Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T06:35:04.032Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Remaining Cervical Spine Movement Under Different Immobilization Techniques

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 May 2020

Davut D. Uzun ,
Matthias K. Jung ,
Jeronimo Weerts ,
Matthias Münzberg ,
Paul A. Grützner ,
David Häske  and
Michael Kreinest Open the ORCID record for Michael Kreinest [Opens in a new window]
Davut D. Uzun
Affiliation:
Department of Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery, BG Trauma Centre Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany
Matthias K. Jung
Affiliation:
Department of Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery, BG Trauma Centre Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany
Jeronimo Weerts
Affiliation:
Julius Wolff Institute, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Matthias Münzberg
Affiliation:
Department of Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery, BG Trauma Centre Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany Centre of Rescue- and Emergency Medicine, BG Trauma Centre Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany
Paul A. Grützner
Affiliation:
Department of Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery, BG Trauma Centre Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany
David Häske
Affiliation:
Faculty of Medicine, Eberhard Karls University Tübingen, Tuebingen, Germany DRK Rettungsdienst Reutlingen, Reutlingen, Germany
Michael Kreinest*
Affiliation:
Department of Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery, BG Trauma Centre Ludwigshafen, Ludwigshafen, Germany
*
Correspondence: Michael Kreinest, MD, PhD, Department of Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery, BG Hospital Ludwigshafen, 67071Ludwigshafen, Germany, E-mail: michael.kreinest@bgu-ludwigshafen.de
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background:

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.

Keywords

cervical collarcervical spineEmergency Medical Serviceimmobilizationspine board
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , August 2020 , pp. 382 - 387
Copyright
© World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Uzun and Jung contributed equally to the current manuscript.

References

Sekhon, LH, Fehlings, MG. Epidemiology, demographics, and pathophysiology of acute spinal cord injury. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2001;26(24 Suppl):S2–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
FH, JV, MV, VB.Verletzungen des Rückenmarks - Akutbehandlung. Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Up2Date. 2016;11:451–479.Google Scholar
Bernhard, M, Gries, A, Kremer, P, Bottiger, BW.Spinal cord injury (SCI)–prehospital management. Resuscitation. 2005;66(2):127–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sundstrom, T, Asbjornsen, H, Habiba, S, Sunde, GA, Wester, K.Prehospital use of cervical collars in trauma patients: a critical review. J Neurotrauma. 2014;31(6):531–540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davies, G, Deakin, C, Wilson, A.The effect of a rigid collar on intracranial pressure. Injury. 1996;27(9):647–649.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunt, K, Hallworth, S, Smith, M.The effects of rigid collar placement on intracranial and cerebral perfusion pressures. Anaesthesia. 2001;56(6):511–513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cordell, WH, Hollingsworth, JC, Olinger, ML, Stroman, SJ, Nelson, DR.Pain and tissue-interface pressures during spine-board immobilization. Ann Emerg Med. 1995;26(1):31–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Swartz, EE, Tucker, WS, Nowak, M, et al.Prehospital cervical spine motion: immobilization versus spine motion restriction. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2018;22(5):630–636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ham, W, Schoonhoven, L, Schuurmans, MJ, Leenen, LP.Pressure ulcers from spinal immobilization in trauma patients: a systematic review. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014;76(4):1131–1141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pernik, MN, Seidel, HH, Blalock, RE, et al.Comparison of tissue-interface pressure in healthy subjects lying on two trauma splinting devices: the vacuum mattress splint and long spine board. Injury. 2016;47(8):1801–1805.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goutcher, CM, Lochhead, V.Reduction in mouth opening with semi-rigid cervical collars. Br J Anaesth. 2005;95(3):344–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Totten, VY, Sugarman, DB.Respiratory effects of spinal immobilization. Prehosp Emerg Care. 1999;3(4):347–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liao, S, Schneider, NRE, Huttlin, P, et al.Motion and dural sac compression in the upper cervical spine during the application of a cervical collar in case of unstable craniocervical junction–a study in two new cadaveric trauma models. PloS One. 2018;13(4):e0195215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haut, ER, Kalish, BT, Efron, DT, et al.Spine immobilization in penetrating trauma: more harm than good? J Trauma. 2010;68(1):115–120; discussion 120-111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
S3 Polytrauma Schwerverletzten-Behandlung. AWMF REGISTER-NR. 012/019. 2017.Google Scholar
Theodore, N, Hadley, MN, Aarabi, B, et al.Prehospital cervical spinal immobilization after trauma. Neurosurgery. 2013;72(Suppl 2):22–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kornhall, DK, Jorgensen, JJ, Brommeland, T, et al.The Norwegian guidelines for the prehospital management of adult trauma patients with potential spinal injury. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2017;25(1):2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spinal Injury: Assessment and Initial Management. London, UK: National Clinical Guideline Centre; 2016.Google Scholar
Fischer, PE, Perina, DG, Delbridge, TR, et al.Spinal motion restriction in the trauma patient - a joint position statement. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2018;22(6):659–661.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Advanced Trauma Life Support. Chicago, Illinois USA: American College of Surgeons; 2012;9.Google Scholar
Hindman, BJ, Santoni, BG, Puttlitz, CM, From, RP, Todd, MM.Intubation biomechanics: laryngoscope force and cervical spine motion during intubation with Macintosh and Airtraq laryngoscopes. Anesthesiology. 2014;121(2):260–271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liao, S, Schneider, NRE, Weilbacher, F, et al.Spinal movement and dural sac compression during airway management in a cadaveric model with atlanto-occipital instability. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(6):1295–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horodyski, M, DiPaola, CP, Conrad, BP, Rechtine, GR, 2nd. Cervical collars are insufficient for immobilizing an unstable cervical spine injury. J Emerg Med. 2011;41(5):513–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hostler, D, Colburn, D, Seitz, SR.A comparison of three cervical immobilization devices. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2009;13(2):256–260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chandler, DR, Nemejc, C, Adkins, RH, Waters, RL.Emergency cervical-spine immobilization. Ann Emerg Med. 1992;21(10):1185–1188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johnson, DR, Hauswald, M, Stockhoff, C.Comparison of a vacuum splint device to a rigid backboard for spinal immobilization. Am J Emerg Med. 1996;14(4):369–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cross, DA, Baskerville, J.Comparison of perceived pain with different immobilization techniques. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2001;5(3):270–274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keller, BP, Lubbert, PH, Keller, E, Leenen, LP.Tissue-interface pressures on three different support-surfaces for trauma patients. Injury. 2005;36(8):946–948.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chan, D, Goldberg, R, Tascone, A, Harmon, S, Chan, L.The effect of spinal immobilization on healthy volunteers. Ann Emerg Med. 1994;23(1):48–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chan, D, Goldberg, RM, Mason, J, Chan, L.Backboard versus mattress splint immobilization: a comparison of symptoms generated. J Emerg Med. 1996;14(3):293–298.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berg, G, Nyberg, S, Harrison, P, Baumchen, J, Gurss, E, Hennes, E.Near-infrared spectroscopy measurement of sacral tissue oxygen saturation in healthy volunteers immobilized on rigid spine boards. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2010;14(4):419–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hemmes, B, Poeze, M, Brink, PR.Reduced tissue-interface pressure and increased comfort on a newly developed soft-layered long spine board. J Trauma. 2010;68(3):593–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edlich, RF, Mason, SS, Vissers, RJ, et al.Revolutionary advances in enhancing patient comfort on patients transported on a backboard. Am J Emerg Med. 2011;29(2):181–186.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sheerin, F, de Frein, R.The occipital and sacral pressures experienced by healthy volunteers under spinal immobilization: a trial of three surfaces. JEN. 2007;33(5):447–450.Google ScholarPubMed
Bauer, D, Kowalski, R.Effect of spinal immobilization devices on pulmonary function in the healthy, nonsmoking man. Ann Emerg Med. 1988;17(9):915–918.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holla, M.Value of a rigid collar in addition to head blocks: a proof of principle study. EMJ. 2012;29(2):104–107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, J, Bates, D.Towards evidence-based emergency medicine: best BETs from the Manchester Royal Infirmary. Cervical collars in patients requiring spinal immobilization. EMJ. 2001;18(4):275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ala, A, Shams-Vahdati, S, Taghizadieh, A, et al.Cervical collar effect on pulmonary volumes in patients with trauma. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2016;42(5):657–660.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolb, JC, Summers, RL, Galli, RL.Cervical collar-induced changes in intracranial pressure. Am J Emerg Med. 1999;17(2):135–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Unfallchirurgie. S3 – Leitlinie Polytrauma/Schwerverletzten-Behandlung 2016; AWMF-Register Nr. 012/019.Google Scholar
Kreinest, M, Gliwitzky, B, Schuler, S, Grutzner, PA, Munzberg, M.Development of a new Emergency Medicine Spinal Immobilization Protocol for trauma patients and a test of applicability by German emergency care providers. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2016;24(1):71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar