scholarly journals A Comparison of Cervical Spine Motion After Immobilization With a Traditional Spine Board and Full-Body Vacuum-Mattress Splint

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (12) ◽  
pp. 232596711774475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian E. Etier ◽  
Grant E. Norte ◽  
Megan M. Gleason ◽  
Dustin L. Richter ◽  
Kelli F. Pugh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Athletic Trainers ◽  
Transverse Plane ◽  
Vacuum Mattress ◽  
Football Helmet ◽  
Tilt Condition ◽  
Spine Motion ◽  
Testing Condition ◽  
Spine Board ◽  
Full Body

Background: The National Athletic Trainers’ Association (NATA) advocates for cervical spine immobilization on a rigid board or vacuum splint and for removal of athletic equipment before transfer to an emergency medical facility. Purpose: To (1) compare triplanar cervical spine motion using motion capture between a traditional rigid spine board and a full-body vacuum splint in equipped and unequipped athletes, (2) assess cervical spine motion during the removal of a football helmet and shoulder pads, and (3) evaluate the effect of body mass on cervical spine motion. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Twenty healthy male participants volunteered for this study to examine the influence of immobilization type and presence of equipment on triplanar angular cervical spine motion. Three-dimensional cervical spine kinematics was measured using an electromagnetic motion analysis system. Independent variables included testing condition (static lift and hold, 30° tilt, transfer, equipment removal), immobilization type (rigid, vacuum-mattress), and equipment (on, off). Peak sagittal-, frontal-, and transverse-plane angular motions were the primary outcome measures of interest. Results: Subjective ratings of comfort and security did not differ between immobilization types ( P > .05). Motion between the rigid board and vacuum splint did not differ by more than 2° under any testing condition, either with or without equipment. In removing equipment, the mean peak motion ranged from 12.5° to 14.0° for the rigid spine board and from 11.4° to 15.4° for the vacuum-mattress splint, and more transverse-plane motion occurred when using the vacuum-mattress splint compared with the rigid spine board (mean difference, 0.14 deg/s [95% CI, 0.05-0.23 deg/s]; P = .002). In patients weighing more than 250 lb, the rigid board provided less motion in the frontal plane ( P = .027) and sagittal plane ( P = .030) during the tilt condition and transfer condition, respectively. Conclusion: The current study confirms similar motion in the vacuum-mattress splint compared with the rigid backboard in varying sized equipped or nonequipped athletes. Cervical spine motion occurs when removing a football helmet and shoulder pads, at an unknown risk to the injured athlete. In athletes who weighed more than 250 lb, immobilization with the rigid board helped to reduce cervical spine motion. Clinical Relevance: Athletic trainers and team physicians should consider immobilization of athletes who weigh more than 250 lb with a rigid board.

Remaining Cervical Spine Movement Under Different Immobilization Techniques

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 382-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davut D. Uzun ◽  
Matthias K. Jung ◽  
Jeronimo Weerts ◽  
Matthias Münzberg ◽  
Paul A. Grützner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Standard Procedure ◽  
Human Motion ◽  
Cervical Collar ◽  
Vacuum Mattress ◽  
Flexion Extension ◽  
Immobilization Techniques ◽  
Spine Board ◽  
Spine Movement ◽  
Belt System

AbstractBackground:Immobilization of the cervical spine by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel is a standard procedure. In most EMS, multiple immobilization tools are available.The aim of this study is the analysis of residual spine motion under different types of cervical spine immobilization.Methods:In this explorative biomechanical study, different immobilization techniques were performed on three healthy subjects. The test subjects’ heads were then passively moved to cause standardized spinal motion. The primary endpoints were the remaining range of motion for flexion, extension, bending, and rotation measured with a wireless human motion detector.Results:In the case of immobilization of the test person (TP) on a straight (0°) vacuum mattress, the remaining rotation of the cervical spine could be reduced from 7° to 3° by additional headblocks. Also, the remaining flexion and extension were reduced from 14° to 3° and from 15° to 6°, respectively. The subjects’ immobilization was best on a spine board using a headlock system and the Spider Strap belt system (MIH-Medical; Georgsmarienhütte, Germany). However, the remaining cervical spine extension increased from 1° to 9° if a Speedclip belt system was used (Laerdal; Stavanger, Norway). The additional use of a cervical collar was not advantageous in reducing cervical spine movement with a spine board or vacuum mattress.Conclusions:The remaining movement of the cervical spine is minimal when the patient is immobilized on a spine board with a headlock system and a Spider Strap harness system or on a vacuum mattress with additional headblocks. The remaining movement of the cervical spine could not be reduced by the additional use of a cervical collar.

Comparison of the Vacuum Mattress versus the Spine Board Alone for Immobilization of the Cervical Spine Injured Patient

Spine ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (24) ◽  
pp. E1398-E1402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark L. Prasarn ◽  
Per Kristian Hyldmo ◽  
Laura A. Zdziarski ◽  
Evan Loewy ◽  
Dewayne Dubose ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Injured Patient ◽  
Vacuum Mattress ◽  
Spine Board

scholarly journals Helmet Fit and Cervical Spine Motion in Collegiate Men's Lacrosse Athletes Secured to a Spine Board

2010 ◽  
Vol 45 (3) ◽  
pp. 215-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meredith A. Petschauer ◽  
Randy Schmitz ◽  
Diane L. Gill
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Range Of Motion ◽  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Sagittal Plane ◽  
Football Players ◽  
Cervical Spine Injuries ◽  
Medicine Research ◽  
Spine Injuries ◽  
Spine Motion ◽  
Spine Board

Abstract Context: Proper management of cervical spine injuries in men's lacrosse players depends in part upon the ability of the helmet to immobilize the head. Objective: To determine if properly and improperly fitted lacrosse helmets provide adequate stabilization of the head in the spine-boarded athlete. Design: Crossover study. Setting: Sports medicine research laboratory. Patients or Other Participants: Eighteen healthy collegiate men's lacrosse players. Intervention(s): Participants were asked to move their heads through 3 planes of motion after being secured to a spine board under 3 helmet conditions. Main Outcome Measure(s): Change in range of motion in the cervical spine was calculated for the sagittal, frontal, and transverse planes for both head-to-thorax and helmet-to-thorax range of motion in all 3 helmet conditions (properly fitted, improperly fitted, and no helmet). Results: Head-to-thorax range of motion with the properly fitted and improperly fitted helmets was greater than in the no-helmet condition (P < .0001). In the sagittal plane, range of motion was greater with the improperly fitted helmet than with the properly fitted helmet. No difference was observed in helmet-to-thorax range of motion between properly and improperly fitted helmet conditions. Head-to-thorax range of motion was greater than helmet-to-thorax range of motion in all 3 planes (P < .0001). Conclusions: Cervical spine motion was minimized the most in the no-helmet condition, indicating that in lacrosse players, unlike football players, the helmet may need to be removed before stabilization.

scholarly journals Load-displacement properties of lower cervical spine motion segments

1988 ◽  
Vol 21 (9) ◽  
pp. 769-779 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean P. Moroney ◽  
Albert B. Schultz ◽  
James A.A. Miller ◽  
Gunnar B.J. Andersson
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Lower Cervical Spine ◽  
Spine Motion ◽  
Load Displacement

scholarly journals Removal of the Long Spine Board From Clinical Practice: A Historical Perspective

2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (8) ◽  
pp. 752-755
Author(s):  
Francis X. Feld
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Spine ◽  
Historical Perspective ◽  
Spinal Injury ◽  
Position Statement ◽  
Spinal Motion ◽  
Initial Management ◽  
Injury Management ◽  
Spinal Immobilization ◽  
Growing Body ◽  
Spine Board

Since the early 1970s, initial management of patients with suspected spinal injuries has involved the use of a cervical collar and long spine board for full immobilization, which was thought to prevent additional injury to the cervical spine. Despite a growing body of literature demonstrating the detrimental effects and questionable efficacy of spinal immobilization, the practice continued until 2013, when the National Association of EMS Physicians issued a position statement calling for a reduction in the use of spinal immobilization and a shift to spinal-motion restriction. This article examines the literature that prompted the change in spinal-injury management and the virtual elimination of the long spine board as a tool for transport.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document