CONTEXT: To achieve full spinal immobilization during on-the-field management of an actual or potential spinal injury, rescuers transfer and secure patients to a long spine board. Several techniques can be used to facilitate this patient transfer. OBJECTIVE: To compare spinal segment motion of cadavers during the execution of the 6-plus-person (6+) lift, lift-and-slide (LS), and logroll (LR) spine-board transfer techniques. DESIGN: Crossover study. SETTING: Laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Eight medical professionals (1 woman, 7 men) with 5 to 32 years of experience were enlisted to help carry out the transfer techniques. In addition, test conditions were performed on 5 fresh cadavers (3 males, 2 females) with a mean age of 86.2 +/- 11.4 years. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S): Three-dimensional angular and linear motions initially were recorded during execution of transfer techniques, initially using cadavers with intact spines and then after C5-C6 spinal segment destabilization. The mean maximal linear displacement and angular motion obtained and calculated from the 3 trials for each test condition were included in the statistical analysis. RESULTS: Flexion-extension angular motion, as well as anteroposterior and distraction-compression linear motion, did not vary between the LR and either the 6+ lift or LS. Compared with the execution of the 6+ lift and LS, the execution of the LR generated significantly more axial rotation (P = .008 and .001, respectively), more lateral flexion (P = .005 and .003, respectively), and more medial-lateral translation (P = .003 and .004, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A small amount of spinal motion is inevitable when executing spine-board transfer techniques; however, the execution of the 6+ lift or LS appears to minimize the extent of motion generated across a globally unstable spinal segment.
CONTEXT: To achieve full spinal immobilization during on-the-field management of an actual or potential spinal injury, rescuers transfer and secure patients to a long spine board. Several techniques can be used to facilitate this patient transfer. OBJECTIVE: To compare spinal segment motion of cadavers during the execution of the 6-plus-person (6+) lift, lift-and-slide (LS), and logroll (LR) spine-board transfer techniques. DESIGN: Crossover study. SETTING: Laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Eight medical professionals (1 woman, 7 men) with 5 to 32 years of experience were enlisted to help carry out the transfer techniques. In addition, test conditions were performed on 5 fresh cadavers (3 males, 2 females) with a mean age of 86.2 +/- 11.4 years. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S): Three-dimensional angular and linear motions initially were recorded during execution of transfer techniques, initially using cadavers with intact spines and then after C5-C6 spinal segment destabilization. The mean maximal linear displacement and angular motion obtained and calculated from the 3 trials for each test condition were included in the statistical analysis. RESULTS: Flexion-extension angular motion, as well as anteroposterior and distraction-compression linear motion, did not vary between the LR and either the 6+ lift or LS. Compared with the execution of the 6+ lift and LS, the execution of the LR generated significantly more axial rotation (P = .008 and .001, respectively), more lateral flexion (P = .005 and .003, respectively), and more medial-lateral translation (P = .003 and .004, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A small amount of spinal motion is inevitable when executing spine-board transfer techniques; however, the execution of the 6+ lift or LS appears to minimize the extent of motion generated across a globally unstable spinal segment.
Entities:
Keywords:
lift-and-slide transfer technique; logroll transfer technique; prehospital care; spinal immobilization; spine injuries
Authors: Gregory D Carlson; Carey D Gorden; Heather S Oliff; Jay J Pillai; Joseph C LaManna Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2003-01 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Gianluca Del Rossi; MaryBeth Horodyski; Timothy P Heffernan; Michael E Powers; Ronald Siders; Denis Brunt; Glenn R Rechtine Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2004-04-01 Impact factor: 3.468
Authors: Calvin T Hu; Christian P Dipaola; Bryan P Conrad; Marybeth Horodyski; Gianluca Del Rossi; Glenn R Rechtine Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 1.985
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: 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