OBJECTIVE: To compare the log-roll (LR) maneuver and the lift-and-slide (LS) technique and to investigate the effect of training on the performance of these transfer techniques. DESIGN AND SETTING: A repeated-measures design involving certified athletic trainers and athletic training students from a National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I college. SUBJECTS: Certified athletic trainers and athletic training students were required to transfer healthy individuals onto a spine board. Testing was performed on 2 men of average size, whereas training sessions were performed on both men and women of different heights and weights. RESULTS: Differences between transfer techniques were noted. The execution of the LR produced significantly greater lateral-flexion motion and greater axial rotation of the head as compared with the LS. Performance of spine-board transfer techniques did not improve with training. CONCLUSIONS: The LS technique was more effective in restricting motion of the head. To truly establish the safety of spine-board transfer techniques, researchers need to assess how individual segments move within the structurally unstable cervical spine.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the log-roll (LR) maneuver and the lift-and-slide (LS) technique and to investigate the effect of training on the performance of these transfer techniques. DESIGN AND SETTING: A repeated-measures design involving certified athletic trainers and athletic training students from a National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I college. SUBJECTS: Certified athletic trainers and athletic training students were required to transfer healthy individuals onto a spine board. Testing was performed on 2 men of average size, whereas training sessions were performed on both men and women of different heights and weights. RESULTS: Differences between transfer techniques were noted. The execution of the LR produced significantly greater lateral-flexion motion and greater axial rotation of the head as compared with the LS. Performance of spine-board transfer techniques did not improve with training. CONCLUSIONS: The LS technique was more effective in restricting motion of the head. To truly establish the safety of spine-board transfer techniques, researchers need to assess how individual segments move within the structurally unstable cervical spine.
Authors: Bryan P Conrad; Diana L Marchese; Glenn R Rechtine; Mark Prasarn; Gianluca Del Rossi; Marybeth H Horodyski Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2013-08-16 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Ron Courson; James Ellis; Stanley A Herring; Barry P Boden; Glenn Henry; Darryl Conway; Lance McNamara; Timothy L Neal; Margot Putukian; Allen K Sills; Kimberly P Walpert Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2020-06-23 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Ian Shrier; Patrick Boissy; Simon Brière; Jay Mellette; Luc Fecteau; Gordon O Matheson; Daniel Garza; Willem H Meeuwisse; Eli Segal; John Boulay; Russell J Steele Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2012 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Gianluca Del Rossi; Marybeth H Horodyski; Bryan P Conrad; Christian P Di Paola; Matthew J Di Paola; Glenn R Rechtine Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2008 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Erik E Swartz; Barry P Boden; Ronald W Courson; Laura C Decoster; MaryBeth Horodyski; Susan A Norkus; Robb S Rehberg; Kevin N Waninger Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2009 May-Jun Impact factor: 2.860