Literature DB >> 8768157

Comparison of a vacuum splint device to a rigid backboard for spinal immobilization.

D R Johnson1, M Hauswald, C Stockhoff.   

Abstract

In this study, comparison of a vacuum splint device to a rigid backboard was made with respect to comfort, speed of application, and degree of immobilization. The study was a prospective, nonblinded comparative study conducted at a statewide emergency medical services (EMS) training facility and included a convenience sample of emergency medical technician (EMT) and paramedic students. The vacuum splint was judged to be significantly more comfortable on a 10-point scale than the rigid backboard after subjects had been lying on each device for 30 minutes (P < .001). It was also faster to apply: 131.6 +/- 24.3 seconds versus 154.6 +/- 22.2 seconds (P < .001). Various measures of immobilization were similar for the two devices. The vacuum splint provided better Immobilization of the torso and less slippage on a gradual lateral tilt. The rigid backboard with head blocks was slightly better at immobilizing the head. Vacuum splints offer a significant improvement in comfort over a traditional backboard for the patient with possible spinal injury. They can be applied in reasonable time frames and provide a similar degree of immobilization when compared to a standard rigid backboard.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8768157     DOI: 10.1016/S0735-6757(96)90051-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Emerg Med        ISSN: 0735-6757            Impact factor:   2.469


  17 in total

Review 1.  Spinal immobilisation for trauma patients.

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

2.  Comparison of a long spinal board and vacuum mattress for spinal immobilisation.

Authors:  M D Luscombe; J L Williams
Journal:  Emerg Med J       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 2.740

3.  National athletic trainers' association position statement: preventing sudden death in sports.

Authors:  Douglas J Casa; Kevin M Guskiewicz; Scott A Anderson; Ronald W Courson; Jonathan F Heck; Carolyn C Jimenez; Brendon P McDermott; Michael G Miller; Rebecca L Stearns; Erik E Swartz; Katie M Walsh
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2012 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 2.860

4.  [Development and first application testing of a new protocol for preclinical spinal immobilization in children : Assessment of indications based on the E.M.S. IMMO Protocol Pediatric].

Authors:  Philip C Nolte; Davut D Uzun; Shiyao Liao; Matthias Kuch; Paul A Grützner; Matthias Münzberg; Michael Kreinest
Journal:  Unfallchirurg       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 1.000

5.  Use of the spinal board within the accident and emergency department.

Authors:  M W Cooke
Journal:  J Accid Emerg Med       Date:  1998-03

6.  Analysis of prehospital care and emergency room treatment of patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury: a retrospective cohort study on the implementation of current guidelines.

Authors:  M Kreinest; L Ludes; A Türk; P A Grützner; B Biglari; S Matschke
Journal:  Spinal Cord       Date:  2016-05-31       Impact factor: 2.772

Review 7.  On-scene treatment of spinal injuries in motor sports.

Authors:  M Kreinest; M Scholz; P Trafford
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2016-12-22       Impact factor: 3.693

Review 8.  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

9.  A comparison of head movement during back boarding by motorized spine-board and log-roll techniques.

Authors:  Erik E Swartz; Jennifer Nowak; Chandra Shirley; Laura C Decoster
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2005 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.860

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

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

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.