Cervical Spine Movement; a Randomized Crossover Trial
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine,
Vol. 12 No. 1 (2024),
1 January 2024
,
Page e36
https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v12i1.2263
Abstract
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.
- spinal motion restriction
- traditional spinal immobilization
- prehospital care
- spinal immobilization
- spinal board
How to Cite
References
Athinartrattanapong, N., et al., Prediction Score for Cervical Spine Fracture in Patients with Traumatic Neck Injury. Neurol Res Int, 2021. 2021: p. 6658679.
Kanwar, R., et al., Emergency department evaluation and treatment of cervical spine injuries. Emerg Med Clin North Am, 2015. 33(2): p. 241-82.
Taghva, A., D.J. Hoh, and C.L. Lauryssen, Advances in the management of spinal cord and spinal column injuries. Handb Clin Neurol, 2012. 109: p. 105-30.
Feller, R., et al., EMS Immobilization Techniques, in StatPearls. 2023, StatPearls Publishing Copyright © 2023, StatPearls Publishing LLC.: Treasure Island (FL).
Maschmann, C., et al., New clinical guidelines on the spinal stabilisation of adult trauma patients - consensus and evidence based. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med, 2019. 27(1): p. 77.
Oteir, A.O., et al., Prehospital Predictors of Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury in Victoria, Australia. Prehosp Emerg Care, 2017. 21(5): p. 583-590.
Culhane, J., A. Parr, and P. Mercier, Accuracy of ct evaluation for cervical spine clearance in the ground level fall population - a retrospective cohort study. BMC Emerg Med, 2022. 22(1): p. 106.
Yue, J.K., et al., A review and update on the current and emerging clinical trials for the acute management of cervical spine and spinal cord injuries - Part III. J Neurosurg Sci, 2016. 60(4): p. 529-42.
Baratloo, A., et al., NEXUS vs. Canadian C-Spine Rule (CCR) in Predicting Cervical Spine Injuries; a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Arch Acad Emerg Med, 2023. 11(1): p. e66.
Ahn, H., et al., Pre-hospital care management of a potential spinal cord injured patient: a systematic review of the literature and evidence-based guidelines. J Neurotrauma, 2011. 28(8): p. 1341-61.
Holla, M., et al., The ability of external immobilizers to restrict movement of the cervical spine: a systematic review. Eur Spine J, 2016. 25(7): p. 2023-36.
Sundstrøm, T., et al., Prehospital use of cervical collars in trauma patients: a critical review. J Neurotrauma, 2014. 31(6): p. 531-40.
Bäcker, H.C., et al., Cervical immobilization in trauma patients: soft collars better than rigid collars? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Spine J, 2022. 31(12): p. 3378-3391.
Nilhas, A., et al., Pre-Hospital Spinal Immobilization: Neurological Outcomes for Spinal Motion Restriction Versus Spinal Immobilization. Kans J Med, 2022. 15: p. 119-122.
Weber, S.R., P. Rauscher, and R.P. Winsett, Comparison of a Padded Patient Litter and Long Spine Board for Spinal Immobilization in Air Medical Transport. Air Med J, 2015. 34(4): p. 213-7.
Ms, R., et al., Vacuum mattress or long spine board: which method of spinal stabilisation in trauma patients is more time consuming? A simulation study. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med, 2021. 29(1): p. 46.
Cordell, W.H., et al., Pain and tissue-interface pressures during spine-board immobilization. Ann Emerg Med, 1995. 26(1): p. 31-6.
Bauer, D. and R. Kowalski, Effect of spinal immobilization devices on pulmonary function in the healthy, nonsmoking man. Ann Emerg Med, 1988. 17(9): p. 915-8.
White, C.C.t., R.M. Domeier, and M.G. Millin, 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): p. 306-14.
Krell, J.M., et al., Comparison of the Ferno Scoop Stretcher with the long backboard for spinal immobilization. Prehosp Emerg Care, 2006. 10(1): p. 46-51.
Clemency, B.M., 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): p. 708-712.
Fischer, P.E., et al., Spinal Motion Restriction in the Trauma Patient - A Joint Position Statement. Prehosp Emerg Care, 2018. 22(6): p. 659-661.
Swartz, E.E., et al., Prehospital Cervical Spine Motion: Immobilization Versus Spine Motion Restriction. Prehosp Emerg Care, 2018. 22(5): p. 630-636.
Liengswangwong, W., et al., Comparing the Efficacy of Long Spinal Board, Sked Stretcher, and Vacuum Mattress in Cervical Spine Immobilization; a Method-Oriented Experimental Study. Arch Acad Emerg Med, 2023. 11(1): p. e44.
Simon, L.J. and V.M. Chinchilli, A matched crossover design for clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials, 2007. 28(5): p. 638-46.
Doig, G.S. and F. Simpson, Randomization and allocation concealment: a practical guide for researchers. J Crit Care, 2005. 20(2): p. 187-91; discussion 191-3.
Poitras, I., et al., Validity and Reliability of Wearable Sensors for Joint Angle Estimation: A Systematic Review. Sensors (Basel), 2019. 19(7).
Wiles, T.M., et al., NONAN GaitPrint: An IMU gait database of healthy young adults. Sci Data, 2023. 10(1): p. 867.
Del Rossi, G., et al., Are scoop stretchers suitable for use on spine-injured patients? Am J Emerg Med, 2010. 28(7): p. 751-6.
Swartz, E.E., et al., Prehospital Cervical Spine Motion: Immobilization Versus Spine Motion Restriction. Prehospital Emergency Care, 2018. 22(5): p. 630-636.
Siripakarn, Y., L. Triniti, and W. Srivilaithon, Association of Scene Time with Mortality in Major Traumatic Injuries Arrived by Emergency Medical Service. J Emerg Trauma Shock, 2023. 16(4): p. 156-160.
Nolte, P.C., et al., Analysis of cervical spine immobilization during patient transport in emergency medical services. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg, 2021. 47(3): p. 719-726.
Morrissey, J.F., E.R. Kusel, and K.A. Sporer, Spinal motion restriction: an educational and implementation program to redefine prehospital spinal assessment and care. Prehosp Emerg Care, 2014. 18(3): p. 429-32.
Thézard, F., et al., Effects of Spinal Immobilization and Spinal Motion Restriction on Head-Neck Kinematics during Ambulance Transport. Prehosp Emerg Care, 2019. 23(6): p. 811-819.
- Abstract Viewed: 438 times
- pdf Downloaded: 996 times