INTRODUCTION: Previous research has found that the log roll (LR) technique produces significant motion in the spinal column while transferring a supine patient onto a spine board. The purpose of this project was to determine whether log rolling a patient with an unstable spine from prone to supine with a pulling motion provides better thoracolumbar immobilization compared to log rolling with a push technique. METHODS: A global instability was surgically created at the L1 level in five cadavers. Two spine-boarding protocols were tested (LR Push and LR Pull). Both techniques entailed performing a 180° LR rotation of the prone patient from the ground to the supine position on the spine board. An electromagnetic tracking device registered motion between the T12 and L2 vertebral segments. Six motion parameters were tracked. Repeated-measures statistical analysis was performed to evaluate angular and translational motion. RESULTS: Less motion was produced during the LR Push compared to the LR Pull for all six motion parameters. The difference was statistically significant for three of the six parameters (flexion-extension, axial translation, and anterior-posterior (A-P) translation). CONCLUSIONS: Both the LR Push and LR Pull generated significant motion in the thoracolumbar spine during the prone to supine LR. The LR Push technique produced statistically less motion than the LR Pull, and should be considered when a prone patient with a suspected thoracolumbar injury needs to be transferred to a long spine board. More research is needed to identify techniques to further reduce the motion in the unstable spine during prone to supine LR.
INTRODUCTION: Previous research has found that the log roll (LR) technique produces significant motion in the spinal column while transferring a supine patient onto a spine board. The purpose of this project was to determine whether log rolling a patient with an unstable spine from prone to supine with a pulling motion provides better thoracolumbar immobilization compared to log rolling with a push technique. METHODS: A global instability was surgically created at the L1 level in five cadavers. Two spine-boarding protocols were tested (LR Push and LR Pull). Both techniques entailed performing a 180° LR rotation of the prone patient from the ground to the supine position on the spine board. An electromagnetic tracking device registered motion between the T12 and L2 vertebral segments. Six motion parameters were tracked. Repeated-measures statistical analysis was performed to evaluate angular and translational motion. RESULTS: Less motion was produced during the LR Push compared to the LR Pull for all six motion parameters. The difference was statistically significant for three of the six parameters (flexion-extension, axial translation, and anterior-posterior (A-P) translation). CONCLUSIONS: Both the LR Push and LR Pull generated significant motion in the thoracolumbar spine during the prone to supine LR. The LR Push technique produced statistically less motion than the LR Pull, and should be considered when a prone patient with a suspected thoracolumbar injury needs to be transferred to a long spine board. More research is needed to identify techniques to further reduce the motion in the unstable spine during prone to supine LR.
Authors: Christian P DiPaola; Matthew J DiPaola; Bryan P Conrad; MaryBeth Horodyski; Gianluca Del Rossi; Andrew Sawers; Glenn R Rechtine Journal: J Bone Joint Surg Am Date: 2008-08 Impact factor: 5.284
Authors: Christian P DiPaola; Andrew Sawers; Bryan P Conrad; MaryBeth Horodyski; Matthew J DiPaola; Gianluca Del Rossi; Glenn R Rechtine Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2009-01-15 Impact factor: 3.468
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
Authors: Gianluca Del Rossi; Marybeth Horodyski; Bryan P Conrad; Christian P Dipaola; Matthew J Dipaola; Glenn R Rechtine Journal: Spine (Phila Pa 1976) Date: 2008-06-15 Impact factor: 3.468
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: Bryan P Conrad; Gianluca Del Rossi; Mary Beth Horodyski; Mark L Prasarn; Yara Alemi; Glenn R Rechtine Journal: Surg Neurol Int Date: 2012-07-17
Authors: P K Hyldmo; M B Horodyski; B P Conrad; D N Dubose; J Røislien; M Prasarn; G R Rechtine; E Søreide Journal: Acta Anaesthesiol Scand Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 2.105