OBJECTIVES: Spinal immobilization is essential in reducing risk of further spinal injuries in trauma patients. The authors compared the traditional long backboard (LBB) with the Ferno Scoop Stretcher (FSS) (Model 65-EXL). They hypothesized no difference in movement during application and immobilization between the FSS and the LBB. METHODS: Thirty-one adult subjects had electromagnetic sensors secured over the nasion (forehead) and the C3 and T12 spinous processes and were placed in a rigid cervical collar, with movement recorded by a goniometer (a motion analysis system). Subjects were tested on both the FSS and the LBB. The sagittal flexion, lateral flexion, and axial rotation were recorded during each of four phases: 1) baseline, 2) application (logroll onto the LBB or placement of the FSS around the patient), 3) secured logroll, and 4) lifting. Comfort and perceived security also were assessed on a visual analog scale. RESULTS: There was approximately 6-8 degrees greater motion in the sagittal, lateral, and axial planes during the application of the LBB compared with the FSS (both p < 0.001). No difference was found during a secured logroll maneuver. The FSS induced more sagittal flexion during the lift than the LBB (p < 0.001). The FSS demonstrated superior comfort and perceived security. CONCLUSION: The FSS caused significantly less movement on application and increased comfort levels. Decreased movement using the FSS may reduce the risk of further spinal cord injury.
OBJECTIVES: Spinal immobilization is essential in reducing risk of further spinal injuries in traumapatients. The authors compared the traditional long backboard (LBB) with the Ferno Scoop Stretcher (FSS) (Model 65-EXL). They hypothesized no difference in movement during application and immobilization between the FSS and the LBB. METHODS: Thirty-one adult subjects had electromagnetic sensors secured over the nasion (forehead) and the C3 and T12 spinous processes and were placed in a rigid cervical collar, with movement recorded by a goniometer (a motion analysis system). Subjects were tested on both the FSS and the LBB. The sagittal flexion, lateral flexion, and axial rotation were recorded during each of four phases: 1) baseline, 2) application (logroll onto the LBB or placement of the FSS around the patient), 3) secured logroll, and 4) lifting. Comfort and perceived security also were assessed on a visual analog scale. RESULTS: There was approximately 6-8 degrees greater motion in the sagittal, lateral, and axial planes during the application of the LBB compared with the FSS (both p < 0.001). No difference was found during a secured logroll maneuver. The FSS induced more sagittal flexion during the lift than the LBB (p < 0.001). The FSS demonstrated superior comfort and perceived security. CONCLUSION: The FSS caused significantly less movement on application and increased comfort levels. Decreased movement using the FSS may reduce the risk of further spinal cord injury.
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: Henry Ahn; Jeffrey Singh; Avery Nathens; Russell D MacDonald; Andrew Travers; John Tallon; Michael G Fehlings; Albert Yee Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2010-06-16 Impact factor: 5.269
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: Daniel K Kornhall; Jørgen Joakim Jørgensen; Tor Brommeland; Per Kristian Hyldmo; Helge Asbjørnsen; Thomas Dolven; Thomas Hansen; Elisabeth Jeppesen Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2017-01-05 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Rick Hong; Molly Meenan; Erin Prince; Ronald Murphy; Caitlin Tambussi; Rick Rohrbach; Brigitte M Baumann Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2014-07