Literature DB >> 24377964

Cervical spine motion during football equipment-removal protocols: a challenge to the all-or-nothing endeavor.

Bradley Jacobson1, Michael Cendoma, Jacob Gdovin, Kevin Cooney, Dustin Bruening.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: The National Athletic Trainers' Association position statement on acute management of the cervical spine-injured athlete recommended the all-or-nothing endeavor, which involves removing or not removing both helmet and shoulder pads, from equipment-laden American football and ice hockey athletes. However, in supporting research, investigators have not considered alternative protocols.
OBJECTIVE: To measure cervical spine movement (head relative to sternum) produced when certified athletic trainers (ATs) use the all-or-nothing endeavor and to compare these findings with the movement produced using an alternative pack-and-fill protocol, which involves packing the area under and around the cervical neck and head with rolled towels.
DESIGN: Crossover study.
SETTING: Movement analysis laboratory. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: Eight male collegiate football players (age = 21.4 ± 1.4 years; height = 1.87 ± 0.02 m; mass = 103.6 ± 12.5 kg). INTERVENTION(S): Four ATs removed equipment under 4 conditions: removal of helmet only followed by placing the head on the ground (H), removal of the helmet only followed by pack-and-fill (HP), removal of the helmet and shoulder pads followed by placing the head on the ground (HS), and removal of the helmet and shoulder pads followed by pack-and-fill (HSP). Motion capture was used to track the movement of the head with respect to the sternum during equipment removal. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We measured head movement relative to sternum movement (translations and rotations). We used 4 × 4 analyses of variance with repeated measures to compare discrete motion variables (changes in position and total excursions) among protocols and ATs.
RESULTS: Protocol HP resulted in a 0.1 ± 0.6 cm rise in head position compared with a 1.4 ± 0.3 cm drop with protocol HS (P < .001). Protocol HP produced 4.9° less total angular excursion (P < .001) and 2.1 cm less total vertical excursion (P < .001) than protocol HS.
CONCLUSIONS: The pack-and-fill protocol was more effective than shoulder pad removal in minimizing cervical spine movement throughout the equipment-removal process. This study provides evidence for including the pack-and-fill protocol in future treatment recommendations when helmet removal is necessary for on-field care.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24377964      PMCID: PMC3917294          DOI: 10.4085/1062-6050-48.6.11

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Athl Train        ISSN: 1062-6050            Impact factor:   2.860


  21 in total

1.  Cervical spine functional anatomy and the biomechanics of injury due to compressive loading.

Authors:  Erik E Swartz; R T Floyd; Mike Cendoma
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2005 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.860

2.  Morphometric analyses of the cervical superior facets and implications for facet dislocation.

Authors:  Nabil A Ebraheim; Vishwas Patil; Jiayong Liu; Steve P Haman; Richard A Yeasting
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2006-11-17       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  The Incidence of Spearing During a High School's 1975 and 1990 Football Seasons.

Authors:  J F Heck
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  1996-01       Impact factor: 2.860

4.  Helmet and shoulder pad removal from a player with suspected cervical spine injury. A cadaveric model.

Authors:  W F Donaldson; W C Lauerman; B Heil; R Blanc; T Swenson
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1998-08-15       Impact factor: 3.468

5.  Cervical spine alignment in the immobilized ice hockey player. A computed tomographic analysis of the effects of helmet removal.

Authors:  R F Laprade; K A Schnetzler; R J Broxterman; F Wentorf; T J Gilbert
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2000 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 6.202

6.  Helmet and shoulder pad removal in suspected cervical spine injury: human control model.

Authors:  Marshal D Peris; William F Donaldson WF; Jeffrey Towers; Rob Blanc; Thomas S Muzzonigro
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2002-05-01       Impact factor: 3.468

7.  Cervical sagittal spinal canal size in spine injury.

Authors:  F J Eismont; S Clifford; M Goldberg; B Green
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  1984-10       Impact factor: 3.468

8.  Lacrosse equipment and cervical spinal cord space during immobilization: preliminary analysis.

Authors:  Michael Higgins; Ryan T Tierney; Jeffrey B Driban; Steven Edell; Randall Watkins
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2010 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.860

9.  National athletic trainers' association position statement: acute management of the cervical spine-injured athlete.

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

10.  Emergency removal of football equipment: a cadaveric cervical spine injury model.

Authors:  J A Gastel; M A Palumbo; M J Hulstyn; P D Fadale; P Lucas
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 5.721

View more
  2 in total

1.  Spinal trauma.

Authors:  Jim Ellis; Ron Courson; Brian Daniels
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2014-12

2.  Cervical Spine CT Can Miss Fractures in American Football Players When Protective Equipment is in Place: A Cadaver Study.

Authors:  Amit Piple; Carol Bernier; Mark Rogers; Kelley K Whitmer; David Keyes; Anmol G Bansal; Jonathan Carmouche
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-09-01       Impact factor: 4.755

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.