Routine spinal immobilization in trauma patients: What are the advantages and disadvantages?

Trends in prehospital cervical collar utilization in trauma patients: Closer, but not there yet

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the change in cervical spine (C-spine) immobilization frequency in trauma patients over time. We hypothesize that the frequency of unnecessary C-spine immobilization has decreased.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review of adult trauma patients transported to our American College of Surgeons-verified Level I trauma center from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2021, was performed. Emergency medical services documentation was manually reviewed to record prehospital physiology and the application of a prehospital cervical collar (c-collar). C-spine injuries were defined as cervical vertebral fractures and/or spinal cord injuries. Univariate and year-by-year trend analyses were used to assess changes in C-spine injury and immobilization frequency.

RESULTS

Among 2906 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 12% sustained C-spine injuries, while 88% did not. Patients with C-spine injuries were more likely to experience blunt trauma (95% vs. 68%, p < 0.001), were older (46 years vs. 41 years, p < 0.001), and had higher Injury Severity Scores (31 vs. 18, p < 0.001). They also exhibited lower initial systolic blood pressures (108 mm Hg vs. 119 mm Hg, p < 0.001), lower heart rates (92 beats/min vs. 97 beats/min, p < 0.05), and lower Glasgow Coma Scale scores (9 vs. 11, p < 0.001). In blunt trauma, c-collars were applied to 83% of patients with C-spine injuries and 75% without; for penetrating trauma, c-collars were applied to 50% of patients with C-spine injuries and only 8% without. Among penetrating trauma patients with C-spine injury, all patients either arrived quadriplegic or did not require emergent neurosurgical intervention. The proportion of patients receiving a c-collar decreased in both blunt and penetrating traumas from 2014 to 2021 (blunt-82% in 2014 to 68% in 2021; penetrating-24% in 2014 to 6% in 2021).

CONCLUSIONS

Unnecessary C-spine stabilization has decreased from 2014 to 2021. However, c-collars are still being applied to patients who do not need them, both in blunt and in penetrating trauma cases, while not being applied to patients who would benefit from them.

Radiographic cervical spine injury patterns in admitted blunt trauma patients with and without prehospital spinal motion restriction

Objectives

Selective prehospital cervical spine motion restriction (C-SMR) following blunt trauma has increasingly been used by emergency medical service (EMS) providers. We determined rates of prehospital C-SMR and concomitant radiographic injury patterns.

Methods

A retrospective trauma registry and chart review was conducted for all adult blunt trauma patients who were transported by EMS and hospitalized with radiographic cervical spine injuries from 2011 to 2019 at a level 1 trauma center.

Results

Of 658 admitted blunt trauma patients with confirmed cervical spine injury by imaging, 117 (17.8%) did not receive prehospital C-SMR. Patients without prehospital C-SMR were significantly older (76 vs 54 years), more often had low fall as mechanism of injury (59.8% vs 15.9%) and had lower Injury Severity Score (10 vs 17). Patients without C-SMR (Non-SMR) experienced the full array of cervical spine injury types and locations. While the non-SMR patients most often had dens fractures,C-SMR patients most often had C7 fractures; frequencies of fractures at the remaining vertebral levels were comparable. On MRI, cervical spinal cord (8.5% vs 19.6%) and ligamentous injuries (5.1% vs 12.6%) occurred less often in non-SMR patients. Approximately 8.5% of non-SMR patients and 20% of C-SMR patients required cervical spine surgery.

Conclusion

Patients without prehospital C-SMR demonstrate a broad array of cervical spine injuries. While the rates of certain cervical injuries are lower in prehospital non-SMR patients, they are not insignificant.

Level of evidence

Level III.

Impact of cervical spine immobilization on clinical outcomes in traumatic brain injury patients according to prehospital mean arterial pressure: A multinational and multicenter observational study

Cervical spine immobilization (CSI) has been considered an essential part of first aid management after severe trauma; however, the routine use of CSI for traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients is a matter of debate. The purpose of our study was to analyze the effect of CSI on the clinical outcomes of TBI patients and to analyze whether this effect depends on the prehospital mean arterial pressure (MAP) This was a prospective multi-national, multi-center cohort study using Pan-Asian trauma outcome study registry in Asian-Pacific, conducted on adult trauma patients. The main exposure was the implementation of CSI before hospital arrival. The main outcome was poor functional recovery at hospital discharge measured by the modified rankin scale. We performed multilevel logistic regression analysis to estimated the effect size of CSI for study outcomes. Interaction analysis between CSI and MAP on study outcomes were also conducted. CSI for TBI patients is significantly associated with an increased poor functional outcome (adjusted odd ratio, 95% confidence intervals: 1.23 [1.03 - 1.44]). The association of CSI with poor functional outcomes was maintained only in patients with decreased prehospital MAP (1.38 [1.14 - 1.56]), but not in patients with normal MAP (1.12 [0.93 - 1.24]) (P for interaction < .05). Routine use of CSI for patients with TBI, but without cervical spine injury, is associated with poor functional outcomes, but is significant only when the MAP, measured at the scene, was decreased.

Implementation of the Modified Canadian C-Spine Rule by Paramedics

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The Canadian C-spine rule was modified and validated for use by the paramedics in a multicenter study where patients were assessed with the Canadian C-spine rule yet all transported with immobilization. This study evaluated the clinical impact of the modified Canadian C-spine rule when implemented by paramedics.

METHODS

This single-center prospective cohort implementation study took place in Ottawa, Canada (from 2011 to 2015). Advanced and primary care paramedics were trained to use the modified Canadian C-spine rule, collect data on a standardized study form, and selectively transport eligible patients without immobilization. We evaluated all consecutive low-risk adult patients (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] 15, stable vital signs) at risk for a neck injury. We followed all patients without initial radiologic evaluation for 30 days. Analyses included descriptive statistics with 95% confidence intervals (CI), sensitivity, specificity, and kappa coefficients.

RESULTS

The 4,034 enrolled patients had a mean age of 43 (range 16 to 99), and 53.4% were female. Motor vehicle collisions were the most common mechanism of injury (55.1%), followed by falls (23.9%). There were 11 clinically important injuries. The paramedics classified these injuries with a sensitivity of 90.9% (95% CI, 58.7 to 99.8) and specificity of 66.5% (95% CI, 65.1 to 68.0). There was no adverse event or resulting spinal cord injury. The kappa agreement between paramedics and investigators was 0.94. A total of 2,583 (64.0%) immobilizations were avoided using the modified Canadian C-spine rule.

CONCLUSION

Paramedics could accurately apply the modified Canadian C-spine rule to low-risk trauma patients and significantly reduce the need for spinal immobilization during transport. This resulted in no adverse event or any spinal cord injury.

Immobilization in Emergency Medical Service - Are CSR and NEXUS-Criteria Considered? A Matched-Pairs Analysis Between Trauma Patients Treated by Onsite EMS Physicians and Patients Treated by Tele-EMS Physicians

Background

The NEXUS-low-risk criteria (NEXUS) and Canadian C-spine rule (CSR) are clinical decision tools used for the prehospital spinal clearance in trauma patients, intending to prevent over- as well as under immobilization. Since 2014, a holistic telemedicine system is part of the emergency medical service (EMS) in Aachen (Germany). This study aims to examine whether the decisions to immobilize or not by EMS- and tele-EMS physicians are based on NEXUS and the CSR, as well as the guideline adherence concerning the choice of immobilization device.

Methods

A single-site retrospective chart review was undertaken. Inclusion criteria were EMS physician and tele-EMS physician protocols with traumatic diagnoses. Matched pairs were formed, using age, sex and working diagnoses as matching criteria. The primary outcome parameters were the criteria documented as well as the immobilization device used. The evaluation of the decision to immobilize based on the criteria documented was defined as secondary outcome parameter.

Results

Of a total of 247 patients, 34% (n = 84) were immobilized in the EMS physician group and 32.79% (n = 81) in the tele-EMS physician group. In both groups, less than 7% NEXUS or CSR criteria were documented completely. The decision to immobilize or not was appropriately implemented in 127 (51%) in the EMS-physician and in 135 (54, 66%) in the tele-EMS physician group. Immobilization without indication was performed significantly more often by tele-EMS physicians (6.88% vs 2.02%). A significantly better guideline adherence was found in the tele-EMS physician group, preferring the vacuum mattress (25, 1% vs 8.9%) over the spineboard.

Conclusion

It could be shown that NEXUS and CSR are not applied regularly, and if so, mostly inconsistently with incomplete documentation by both EMS- and tele-EMS physicians. Regarding the choice of the immobilization device a higher guideline adherence was shown among the tele-EMS physicians.

Recommendation for changes to the guidelines of trauma patients with potential spinal injury within a regional UK ambulance trust

BACKGROUND

Spinal assessment and immobilisation has been a topic of debate for many years where, despite an emerging evidence base and the delivery of new guidance overseas, little has changed within UK pre-hospital practice. Since 2018, South East Coast Ambulance Service NHS Foundation Trust has spent time working with local trauma networks and expertise from within the region and international colleagues to develop a set of C-spine assessment and immobilisation guidelines that reflect the current best available international evidence and significant changes in international pre-hospital practice from settings such as Scandinavia and Australasia.

METHODS

A specialist group was commissioned to review the topic of pre-hospital spinal immobilisation and explore potential for evidence-based improvement. In conjunction with local trauma networks, subject matter experts and a thorough review of recent literature, a series of recommendations were made in order to improve spinal care within the authoring trust.

RESULTS

Seven recommendations were made, and an updated set of guidelines produced. These included the removal of semi-rigid collars from pre-hospital spinal immobilisation; the creation of two tiers of patients to ensure that the high-risk and low-risk populations are considered separately and an accompanying decision tool to safeguard both cohorts; an increased emphasis on the risk of spinal injury in the frail and older patient; an emphasis on spinal motion restriction rather than rigid immobilisation; an increased emphasis on self-extrication; and the use of a marker for emergency departments.

SUMMARY

An updated set of guidance has been produced using a combination of specialist and expert opinion alongside a literature review with close involvement of key stakeholders, both public and professional. The new guidance helps to ensure a patient-centred approach where each person is considered an individual with their risk of injury and management measures tailored to their specific needs.

Neurosurgeons Relate Heterogeneous Practices Regarding Activity and Return to Work After Spine Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Given the paucity of relevant data, the Council of State Neurosurgical Societies Workforce Committee launched a survey of neurosurgeons to assess patterns in activity restriction recommendations following spine surgery; the ultimate goal was to optimize and potentially standardize these recommendations. The aim of this initial study was to determine current practices in activity restrictions and return to work guidelines following common spinal procedures.

METHODS

The survey included questions regarding general demographics and practice data, postoperative bracing/orthosis utilization, and guidelines for postoperative return to different levels of activity/types of work following specific spine surgery interventions. A spectrum of typical spine surgeries was assessed, including microdiscectomy, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF), and lumbar fusion, both open and minimal invasive surgery (MIS) approaches.

RESULTS

There was significant interprocedure and intraprocedure variation in the neurosurgeons' recommendations for postoperative activity and return to work recommendations after various spinal surgery procedures. Comparisons of the different surgical procedures evaluated revealed significant differences in cervical collar use (more often used following ≥2-level ACDF than single-level ACDF; P < 0.001), return to both sedentary and light physical work (greater restriction with ≥2-level ACDF than with single-level ACDF; P < 0.001), and return to a light exercise regimen (sooner following MIS versus open lumbar fusion; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This survey demonstrated little consistency regarding return to work recommendations, general activity restrictions, and orthosis utilization following common spinal surgical procedures. Addressing this issue also has significant implications for the societal and personal costs of spine surgery.

ResQbot 2.0: An Improved Design of a Mobile Rescue Robot with an Inflatable Neck Securing Device for Safe Casualty Extraction

Despite the fact that a large number of research studies have been conducted in the field of search and rescue robotics, significantly little attention has been given to the development of rescue robots capable of performing physical rescue interventions, including loading and transporting victims to a safe zone—i.e., casualty extraction tasks. The aim of this study is to develop a mobile rescue robot that could assist first responders when saving casualties from a dangerous area by performing a casualty extraction procedure whilst ensuring that no additional injury is caused by the operation and no additional lives are put at risk. In this paper, we present a novel design of ResQbot 2.0—a mobile rescue robot designed for performing the casualty extraction task. This robot is a stretcher-type casualty extraction robot, which is a significantly improved version of the initial proof-of-concept prototype, ResQbot (retrospectively referred to as ResQbot 1.0), that has been developed in our previous work. The proposed designs and development of the mechanical system of ResQbot 2.0, as well as the method for safely loading a full-body casualty onto the robot’s ‘stretcher bed’, are described in detail based on the conducted literature review, evaluation of our previous work, and feedback provided by medical professionals. We perform simulation experiments in the Gazebo physics engine simulator to verify the proposed design and the casualty extraction procedure. The simulation results demonstrate the capability of ResQbot 2.0 to carry out safe casualty extractions successfully.

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2021: First aid

The European Resuscitation Council has produced these first aid guidelines, which are based on the 2020 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Science with Treatment Recommendations. The topics include the first aid management of emergency medicine and trauma. For medical emergencies the following content is covered: recovery position, optimal positioning for shock, bronchodilator administration for asthma, recognition of stroke, early aspirin for chest pain, second dose of adrenaline for anaphylaxis, management of hypoglycaemia, oral rehydration solutions for treating exertion-related dehydration, management of heat stroke by cooling, supplemental oxygen in acute stroke, and presyncope. For trauma related emergencies the following topics are covered: control of life-threatening bleeding, management of open chest wounds, cervical spine motion restriction and stabilisation, recognition of concussion, cooling of thermal burns, dental avulsion, compression wrap for closed extremity joint injuries, straightening an angulated fracture, and eye injury from chemical exposure.

Pragmatic Strategy Empowering Paramedics to Assess Low-Risk Trauma Patients With the Canadian C-Spine Rule and Selectively Transport Them Without Immobilization: Protocol for a Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Each year, half a million patients with a potential neck (c-spine) injury are transported to Ontario emergency departments (EDs). Less than 1.0% (1/100) of these patients have a neck bone fracture. Even less (1/200, 0.5%) have a spinal cord injury or nerve damage. Currently, paramedics transport all trauma victims (with or without an injury) by ambulance using a backboard, cervical collar, and head immobilizers. Importantly, prolonged immobilization is often unnecessary; it causes patient discomfort and pain, decreases community access to paramedics, contributes to ED crowding, and is very costly. We therefore developed the Canadian C-Spine Rule (CCR) for alert and stable trauma patients. This decision rule helps ED physicians and triage nurses to safely and selectively remove immobilization, without x-rays and missed injury. We successfully taught Ottawa paramedics to use the CCR in the field in a single-center study.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to improve patient care and health system efficiency and outcomes by allowing paramedics to assess eligible low-risk trauma patients with the CCR and selectively transport them without immobilization to the ED.

METHODS

We propose a pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster randomized design with health economic evaluation, designed collaboratively with knowledge users. Our 36-month study will consist of a 12-month setup and training period (year 1), followed by the stepped-wedge trial (year 2) and a 12-month period for study completion, analyses, and knowledge translation. A total of 12 Ontario paramedic services of various sizes distributed across the province will be randomly allocated to one of three sequences. Paramedic services in each sequence will cross from the control condition (usual care) to the intervention condition (CCR implementation) at intervals of 3 months until all communities have crossed to the intervention. Data will be collected on all eligible patients in each paramedic service for a total duration of 12 months. A major strength of our design is that each community will have implemented the CCR by the end of the study.

RESULTS

Interim results are expected in December 2019 and final results in 2020. If this multicenter trial is successful, we expect the Ontario Ministry of Health will recommend that paramedics evaluate all eligible patients with the CCR in the Province of Ontario.

CONCLUSIONS

We conservatively estimate that in Ontario, more than 60% of all eligible trauma patients (300,000 annually) could be transported safely and comfortably, without c-spine immobilization devices. This will significantly reduce patient pain and discomfort, paramedic intervention times, and ED length of stay, thereby improving access to paramedics and ED care. This could be achieved rapidly and with lower health care costs compared with current practices (possible cost saving of Can $36 [US $25] per immobilization or Can $10,656,000 [US $7,335,231] per year).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02786966; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02786966.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/16966.

Effect of 5 different cervical collars on optic nerve sheath diameter: A randomized crossover trial

BACKGROUND

There is considerable evidence that prolonged use of cervical collars potentially cause detrimental effects including increase in optic nerve sheath diameter (ONSD) among healthy volunteers. Different types of cervical collars immobilize cervical spine variably well and may presumably differently influence the venous compression and hence the intracranial pressure. We therefore aimed to evaluate the influence of cervical spine immobilization with 5 different types of cervical collars on ONSD measured noninvasively by ultrasound on healthy volunteers.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized crossover trial including 60 adult healthy volunteers. Control assessment of the optic nerve sheath thickness was performed in both sagittal and transverse planes. Patient was placed supine on a transport stretcher, cervical collar was placed, and ONSD measurement was performed after 5 and 20 minutes. During the next days, the procedure was repeated with random allocation of participants and random cervical collar.

RESULTS

Sixty healthy volunteers were included in our study. ONSD left diameter [mm] for the baseline was 3.8 [interquartile range (IQR): 3.65-3.93)] mm. Using AMBU after 5 min, ONSD was changed up to 4.505 (IQR 4.285-4.61; P < .001) mm. The largest change at 5 minutes and 20 minutes was using Philly 4.73 (IQR: 4.49-4.895; P < .001) and 4.925 (IQR: 4.65-5.06; P < .001), respectively. Necklite reported the lower change in ONSD: 3.92 (IQR: 3.795-4; P = 1.0) mm in 5 minutes and 3.995 (IQR: 3.875 - 4.1; P = 1.0) mm in 20 minutes. ONSD right diameter [mm] for the baseline was 3.8 (IQR 3.675-3.9) mm. Using AMBU after 5 minutes, ONSD was changed up to 4.5 (IQR 4.21-4.6) mm. The largest change at 5 minutes and 20 minutes was using Philly 4.705 (IQR 4.455-4.9) and 4.93 (IQR 4.645-5.075), respectively. Necklite reported the lower change in ONSD -33.9 (IQR 3.795-3.99) mm in 5 minutes and 3.995 (IQR 3.86-4.09) mm in 20 minutes.

CONCLUSION

We report significant increase of ONSD from the baseline after cervical collar placement among healthy volunteers at 5 minutes and 20 minutes interval. In addition, no significant difference was noted between ONSD measurements at 5 and 20 minutes. Clinicians should take proactive steps to assess the actual need of cervical collar case by case basis. Nonetheless, when needed, Necklite moldable neck brace seems to be a reasonable option.Registration: ClinicalTrials database (www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03609879).

Effects of spinal immobilization at 20° on end-tidal carbon dioxide

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to determine the effect on end-tidal carbon dioxide (ETCO₂) of spinal immobilization (SI) at a conventional 0° angle and to investigate the usefulness of immobilization at a 20° angle for preventing possible hypoventilation.

METHODS

The study included 80 healthy volunteers, randomly divided into two groups. Spinal backboards and cervical collars were applied in Group 1 using a 0° angle and in Group 2 using a 20° angle, with the head up. SI was continued for 1 h, and ETCO₂ values were measured at the 0th, 30th and 60th minute.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the groups in 0th and 30th minute ETCO₂. However, after 60th minute, results showed a statistically significant increase in ETCO₂ in Group 1 (35.5 mmHg [IQR 25-75:35-38]) compared to Group 2 (34 mmHg [IQR 25-75:33-36]) (p < 0.001). During SI, there was a statistically significant increase in ETCO₂ in Group 1 (35 mmHg [IQR 25-75:34-36], 35.5 mmHg [IQR 25-75:34-37] and 36 mmHg [IQR 25-75:35-38] respectively at the 0th, 30th and 60th minute after SI) (p < 0.001) and no change in Group 2. Also, we found statistically significant differences between ΔETCO₂ levels in Groups 1 and 2 at all 3 time intervals.

CONCLUSION

Conventional SI with an angle of 0° led to an increase in ETCO₂ while subjects immobilization at a 20° angle maintained their initial ETCO₂ values. Immobilization at 20° may prevent decompensation in patients who have thoracic trauma or lung diseases or those who are elderly, pregnant, or obese.

A profile of traumatic injury in the prehospital setting in India: A prospective observational study across seven states

BACKGROUND

Traumatic injury continues to be a leading cause of mortality and morbidity in low-income and middle-income countries (LMIC). The World Health Organization has called for a strengthening of prehospital care in order to improve outcomes from trauma. In this study we sought to profile traumatic injury seen in the prehospital setting in India and identify predictors of mortality in this patient population.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective observational study of a convenience sample of patients using a single emergency medical services (EMS) system for traumatic injuries across seven states in India from November 2015 through January 2016. Any patient with a chief complaints indicative of a traumatic injury was eligible for enrollment. Our primary outcome was 30-day mortality.

RESULTS

We enrolled 2905 patients. Follow-up rates were 76% at 2 days, 70% at 7 days, and 70% at 30 days. The median age was 36 years (IQR: 25-50) and were predominately male (72%, N = 2088), of lower economic status (97%, N = 2805 used a government issued ration card) and were from rural or tribal areas (74%, N = 2162). Cumulative mortality at 2, 7, and 30 days, was 3%, 4%, and 4% respectively. Predictors of 30-day mortality were prehospital abnormal mental status (OR 7.5 (95% CI: 4-14)), presence of hypoxia or hypotension (OR 4.0 (95% CI: 2.2-7)), on-scene mobility (OR 2.8 (95% CI: 1.3-6)), and multisystem injury inclusive of head injury (OR 2.3 (95% CI: 1.1-5)).

CONCLUSIONS

EMS in an LMIC can transport trauma patients from poor and rural areas that traditionally struggle to access timely trauma care to facilities in a timeframe consistent with current international recommendations. Information readily obtained by EMTs predicts 30-day mortality within this population and could be utilized for triaging patients with the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality.

Cervical Spine Motion During Vehicle Extrication of Healthy Volunteers

Objective: Prehospital spinal motion restriction as a prevention technique for secondary neurological injury is a key principle in emergency medicine. Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness of different cervical spinal cord motion restriction techniques of awake and cooperative healthy volunteers during extrication.Methods: Twenty-three healthy volunteers were asked to exit a car (unassisted) with a rigid cervical collar (CC condition) or without it (autonomous exit: AE; instructed exit: IE); they were also extricated by two rescuers after setting a rigid cervical collar and by using an extrication device (CC + XT condition). Eight 3 D infrared cameras were calibrated around the vehicle to measure cervical spine angle, angular speed and acceleration in the sagittal plane. Surface wireless EMG electrodes were used to record superior trapezius, erector spinae and rectus abdominis muscle activity. All measures were recorded during two phases: device positioning (maneuver) and vehicle exiting.Results: The lowest range of motion was observed in CC during maneuver and exit (about 17°), the greatest in AE and IE (about 45°); when the extrication device was utilized along with the cervical collar (CC + XT) an increase, rather than a further decrease, in the range of motion was observed (about 25° during maneuver and exit). Larger values of angular speed and acceleration were observed in CC + XT when compared to CC, both during maneuver and exit (p < 0.001). The lowest EMG activity was observed during maneuver in CC and CC + XT; during exit a lower EMG activity was observed in CC + XT compared to CC (p < 0.001). Thus, when an extrication device is utilized (CC + XT), a lower active control of the cervical spine region is associated with faster and more brisk movements of the cervical spine compared to CC alone.Conclusions: Our findings support the idea that spinal motion restriction via rigid cervical collar of awake and cooperative trauma patients is effective in reducing cervical spine motion in the sagittal plane during vehicle extrication.

Patient experience of spinal immobilisation after trauma

Background

Spinal immobilisation of blunt trauma victims with potential spinal cord injury is considered standard of care. The traditional management has, however, been increasingly questioned and concerns about harm have been raised. Few studies have described the perspective of the trauma patient regarding the spinal immobilisation.

The objective of this study was therefore to evaluate the patient experience of immobilisation after trauma.

Methods

We prospectively screened adult trauma patients admitted to a level 1 trauma centre for eligibility. We included adult trauma patients who had been, and remembered being, immobilised for spinal protection with a cervical collar and a spine board prehospitally or upon arrival at the trauma centre. A semi-structured interview was conducted 2 to 72 h after admission either in person or by telephone.

Results

One hundred and fourteen patients were eligible for inclusion based on the patient charts. Out of 98 patients assessed for participation, 48 (49%) had no memory of being immobilised.

We thus included 50 patients with a median age of 37 years (IQR: 26–60) of whom 38 (76%) were men. The median injury severity score was 9 (IQR: 3–15) and the median time with a cervical collar from initial application to in-hospital removal or until the interview was given was 91 min (IQR: 72–136).

Nineteen patients (38%) reported discomfort and 12 patients (24%) experienced pain related to the immobilisation. Forty patients (80%) reported a sense of protection related to the immobilisation.

Conclusion

Discomfort related to spinal immobilisation was reported in 38% of trauma patients. However, a sense of protection was a recurring theme in 80% of the trauma patients, who recalled being immobilised. Nearly half of the awake trauma patients had no memory of being immobilised.

A Robotic Head Stabilization Device for Medical Transport

In this paper, the design and control of a robotic device intended to stabilize the head and neck of a trauma patient during transport are presented. When transporting a patient who has suffered a traumatic head injury, the first action performed by paramedics is typically to restrain and stabilize the head and cervical spine of a patient. The proposed device would drastically reduce the time required to perform this action while also freeing a first responder to perform other possibly lifesaving actions. The applications for robotic casualty extraction are additionally explored. The design and construction are described, followed by control simulations demonstrating the improved behavior of the chosen controller paradigm, linear active disturbance rejection control (LADRC). Finally, experimental validation is presented, followed by future work and directions for the research.

Specific stretchers enhance rapid extraction by tactical medical support teams in mass casualty incidents

OBJECTIVE

In mass casualty incidents where the threat is on-going, victim evacuation remains a challenge: fast extraction while respecting spinal immobilisation and haemorrhage control. Different devices can be used but their suitability has not been compared.

METHODS

We conducted a simulation study comparing eight extraction devices with a randomisation of the order of testing. Five teams, consisting of four officers, evacuated a single victim in five steps: device's deployment, loading the victim, carrying the victim along a corridor, negotiating a corner passage and a descent by staircase. Primary outcome was the emergency extraction time, from deployment to the first obstacle. Secondary outcomes included ease of transport and victim's stability, rated from 1 (worst) to 10 (best).

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty simulations were carried out. The median emergency extraction time was 16.7 [IQR: 11.6-24.9] seconds. The three speediest devices were the "firefighters' worn", "snogg" and "flexible tarp", taking 9.7 [8.1-11.0], 11.7 [10.9-15.4] and 12.2 [11.2-17.9] seconds respectively (p < 0.0001). Regarding the ease of transport, the three best-evaluated devices were the "firefighters' worn", "strap" and "flexible tarp" with 10 [9-10], 9 [8-9] and 8 [8-9] respectively (p < 0.0001). Considering stability reported by simulated victims, the three best-evaluated devices were the "inflated stretcher", "flexible tarp" and "firefighters' worn" with 8.0 [7.8-9.0], 8.0[7.0-8.0] and 6.5 [6.0-7.0] respectively.

CONCLUSION

Devices were not equivalent in terms of extraction time and suitability criteria. For rapid extraction of victims from danger zones, the "firefighter's worn" and "flexible tarp", as very simple stretchers, seem to be the most appropriate devices.

Early neurological care of patients with spinal cord injury

PURPOSE

Considering the major clinical challenges of managing patients with spinal cord injury (SCI), we summarized the relevant aspects of the early (within 1 year after SCI) neurological care emphasizing common standards.

METHODS

This review was performed according to the methodology recommended by the Joint SIU-ICUD International Consultation. Embase and Medline databases were used to identify literature relevant to the early neurological care of SCI patients. Recommendations were developed by consensus and graded using a modified Oxford system which identifies level of evidence (LOE) and grade of recommendation (GOR).

RESULTS

Emergency health care providers must address altered mental status, evidence of intoxication, suspected extremity fracture/distracting injury, focal neurological deficit and spinal pain/tenderness to determine the risk of SCI in a trauma patient [LOE 1, GOR A]. Neurogenic shock must be recognized and treated [LOE 3, GOR A]. Spine surgeons should consider early decompression and spine fixation/stabilization, where indicated, and should promote early active rehabilitation to improve functional recovery [LOE 2, GOR B]. Clinicians should refer SCI patients to specialized SCI rehabilitation centers [LOE 4, GOR B], must apply interventions to prevent venous thromboembolism (i.e., compression devices and low-molecular weight heparin/unfractionated heparin) after acute SCI respecting contraindications [LOE 1, GOR A]. Contemporary guidelines to manage pain must be employed [LOE 1, GOR A] and methods to reduce the risk of pressure ulcers should be used [LOE 3, GOR B].

CONCLUSIONS

Early treatment, prevention of associated complications and individualized patient-targeted rehabilitation programs provided by a specialized interdisciplinary team are crucial to optimize the outcome after SCI.

Compulsory Use of the Backboard is Associated with Increased Frequency of Thoracolumbar Imaging

BACKGROUND

Backboards have been shown to cause pain in uninjured patients. This may alter physical exam findings, leading emergency department (ED) providers to suspect a spinal injury when none exists resulting in additional imaging of the thoracolumbar spine. New York had previously employed a "Spinal Immobilization" protocol that included compulsory backboard application for all patients with suspected spinal injuries. In 2015, New York instituted a new "Spinal Motion Restriction" protocol that made backboard use optional for these patients. The objective of this study was to determine if this protocol change was associated with decreased backboard utilization and ED thoracolumbar spine imaging.

METHODS

This was a retrospective before-and-after chart review of subjects transported by a single emergency medical services (EMS) agency to one of four EDs for emergency calls dispatched as motor vehicle collisions (MVC). EMS and ED data were included for all calls within a 6-month interval before and after the protocol change. The protocol change was implemented in the second half of 2015. Subject demographics, backboard use, and spine imaging were reviewed for the intervals January-June 2015 and January-June 2016.

RESULTS

There were 818 subjects in the before period and 796 subjects in the after period. Subjects were similar in terms of gender, age and type of MVC in both periods. A backboard was utilized for 440 (54%) subjects in the before period and 92 (12%) subjects in the after period (p < 0.001). ED thoracic spine imaging was performed on 285 (35%) subjects in the before period, and 235 (30%) subjects in the after period (p = 0.02). ED lumbar spine imaging was performed for 335 (41%) subjects in the before period, and 281 (35%) subjects in the after period (p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

A shift from a spinal immobilization protocol to a spinal motion restriction protocol was associated with a decrease in backboard utilization by EMS providers and a decrease in thoracolumbar spine imaging by ED providers.

New Immobilization Guidelines Change EMS Critical Thinking in Older Adults With Spine Trauma

OBJECTIVE

The impact of immobilization techniques on older adult trauma patients with spinal injury has rarely been studied. Our advisory group implemented a change in the immobilization protocol used by emergency medical services (EMS) professionals across a region encompassing 9 trauma centers and 24 EMS agencies in a Rocky Mountain state using a decentralized process on July 1, 2014. We sought to determine whether implementing the protocol would alter immobilization methods and affect patient outcomes among adults ≥60 years with a cervical spine injury.

METHODS

This was a 4-year retrospective study of patients ≥60 years with a cervical spine injury (fracture or cord). Immobilization techniques used by EMS professionals, patient demographics, injury characteristics, and in-hospital outcomes were compared before (1/1/12-6/30/14) and after (7/1/14-12/31/15) implementation of the Spinal Precautions Protocol using bivariate and multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

Of 15,063 adult trauma patients admitted to nine trauma centers, 7,737 (51%) were ≥60 years. Of those, 237 patients had cervical spine injury and were included in the study; 123 (51.9%) and 114 (48.1%) were transported before and after protocol implementation, respectively. There was a significant shift in the immobilization methods used after protocol implementation, with less full immobilization (59.4% to 28.1%, p < 0.001) and an increase in the use of both a cervical collar only (8.9% to 27.2%, p < 0.001) and not using any immobilization device (15.5% to 31.6%, p = 0.003) after protocol implementation. While the proportion of patients who only received a cervical collar increased after implementing the Spinal Precautions Protocol, the overall proportion of patients who received a cervical collar alone or in combination with other immobilization techniques decreased (72.4% to 56.1%, p = 0.01). The presence of a neurological deficit (6.5% vs. 5.3, p = 0.69) was similar before and after protocol implementation; in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio = 0.56, 95% confidence interval: 0.24-1.30, p = 0.18) was similar post-protocol implementation after adjusting for injury severity.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no differences in neurologic deficit or patient disposition in the older adult patient with cervical spine trauma despite changes in spinal restriction protocols and resulting differences in immobilization devices.

Association between spinal immobilization and survival at discharge for on-scene blunt traumatic cardiac arrest: A nationwide retrospective cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Spinal immobilization has been indicated for all blunt trauma patients suspected of having cervical spine injury. However, for traumatic cardiac arrest (TCA) patients, rapid transportation without compromising potentially reversible causes is necessary. Our objective was to investigate the temporal trend of spinal immobilization for TCA patients and to examine the association between spinal immobilization and survival.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using the Japan Trauma Data Bank 2004-2015 registry data. Our study population consisted of adult blunt TCA patients encountered at the scene of a trauma. The primary outcome was the survival proportion at hospital discharge, and the secondary outcome was the proportion achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). We examined the association between spinal immobilization and these outcomes using a logistic regression model based on imputed data sets with the multiple imputation method to account for missing data.

RESULTS

Among 4313 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 3307 (76.7%) were immobilized. The proportion of patients that underwent spinal immobilization gradually decreased from 82.7% in 2004-2006 to 74.0% in 2013-2015. 1.0% of immobilized and 0.9% of non-immobilized patients had severe cervical spine injury. Spinal immobilization was significantly associated with lower survival at discharge (odds ratio [OR], 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.98) and ROSC by admission (OR, 0.48; 95%CI, 0.27 to 0.87). There was no significant sub-group difference of the association between spinal immobilization and survival at discharge by patients with or without cervical spine injury (p for interaction 0.73).

CONCLUSION

Spinal immobilization is widely used even for blunt TCA patients, even though it is associated with a lower rate of survival at discharge and ROSC by admission. According to these results, we suggest that spinal immobilization should not be routinely recommended for all blunt TCA patients.

The characteristics and pre-hospital management of blunt trauma patients with suspected spinal column injuries: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Pre-hospital spinal immobilisation by emergency medical services (EMS) staff is currently the standard of care in cases of suspected spinal column injuries. There is, however, a lack of data on the characteristics of patients who received spinal immobilisation during the pre-hospital phase and on the adverse effects of immobilisation. The objectives of this study were threefold. First, we determined the pre-hospital characteristics of blunt trauma patients with suspected spinal column injuries who were immobilised by EMS staff. Second, we assessed the choices made by EMS staff regarding spinal immobilisation techniques and reasons for immobilisation. Third, we researched the possible adverse effects of immobilisation.

DESIGN

A retrospective observational study in a cohort of blunt trauma patients.

STUDY METHOD

Data of blunt trauma patients with suspected spinal column injuries were collected from one EMS organisation between January 2008 and January 2013. Coded data and free text notes were analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 1082 patients were included in this study. Spinal immobilisation was applied in 96.3 % of the patients based on valid pre-hospital criteria. In 2.1 % of the patients immobilisation was not based on valid criteria. Data of 1.6 % patients were missing. Main reasons for spinal immobilisation were posterior midline spinal tenderness (37.2 % of patients) and painful distracting injuries (13.5 % of patients). Spinal cord injury (SCI) was suspected in 5.7 % of the patients with posterior midline spinal tenderness. A total of 15.8 % patients were immobilised using non-standard methods. The reason for departure from the standard method was explained for 3 % of these patients. Reported adverse effects included pain (n = 10, 0.9 %,); shortness of breath (n = 3, 0.3 %); combativeness or anxiety (n = 6, 0.6 %); and worsening of pain when supine (n = 1, 0.1 %).

CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION

Spinal immobilisation was applied in 96.3 % of all included patients based on pre-hospital criteria. We found that consensus among EMS staff on how to interpret the criterion 'distracting injury' was lacking. Furthermore, the adverse effects of spinal immobilisation were incompletely documented in pre-hospital care reports. To provide validated information on potential symptoms of SCI, a uniform EMS scoring system for motoric assessment should be developed.

Cervical collars and immobilisation: A South African best practice recommendation

INTRODUCTION

The consequences of spinal injury as a result of trauma can be devastating. Spinal immobilisation using hard trauma boards and rigid cervical collars has traditionally been the standard response to suspected spinal injury patients even though the risk may be extremely low. Recently, adverse events due to the method of immobilisation have challenged the need for motion restriction in all trauma patients. International guidelines have been published for protection of the spine during transport and this article brings those guidelines into the South African context.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Trauma patients need to be properly assessed using both an approved list of high and low risk factors, as well as a thorough examination. They should then be managed accordingly. Internationally validated assessment strategies have been developed, and should be used as part of the patient assessment. The method of motion restriction should be selected to suit the situation. The use of a vacuum mattress is the preferable technique, with the use of a trauma board being the least desirable.

CONCLUSION

The need for motion restriction in suspected spinal injury should be properly evaluated and appropriate action taken. Not all trauma patients require spinal motion restriction.

The definite risks and questionable benefits of liberal pre-hospital spinal immobilisation

INTRODUCTION

The routine practice of pre-hospital spinal immobilisation (phSI) for patients with suspected spinal injury has existed for decades. However, the controversy surrounding it resulted in the 2013 publication of a Consensus document by the Faculty of Pre-Hospital Care. The question remains as to whether the quality of evidence in the literature is sufficient to support the Consensus guidelines. This critical review aims to determine the validity of current recommendations by balancing the potential benefits and side effects of phSI.

METHOD

A review of the literature was carried out by two independent assessors using Medline, PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library databases. Manual searches of related journals and reference lists were also completed. The selected body of evidence was subsequently appraised using a checklist derived from SIGN and CASP guidelines, as well as Crombie's guide to critical appraisal.

RESULTS

No reliable sources were found proving the benefit for patient immobilisation. In contrast there is strong evidence to show that pre-hospital spinal immobilisation is not benign with recognised complications ranging from discomfort to significant physiological compromise. The published literature supports the Consensus guideline recommendations for safely reducing the impact of these side effects without compromising the patient.

CONCLUSION

The literature supports the Consensus Guidelines but raises the question as to whether they go far enough as there is strong evidence to suggest phSI is an inherently harmful procedure without having any proven benefit. These results demonstrate an urgent need for further studies to determine its treatment effect.

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

The traditional prehospital management of trauma victims with potential spinal injury has become increasingly questioned as authors and clinicians have raised concerns about over-triage and harm. In order to address these concerns, the Norwegian National Competence Service for Traumatology commissioned a faculty to provide a national guideline for pre-hospital spinal stabilisation. This work is based on a systematic review of available literature and a standardised consensus process. The faculty recommends a selective approach to spinal stabilisation as well as the implementation of triaging tools based on clinical findings. A strategy of minimal handling should be observed.

On-scene treatment of spinal injuries in motor sports

Because spinal cord injuries can have fatal consequences for injured race car drivers, prehospital treatment of spinal injuries is a major concern in motor sports. A structured procedure for assessing trauma patients and their treatment should follow established ABCDE principles. Only then, a stable patient could be further examined and appropriate measures can be undertaken. For patients in an acute life-threatening condition, rapid transport must be initiated and should not be delayed by measures that are not indicated. If a competitor must first be extricated from the racing vehicle, the correct method of extrication must be chosen. To avoid secondary injury to the spine after a racing accident, in-line extrication from the vehicle and immobilization of the patient are standard procedures in motor sports and have been used for decades. Since immobilization can be associated with disadvantages and complications, the need for immobilization of trauma patients outside of motor sports medicine has become the subject of an increasing number of reports in the scientific literature. Even in motor sports, where specific safety systems that offer spinal protection are present, the indications for spinal immobilization need to be carefully considered rather than being blindly adopted as a matter of course. The aim of this article is to use recent literature to present an overview about the treatment of spinal injuries in motor sports. Further, we present a new protocol for indications for immobilizing the spine in motor sports that is based on the ABCDE principles and takes into account the condition of the patient.

Development of a new Emergency Medicine Spinal Immobilization Protocol for trauma patients and a test of applicability by German emergency care providers

Background

In order to match the challenges of quickly recognizing and treating any life-threatening injuries, the ABCDE principles were established for the assessment and treatment of trauma patients. The high priority of spine protection is emphasized by the fact that immobilization of the cervical spine is performed at the very first step in the ABCDE principles. Immobilization is typically performed to prevent or minimize secondary damage to the spinal cord if instability of the spinal column is suspected. Due to increasing reports about disadvantages of spinal immobilization, the indications for performing spinal immobilization must be refined.

The aim of this study was (i) to develop a protocol that supports decision-making for spinal immobilization in adult trauma patients and (ii) to carry out the first applicability test by emergency medical personnel.

Methods

A structured literature search considering the literature from 1980 to 2014 was performed. Based on this literature and on the current guidelines, a new protocol that supports on scene decision-making for spinal immobilization has been developed. Parameters found in the literature concerning mechanisms and factors increasing the likelihood of spinal injury have been included in the new protocol. In order to test the applicability of the new protocol two surveys were performed on German emergency care providers by means of a questionnaire focused on correct decision-making if applying the protocol.

Results

Based on the current literature and guidelines, the Emergency Medicine Spinal Immobilization Protocol (E.M.S. IMMO Protocol) for adult trauma patients was developed. Following a fist applicability test involving 21 participants, the first version of the E.M.S. IMMO Protocol has to be graphically re-organized. A second applicability test comprised 50 participants with the current version of the protocol confirmed good applicability. Questions regarding immobilization of trauma patients could be answered properly using the E.M.S. IMMO Protocol.

Discussion

Current literature increasingly reports of disadvantages that may be associated with immobilization. Based on the requirements of the current guidelines, a new protocol that supports decision-making for indications for out-of-hospital spinal immobilization has been developed in this study. In contrast to established protocols, the new protocol offers different options for immobilization as well as a decicion-support.

Conclusions

The E.M.S. IMMO protocol provides a decision-support tool for indications for spinal immobilization in adult trauma patients that permits variable decision-making depending on the current condition of the trauma patient and the pattern of injuries for immobilization in general and for immobilization method in particular.

Expertise of German paramedics concerning the prehospital treatment of patients with spinal trauma

PURPOSE

Spinal immobilization is a standard procedure in emergency medicine. Increasing awareness of complications associated with immobilization of trauma patients leads to controversial discussions in the literature. Current guidelines require to include considerations of accident mechanism, an assessment of the patient's condition and an examination of the spine in the decision-making process if immobilization of the spine should be performed. This requires sound knowledge of assessing these parameters. The aim of the current study is to analyze German paramedics' subjective uncertainty in terms of their prehospital assessment and treatment of patients suffering from spine injuries.

METHODS

Over a period of 17 months participants in a trauma course were asked to complete a standardized anonymous questionnaire about subjective uncertainty of prehospital assessment and management of spinal trauma before participation in that course. Questions about the frequency of application of different immobilization tools and skills training on spinal immobilization were also asked.

RESULTS

A total of 465 paramedics were surveyed. The participants did not indicate any uncertainty about the prehospital diagnosis and treatment of spinal injuries. The feeling of confidence was significantly greater in participants who had already attended another course on structured trauma care before. The participants agreed with the statements that standardized algorithms facilitate teamwork and that there is a need for a protocol for the prehospital treatment of spinal injuries.

CONCLUSIONS

Paramedics do not feel uncertain about the prehospital assessment and treatment of spinal injuries. The feeling of confidence in participants who had already attended a course on the treatment of trauma patients before was significantly higher.

Can emergency nurses safely and accurately remove cervical spine collars in low risk adult trauma patients: An integrative review

BACKGROUND

Well validated clinical decision rules exist to facilitate the safe removal of collars in the alert, orientated, low risk adult trauma patient, however this practice is traditionally conducted by medical staff. The aim of this review is to synthesise current evidence to determine the efficacy of emergency nurses in safely and accurately removing cervical spine collars using cervical spine rules, in alert, orientated, low risk trauma adult patients.

METHODS

A multi-method search strategy was used to find primary research studies followed by a rigorous screening and quality appraisal process. Data from included articles were extracted, grouped and synthesised.

RESULTS

Nine quantitative research articles resulted in four key findings: the inter-rater reliability between nurses and doctors clearing the cervical spine was high (kappa range (0.61-0.80)); nurses can safely implement the cervical spine clinical decision rule; use of a cervical spine clinical decision rule decreases the time patients are immobilised and; nurses felt confident applying a cervical spine clinical decision rule.

CONCLUSION

Appropriately trained emergency nurses can safely apply cervical spine rules to alert, orientated, low risk adult trauma patients. Implementation of nurses clearing cervical spines should include training and ongoing monitoring.

Minimal patient handling: a faculty of prehospital care consensus statement

This paper outlines the emerging best practice when packaging a prehospital trauma patient while providing spinal immobilisation. The best practice described is based on the recommendations of a consensus meeting held by the Faculty of Pre-Hospital Care, Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, in the West Midlands in April 2012, where the opinion of experienced practitioners from across the prehospital and emergency care community considered the currently available evidence and reviewed current clinical practice. Initial consensus points were then subject to further review and dialogue with stakeholders from the initial meeting. The recommendations drawn from the meeting and subsequent dialogue represent a 'general agreement' to the principles and practices described in the paper. The recommendations will provide guidance for clinical practice and governance alongside other consensus statements from the Faculty of Pre-Hospital Care that seek to address prehospital spinal immobilisation and pelvic immobilisation.

Secondary neurological deterioration in traumatic spinal injury: data from medicolegal cases

We assessed the frequency and causes of neurological deterioration in 59 patients with spinal cord injury on whom reports were prepared for clinical negligence litigation. In those who deteriorated neurologically we assessed the causes of the change in neurology and whether that neurological deterioration was potentially preventable. In all 27 patients (46%) changed neurologically, 20 patients (74% of those who deteriorated) had no primary neurological deficit. Of those who deteriorated, 13 (48%) became Frankel A. Neurological deterioration occurred in 23 of 38 patients (61%) with unstable fractures and/or dislocations; all 23 patients probably deteriorated either because of failures to immobilise the spine or because of inappropriate removal of spinal immobilisation. Of the 27 patients who altered neurologically, neurological deterioration was, probably, avoidable in 25 (excess movement in 23 patients with unstable injuries, failure to evacuate an epidural haematoma in one patient and over-distraction following manipulation of the cervical spine in one patient). If existing guidelines and standards for the management of actual or potential spinal cord injury had been followed, neurological deterioration would have been prevented in 25 of the 27 patients (93%) who experienced a deterioration in their neurological status.

Outcome of trauma patients immobilized by emergency department staff, but not by emergency medical services providers: a quality assurance initiative

BACKGROUND

Prehospital selective cervical spine immobilization (CSI) is a relatively new concept. In our emergency medical services (EMS) system, protocols for selective CSI are widely used; yet, some patients who are brought to the hospital without CSI undergo secondary immobilization and cervical spine imaging in the emergency department (ED). Immobilization in the ED, after a decision not to immobilize by EMS, suggests that either the prehospital assessment is not trusted or the patient has developed new symptoms over time. We undertook a quality assurance initiative to evaluate whether trauma patients brought to the ED without CSI, who then underwent secondary CSI and imaging in the ED, had injuries that were initially missed by EMS selective CSI protocol.

METHODS

This was a 36-month retrospective data analysis of blunt trauma patients transported directly from the field to the University of New Mexico Hospital level I trauma center by Albuquerque Ambulance Service (AAS) between March 2009 and February 2012. Inclusion criteria were age 18 years and older, transported by AAS without CSI, and cervical spinal imaging done in the ED. Patients were excluded if they were being transported between facilities, were prisoners, and/or refused CSI. A positive finding was defined as any acute abnormality identified by the attending radiologist on the final imaging report.

RESULTS

The study included 101 patients who met inclusion criteria. There were no significant missed injuries. Ninety-four of the 101 patients received cervical spinal CT imaging at an estimated cost of $1,570 per scan, not including physician charges. The remaining patients had plain film radiographic imaging. No patients had magnetic resonance imaging.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective quality assurance initiative, none of 101 patients who underwent secondary CSI and imaging in the ED had a missed acute cervical injury. No patients had any adverse effects or required treatment, yet these patients incurred substantial costs and increased radiation exposure. While our results suggest hospital personnel should have confidence in prehospital decisions regarding CSI, continued surveillance and a large-scale, prospective study are needed to confirm our findings.

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

The cervical collar has been routinely used for trauma patients for more than 30 years and is a hallmark of state-of-the-art prehospital trauma care. However, the existing evidence for this practice is limited: Randomized, controlled trials are largely missing, and there are uncertain effects on mortality, neurological injury, and spinal stability. Even more concerning, there is a growing body of evidence and opinion against the use of collars. It has been argued that collars cause more harm than good, and that we should simply stop using them. In this critical review, we discuss the pros and cons of collar use in trauma patients and reflect on how we can move our clinical practice forward. Conclusively, we propose a safe, effective strategy for prehospital spinal immobilization that does not include routine use of collars.

Effect of vacuum spine board immobilization on incidence of pressure ulcers during evacuation of military casualties from theater

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

In the summer of 2009, the vacuum spine board (VSB) was designated by the US Air Force as the preferred method of external spinal immobilization during aeromedical transport of patients with suspected unstable thoracolumbar spine fractures. One purported advantage of the VSB is that, by distributing weight over a larger surface area, it decreases the risk of skin pressure ulceration.

PURPOSE

To examine whether the rate of pressure ulcers has changed since the introduction of the VSB.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohorts.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Injured US service members undergoing spinal immobilization during evacuation from the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters to Landstuhl, Germany.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Presence and stage of pressure ulceration, and deterioration in neurologic status.

METHODS

Records of the initial 60 patients medically evacuated on the VSB to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center were retrospectively analyzed for patient demographics, injury characteristics, and incidence of pressure injury. The incidence of pressure ulcers after the use of VSB was compared with that in a historical control consisting of 30 patients with unstable spinal injuries evacuated before the introduction of the VSB. No sources of external funding were used for this investigation.

RESULTS

The combined cohort had a mean age of 28.8 years and mean Injury Severity Score (ISS) of 20.63 and comprised 96% men. Most injury mechanisms were blunt (58%). The rate of neurological injury was 19%. There were no cases of progressive neurological deficit or deformity in either cohort. In the VSB group, using a broad definition of pressure ulcer, incidence was 13 of 60 patients (22%). Using a strict definition, incidence was eight of 60 (13%): five Stage I and three Stage II. In the non-VSB group, incidence of pressure ulcers was three of 30 (10%), using either definition, all Stage II. Difference in incidence between the groups was not statistically significant. Intubated patients had a significantly higher incidence of pressure ulcers.

CONCLUSION

Both the VSB and historic means (non-VSB) of spinal immobilization appear to be safe and produce only transient morbidity despite an average of 9 to 10 hours of transport. Intubated status was identified as the most important risk factor for the development of a pressure ulcer.