Roessler Ms1, M Riffelmann2, N Kunze-Szikszay3, M Lier3, O Schmid4, H Haus3, S Schneider5, Heuer Jf6. 1. Department for Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Strasse 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany. m.roessler@med.uni-goettingen.de. 2. Praxis Schmallenberg, Obringhauser Strasse 4, 57392, Schmallenberg, Germany. 3. Department for Anaesthesiology, University Medical Center Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Strasse 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany. 4. Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Eichsfeld Clinic, Windische Gasse 112, 37308, Heilbad Heiligenstadt, Germany. 5. Department of Medical Statistics, University Medical Center Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Strasse 40, 37075, Göttingen, Germany. 6. Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive-Care-, Emergency- and Pain-Medicine, Augusta Krankenanstalt Bochum, Bergstrasse 26, 44791, Bochum, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Spinal stabilisation is recommended for prehospital trauma treatment. In Germany, vacuum mattresses are traditionally used for spinal stabilisation, whereas in anglo-american countries, long spine boards are preferred. While it is recommended that the on-scene time is as short as possible, even less than 10 minutes for unstable patients, spinal stabilisation is a time-consuming procedure. For this reason, the time needed for spinal stabilisation may prevent the on-scene time from being brief. The aim of this simulation study was to compare the time required for spinal stabilisation between a scoop stretcher in conjunction with a vacuum mattress and a long spine board. METHODS: Medical personnel of different professions were asked to perform spinal immobilizations with both methods. A total of 172 volunteers were immobilized under ideal conditions as well as under realistic conditions. A vacuum mattress was used for 78 spinal stabilisations, and a long spinal board was used for 94. The duration of the procedures were measured by video analysis. RESULTS: Under ideal conditions, spinal stabilisation on a vacuum mattress and a spine board required 254.4 s (95 % CI 235.6-273.2 s) and 83.4 s (95 % CI 77.5-89.3 s), respectively (p < 0.01). Under realistic conditions, the vacuum mattress and spine board required 358.3 s (95 % CI 316.0-400.6 s) and 112.6 s (95 % CI 102.6-122.6 s), respectively (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Spinal stabilisation for trauma patients is significantly more time consuming on a vacuum mattress than on a long spine board. Considering that the prehospital time of EMS should not exceed 60 minutes and the on-scene time should not exceed 30 minutes or even 10 minutes if the patient is in extremis, based on our results, spinal stabilisation on a vacuum mattress may consume more than 20 % of the recommended on-scene time. In contrast, stabilisation on a spine board requires only one third of the time required for that on a vacuum mattress. We conclude that a long spine board may be feasible for spinal stabilisation for critical trauma patients with timesensitive life threatening ABCDE-problems to ensure the shortest possible on-scene time for prehospital trauma treatment, not least if a patient has to be rescued from an open or inaccessible terrain, especially that with uneven overgrown land.
BACKGROUND: Spinal stabilisation is recommended for prehospital trauma treatment. In Germany, vacuum mattresses are traditionally used for spinal stabilisation, whereas in anglo-american countries, long spine boards are preferred. While it is recommended that the on-scene time is as short as possible, even less than 10 minutes for unstable patients, spinal stabilisation is a time-consuming procedure. For this reason, the time needed for spinal stabilisation may prevent the on-scene time from being brief. The aim of this simulation study was to compare the time required for spinal stabilisation between a scoop stretcher in conjunction with a vacuum mattress and a long spine board. METHODS: Medical personnel of different professions were asked to perform spinal immobilizations with both methods. A total of 172 volunteers were immobilized under ideal conditions as well as under realistic conditions. A vacuum mattress was used for 78 spinal stabilisations, and a long spinal board was used for 94. The duration of the procedures were measured by video analysis. RESULTS: Under ideal conditions, spinal stabilisation on a vacuum mattress and a spine board required 254.4 s (95 % CI 235.6-273.2 s) and 83.4 s (95 % CI 77.5-89.3 s), respectively (p < 0.01). Under realistic conditions, the vacuum mattress and spine board required 358.3 s (95 % CI 316.0-400.6 s) and 112.6 s (95 % CI 102.6-122.6 s), respectively (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Spinal stabilisation for traumapatients is significantly more time consuming on a vacuum mattress than on a long spine board. Considering that the prehospital time of EMS should not exceed 60 minutes and the on-scene time should not exceed 30 minutes or even 10 minutes if the patient is in extremis, based on our results, spinal stabilisation on a vacuum mattress may consume more than 20 % of the recommended on-scene time. In contrast, stabilisation on a spine board requires only one third of the time required for that on a vacuum mattress. We conclude that a long spine board may be feasible for spinal stabilisation for critical traumapatients with timesensitive life threatening ABCDE-problems to ensure the shortest possible on-scene time for prehospital trauma treatment, not least if a patient has to be rescued from an open or inaccessible terrain, especially that with uneven overgrown land.
Authors: Elliott R Haut; Brian T Kalish; David T Efron; Adil H Haider; Kent A Stevens; Alicia N Kieninger; Edward E Cornwell; David C Chang Journal: J Trauma Date: 2010-01
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: 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: J T Oosterwold; D C Sagel; P M van Grunsven; M Holla; J de Man-van Ginkel; S Berben Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 3.693
Authors: Camilla Ikast Ottosen; Jacob Steinmetz; Mo Haslund Larsen; Josefine S Baekgaard; Lars S Rasmussen Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2019-07-22 Impact factor: 2.953