INTRODUCTION:Patients with possible spinal injury must be immobilized properly during transport to medical facilities. The aim of this research was comparing spinal immobilization using a long backboard (LBB) with using a vacuum mattress splint (VMS) in trauma victims transported by an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system. METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, 60 trauma victims with possible spinal trauma were divided to two groups, each group immobilized with one of the two instruments. Speed and ease of application, immobilization rate, and the patients' comfort were recorded. RESULTS: In this survey, LBB was faster to apply: 211.66 (SD = 28.53) seconds vs 654.00 (SD = 16.61) seconds. Various measures of immobilization were better by LBB. Also, LBB offered a significant improvement in comfort over a VMS for the patient with possible spinal injury. All of the results were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed that immobilization using LBB was easier, faster, and more comfortable for the patient, and provided additional decrease in spinal movement when compared with a VMS.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION:Patients with possible spinal injury must be immobilized properly during transport to medical facilities. The aim of this research was comparing spinal immobilization using a long backboard (LBB) with using a vacuum mattress splint (VMS) in trauma victims transported by an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system. METHODS: In this randomized clinical trial, 60 trauma victims with possible spinal trauma were divided to two groups, each group immobilized with one of the two instruments. Speed and ease of application, immobilization rate, and the patients' comfort were recorded. RESULTS: In this survey, LBB was faster to apply: 211.66 (SD = 28.53) seconds vs 654.00 (SD = 16.61) seconds. Various measures of immobilization were better by LBB. Also, LBB offered a significant improvement in comfort over a VMS for the patient with possible spinal injury. All of the results were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: The results of this study showed that immobilization using LBB was easier, faster, and more comfortable for the patient, and provided additional decrease in spinal movement when compared with a VMS.
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: G Sumann; D Moens; B Brink; M Brodmann Maeder; M Greene; M Jacob; P Koirala; K Zafren; M Ayala; M Musi; K Oshiro; A Sheets; G Strapazzon; D Macias; P Paal Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2020-12-14 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Rachel Strauss; Isabella Menchetti; Laure Perrier; Erik Blondal; Henry Peng; Wendy Sullivan-Kwantes; Homer Tien; Avery Nathens; Andrew Beckett; Jeannie Callum; Luis Teodoro da Luz Journal: Trauma Surg Acute Care Open Date: 2021-10-19