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: Emergency Medical Service; cervical collar; cervical spine; immobilization; spine board.
Analysis of cervical spine immobilization during patient transport in emergency medical services.Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2019 Apr 27. doi: 10.1007/s00068-019-01143-z. Online ahead of print. Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg. 2019. PMID: 31030223
A Comparison of Cervical Spine Motion After Immobilization With a Traditional Spine Board and Full-Body Vacuum-Mattress Splint.Orthop J Sports Med. 2017 Dec 20;5(12):2325967117744757. doi: 10.1177/2325967117744757. eCollection 2017 Dec. Orthop J Sports Med. 2017. PMID: 29318167 Free PMC article.
Comparison of the Vacuum Mattress versus the Spine Board Alone for Immobilization of the Cervical Spine Injured Patient: A Biomechanical Cadaveric Study.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017 Dec 15;42(24):E1398-E1402. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0000000000002260. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2017. PMID: 28591075
The ability of external immobilizers to restrict movement of the cervical spine: a systematic review.Eur Spine J. 2016 Jul;25(7):2023-36. doi: 10.1007/s00586-016-4379-6. Epub 2016 Mar 31. Eur Spine J. 2016. PMID: 27032640 Review.
[Use of devices for spine immobilization for trauma patients at the emergency department: review of the literature].Assist Inferm Ric. 2003 Jan-Mar;22(1):5-12. Assist Inferm Ric. 2003. PMID: 12789833 Review. Italian.