Literature DB >> 16284635

A comparison of head movement during back boarding by motorized spine-board and log-roll techniques.

Erik E Swartz1, Jennifer Nowak, Chandra Shirley, Laura C Decoster.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: In a patient with a potential cervical spine injury, minimizing or eliminating movement at the head and neck during stabilization and transport is paramount because movement can exacerbate the condition. Any equipment or technique creating less movement will allow for a more effective and safe stabilization of an injured patient, reducing the likelihood of movement and potential secondary injury.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the amount of head movement created during the log-roll and motorized spine-board (MSB) stabilization techniques.
DESIGN: A 2-condition, repeated-measures design.
SETTING: Laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Thirteen certified athletic trainers, emergency first responders, and emergency medical technicians (6 men, 7 women). INTERVENTION(S): Subjects rotated through 4 positions for the log roll and 2 positions for the MSB. Each subject performed 3 trials while maintaining manual, inline stabilization of the model's head for each condition. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Three-dimensional head movement was measured and expressed as degrees of motion.
RESULTS: The log roll created significantly more motion in the frontal and transverse planes compared with the MSB (P = .001 for both measures). No significant difference was noted for sagittal-plane motion (P = .028).
CONCLUSIONS: The MSB created less movement at the head than did the log roll in 2 planes of motion and created slightly more motion in 1 plane, although this difference was not significant. The MSB may provide emergency responders with an appropriate alternative method for stabilizing and transporting a supine injured athlete without requiring a log roll.

Entities:  

Year:  2005        PMID: 16284635      PMCID: PMC1250254     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Athl Train        ISSN: 1062-6050            Impact factor:   2.860


  19 in total

1.  Efforts at intubation: cervical injury in an emergency circumstance?

Authors:  B A Liang; M A Cheng; R Tempelhoff
Journal:  J Clin Anesth       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 9.452

2.  On-field management for the injured football player.

Authors:  K R Dasen
Journal:  Clin J Sport Med       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 3.638

3.  A 3-Dimensional Analysis of Face-Mask Removal Tools in Inducing Helmet Movement.

Authors:  Erik E Swartz; Charles W Armstrong; James M Rankin; Burton Rogers
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 2.860

4.  Head Position and Football Equipment Influence Cervical Spinal-Cord Space During Immobilization.

Authors:  Ryan T Tierney; Carl G Mattacola; Michael R Sitler; Catherine Maldjian
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 2.860

5.  Cervical Spine Stenosis Measures in Normal Subjects.

Authors:  Ryan T Tierney; Catherine Maldjian; Carl G Mattacola; Stephen J Straub; Michael R Sitler
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 2.860

Review 6.  A review of spinal immobilization techniques.

Authors:  R A De Lorenzo
Journal:  J Emerg Med       Date:  1996 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 1.484

7.  Cervical spinal motion during intubation: efficacy of stabilization maneuvers in the setting of complete segmental instability.

Authors:  P J Lennarson; D W Smith; P D Sawin; M M Todd; Y Sato; V C Traynelis
Journal:  J Neurosurg       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 5.115

8.  Efficacy of cervical spine immobilization methods.

Authors:  S Podolsky; L J Baraff; R R Simon; J R Hoffman; B Larmon; W Ablon
Journal:  J Trauma       Date:  1983-06

9.  Cervical spine motion during airway management: a cinefluoroscopic study of the posteriorly destabilized third cervical vertebrae in human cadavers.

Authors:  J Brimacombe; C Keller; K H Künzel; O Gaber; M Boehler; F Pühringer
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 5.108

10.  A Comparison of Spine-Board Transfer Techniques and the Effect of Training on Performance.

Authors:  Gianluca Del Rossi; MaryBeth Horodyski; Michael E. Powers
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 2.860

View more
  6 in total

1.  Emergency face-mask removal effectiveness: a comparison of traditional and nontraditional football helmet face-mask attachment systems.

Authors:  Erik E Swartz; Keith Belmore; Laura C Decoster; Charles W Armstrong
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 2.860

2.  Cervical spine motion during extrication: a pilot study.

Authors:  Jeffery S Shafer; Rosanne S Naunheim
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2009-05

3.  The 6-plus-person lift transfer technique compared with other methods of spine boarding.

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

4.  National athletic trainers' association position statement: acute management of the cervical spine-injured athlete.

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

5.  A Comparison of Cervical Spine Motion After Immobilization With a Traditional Spine Board and Full-Body Vacuum-Mattress Splint.

Authors:  Brian E Etier; Grant E Norte; Megan M Gleason; Dustin L Richter; Kelli F Pugh; Keith B Thomson; Lindsay V Slater; Joe M Hart; Stephen F Brockmeier; David R Diduch
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2017-12-20

Review 6.  Methods for evaluating cervical range of motion in trauma settings.

Authors:  Sarah Voss; Michael Page; Jonathan Benger
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2012-08-02       Impact factor: 2.953

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.