Literature DB >> 7584752

Padded vs unpadded spine board for cervical spine immobilization.

R Walton1, J F DeSalvo, A A Ernst, A Shahane.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether padding the long spine board improves patient comfort, affects cervical spine (c-spine) immobilization, or increases sacral transcutaneous O2 tension.
METHODS: A prospective randomized, controlled crossover study of healthy volunteers was conducted over a two-week period. Participants included 30 volunteers with no previous history of c-spine injury or disease. The subjects were randomized to either padded or unpadded long spine board immobilization with serial measurements of discomfort (using a visual analog scale) and transcutaneous tissue O2 tension obtained at zero and 30 minutes. Measurements of ability to flex, extend, rotate, and laterally bend the c-spine were made using a goniometer. The subjects then returned a minimum of three days later to complete the opposite half of the study (padded vs unpadded boards).
RESULTS: Subject discomfort was significantly reduced in the padded group compared with the unpadded group (p = 0.024). There was no significant difference in flexion (p = 0.410), extension (p = 0.231), rotation (p = 0.891), or lateral bending (p = 0.230) for the two groups. There was no significant difference in the actual drop in sacral transcutaneous O2 tension from time zero to 30 minutes for the padded and the unpadded groups (mean drop = 14.8% +/- 17.5% vs 12.2% +/- 16.8%, respectively; p = 0.906).
CONCLUSION: Adding closed-cell foam padding to a long spine board significantly improves comfort without compromising c-spine immobilization. Sacral tissue oxygenation does not appear affected by such padding for healthy volunteers.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7584752     DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1995.tb03625.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Emerg Med        ISSN: 1069-6563            Impact factor:   3.451


  7 in total

Review 1.  Spinal immobilisation for trauma patients.

Authors:  I Kwan; F Bunn; I Roberts
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2001

Review 2.  Prehospital use of cervical collars in trauma patients: a critical review.

Authors:  Terje Sundstrøm; Helge Asbjørnsen; Samer Habiba; Geir Arne Sunde; Knut Wester
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2013-11-06       Impact factor: 5.269

Review 3.  The use of the spinal board after the pre-hospital phase of trauma management.

Authors:  D Vickery
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 2.740

4.  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

Review 5.  Pre-hospital care management of a potential spinal cord injured patient: a systematic review of the literature and evidence-based guidelines.

Authors:  Henry Ahn; Jeffrey Singh; Avery Nathens; Russell D MacDonald; Andrew Travers; John Tallon; Michael G Fehlings; Albert Yee
Journal:  J Neurotrauma       Date:  2010-06-16       Impact factor: 5.269

6.  Cervical spine motion during extrication: a pilot study.

Authors:  Jeffery S Shafer; Rosanne S Naunheim
Journal:  West J Emerg Med       Date:  2009-05

Review 7.  The Norwegian guidelines for the prehospital management of adult trauma patients with potential spinal injury.

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

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.