Literature DB >> 19333100

Comparison of the flat torso versus the elevated torso shoulder pad removal techniques in a cadaveric cervical spine instability model.

MaryBeth Horodyski1, Christian P DiPaola, Matthew J DiPaola, Bryan P Conrad, Gianluca Del Rossi, Glenn R Rechtine.   

Abstract

STUDY
DESIGN: Controlled laboratory study in a cadaveric model.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if removing shoulder pads using the elevated torso technique generated less spinal segment motion than using the flat torso method. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Guidelines for care of the injured football player with a suspected spinal injury recommend initial immobilization with shoulder pads and helmet in place. There is a need to develop a safe protocol, for shoulder pad removal that maintains optimum cervical stability.
METHODS: Five lightly embalmed cadavers were studied before and after a globally unstable segment was created at C5-C6. A trained group of medical staff conducted repeated measures trials for 2 pad removal protocols. The elevated torso technique, outlined by the NATA Inter-Association Task Force, is the same as the flat torso except an additional assistant is employed to lift the patient's shoulders 30 degrees to 40 degrees off the ground while the head holder maintains spinal alignment as the pads are removed. An electromagnetic tracking device captured angular and linear motions in 3 planes between the C5-C6 segments.
RESULTS: The elevated torso technique generated significantly less C5-C6 motion in flexion/extension (P = 0.015) and lateral bending (P = 0.001), with a trend toward decreased cervical motion in axial rotation (P = 0.052). When moving the spine-injured cadavers, linear translation was also slightly, but not significantly less when the elevated torso technique was used. In the intact spine, significantly less motion was seen in 5 of 6 measures when the elevated torso technique was used. However, the differences were not large enough to be clinically significant in an intact spine.
CONCLUSION: These findings support use of the elevated torso method to minimize cervical spine motion during shoulder pad removal when neither thoracic nor lumbar spinal injury is a concern.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19333100     DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e31819794e7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)        ISSN: 0362-2436            Impact factor:   3.468


  8 in total

1.  Emergent Access to the Airway and Chest in American Football Players.

Authors:  Erik E Swartz; Jason P Mihalik; Laura C Decoster; Sossan Al-Darraji; Justin Bric
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2015-05-14       Impact factor: 2.860

2.  Motion in the unstable thoracolumbar spine when spine boarding a prone patient.

Authors:  Bryan P Conrad; Diana L Marchese; Glenn R Rechtine; Marybeth Horodyski
Journal:  J Spinal Cord Med       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.985

3.  Consensus Recommendations on the Prehospital Care of the Injured Athlete With a Suspected Catastrophic Cervical Spine Injury.

Authors:  Brianna M Mills; Kelsey M Conrick; Scott Anderson; Julian Bailes; Barry P Boden; Darryl Conway; James Ellis; Francis Feld; Murphy Grant; Brian Hainline; Glenn Henry; Stanley A Herring; Wellington K Hsu; Alex Isakov; Tory R Lindley; Lance McNamara; Jason P Mihalik; Timothy L Neal; Margot Putukian; Frederick P Rivara; Allen K Sills; Erik E Swartz; Monica S Vavilala; Ron Courson
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2020-06-23       Impact factor: 2.860

4.  Motion in the unstable cervical spine when transferring a patient positioned prone to a spine board.

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

5.  The riddell ripkord system for shoulder pad removal in a cervical spine injured athlete: a paradigm shift.

Authors:  Michael Kordecki; Danny Smith; Barb Hoogenboom
Journal:  Int J Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2011-06

6.  Best Practices and Current Care Concepts in Prehospital Care of the Spine-Injured Athlete in American Tackle Football March 2-3, 2019; Atlanta, GA.

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

7.  A comparison of 4 airway devices on cervical spine alignment in cadaver models of global ligamentous instability at c1-2.

Authors:  Adam L Wendling; Patrick J Tighe; Bryan P Conrad; Tezcan Ozrazgat Baslanti; Marybeth Horodyski; Glenn R Rechtine
Journal:  Anesth Analg       Date:  2013-01-25       Impact factor: 5.108

8.  Controlled Laboratory Comparison Study of Motion With Football Equipment in a Destabilized Cervical Spine: Three Spine-Board Transfer Techniques.

Authors:  Mark L Prasarn; MaryBeth Horodyski; Matthew J DiPaola; Christian P DiPaola; Gianluca Del Rossi; Bryan P Conrad; Glenn R Rechtine
Journal:  Orthop J Sports Med       Date:  2015-09-08
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.