Prehospital Spinal Immobilization Research Articles

Prehospital Spinal Immobilization: Effect of Effort on Kinematics of Voluntary Head-neck Motion Assessed using Accelerometry.

Standards for immobilizing potentially spine-injured patients in the prehospital environment are evolving. Current guidelines call for more research into treatment practices. Available research into spinal immobilization (SI) reveals a number of limitations. There are currently few techniques for measuring head and neck motion that address identified limitations and can be adapted to clinically relevant scenarios. This study investigates one possible method. Study participants were fitted with miniaturized accelerometers to record head motion. Participants were exposed to three levels of restraint: none, cervical-collar only, and full immobilization. In each condition, participants were instructed to move in single planes, with multiple iterations at each of four levels of effort. Participants were also instructed to move continuously in multiple planes, with iterations at each of three levels of simulated patient movement. Peak and average displacement and acceleration were calculated for each immobilization condition and level of effort. Comparisons were made with video-based measurement. Participant characteristics also were tracked. Acceleration and displacement of the head increased with effort and decreased with more restraint. In some conditions, participants generated measurable acceleration with minimal displacement. Continuous, multi-dimensional motions produced greater displacement and acceleration than single-plane motions under similar conditions. Study results suggest a number of findings: acceleration complements displacement as a measure of motion in potentially spine-injured patients; participant effort has an effect on outcome measures; and continuous, multi-dimensional motion can produce results that differ from single-plane motions. Miniaturized accelerometers are a promising technology for future research to investigate these findings in realistic, clinically relevant scenarios.

The Prehospital Management of Suspected Spinal Cord Injury: An Update

Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a serious condition that may lead to long-term disabilities placing financial and social burden on patients and their families, as well as their communities. Spinal immobilization has been considered the standard prehospital care for suspected SCI patients. However, there is a lack of consensus on its beneficial impact on patients' outcome. This paper reviews the current literature on the epidemiology of traumatic SCI and the practice of prehospital spinal immobilization. A search of literature was undertaken utilizing the online databases Ovid Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. The search included English language publications from January 2000 through November 2012. The reported annual incidence of SCI ranges from 12.7 to 52.2 per 1 million and occurs more commonly among males than females. Motor vehicle collisions (MVCs) are the major reported causes of traumatic SCI among young and middle-aged patients, and falls are the major reported causes among patients older than 55. There is little evidence regarding the relationship between prehospital spinal immobilization and patient neurological outcomes. However, early patient transfer (8-24 hours) to spinal care units and effective resuscitation have been demonstrated to lead to better neurological outcomes. This review reaffirms the need for further research to validate the advantages, disadvantages, and the effects of spinal immobilization on patients' neurological outcomes.

Pre-hospital spinal immobilisation: an initial consensus statement

Pre-hospital spinal immobilisation: an initial consensus statement

Spinal Motion Restriction: An Educational and Implementation Program to Redefine Prehospital Spinal Assessment and Care

Introduction. Prehospital spine immobilization has long been applied to victims of trauma in the United States and up to 5 million patients per year are immobilized mostly with a cervical collar and a backboard. Objective. The training of paramedics and emergency medical technicians on the principals of spine motion restriction (SMR) will decrease the use of backboards. Methods. The training for SMR emphasized the need to immobilize those patients with a significant potential for an unstable cervical spine fracture and to use alternative methods of maintaining spine precautions for those with lower risk. The training addressed the potential complications of the use of the unpadded backboard and education was provided about the mechanics of spine injuries. Emergency medical services (EMS} personnel were taught to differentiate between the critical multisystem trauma patients from the more common moderate, low kinetic energy trauma patients. A comprehensive education and outreach program that included all of the EMS providers (fire and private), hospitals, and EMS educational institutions was developed. Results. Within 4 months of the policy implementation, prehospital care practitioners reduced the use of the backboard by 58%. This was accomplished by a decrease in the number of patients considered for SMR with low kinetic energy and the use of other methods, such as the cervical collar only. Conclusion. The implementation of a SMR training program significantly decreases the use of backboards and allows alternative methods of maintaining spine precautions. Keywords: Emergency Medical Services; humans; spinal injuries/therapy; transportation of patients; cervical vertebrae/injuries; emergency medical services/ methods; emergency medical technicians; immobilization/ methods; spinal motion restriction

Cost-utility analysis of prehospital spine immobilization recommendations for penetrating trauma

The American College of Surgeons' Committee on Trauma's recent prehospital trauma life support recommendations against prehospital spine immobilization (PHSI) after penetrating trauma are based on a low incidence of unstable spine injuries after penetrating injuries. However, given the chronic and costly nature of devastating spine injuries, the cost-utility of PHSI is unclear. Our hypothesis was that the cost-utility of PHSI in penetrating trauma precludes routine use of this prevention strategy. A Markov model based cost-utility analysis was performed from a society perspective of a hypothetical cohort of 20-year-old males presenting with penetrating trauma and transported to a US hospital. The analysis compared PHSI with observation alone. The probabilities of spine injuries, costs (US 2010 dollars), and utility of the two groups were derived from published studies and public data. Incremental effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years. Subset analyses of isolated head and neck injuries as well as sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the strength of the recommendations. Only 0.2% of penetrating trauma produced unstable spine injury, and only 7.4% of the patients with unstable spine injury who underwent spine stabilization had neurologic improvement. The total lifetime per-patient cost was $930,446 for the PHSI group versus $929,883 for the nonimmobilization group, with no difference in overall quality-adjusted life-years. Subset analysis demonstrated that PHSI for patients with isolated head or neck injuries provided equivocal benefit over nonimmobilization. PHSI was not cost-effective for patients with torso or extremity penetrating trauma. Despite increased incidence of unstable spine injures produced by penetrating head or neck injuries, the cost-benefit of PHSI in these patients is equivocal, and further studies may be needed before omitting PHSI in patients with penetrating head and neck injuries. Economic and value-based evaluation, level II.

Cervical Spine Fractures in Elderly Patients with Hip Fracture After Low-Level Fall: An Opportunity to Refine Prehospital Spinal Immobilization Guidelines?

Conventional prehospital spine-assessment approaches based on low index of suspicion and mechanism of injury (MOI) result in the liberal application of spinal immobilization in trauma patients. A painful distracting injury (DI), such as a suspected hip fracture, historically has been a sufficient condition for immobilization, even in an elderly patient who suffers a simple fall from standing and exhibits no other risk factors for spinal injury. Because the elderly are at increased risk of hip fracture from low-level falls, and are also particularly susceptible to the discomfort and morbidity associated with immobilization, the prevalence of cervical spine (c-spine) fracture in this patient population was examined. Hospital billing records were used to identify all cases of traumatic femur fracture in Minnesota (USA) in 2010-2011. Concurrent diagnosis and external cause codes were used to estimate the prevalence of c-spine fracture by age and MOI. Among 1,394 patients with femur fracture, 23 (1.7%) had a c-spine fracture. When the MOI was a fall from standing or sitting height and the patient age was ≥ 65, the prevalence dropped to 0.4% (2/565). The prevalence was similar when the definition of hip fracture additionally included pelvis fractures (0.5%; 11/2,441). Eight of the 11 patients with c-spine fracture had diagnosis codes indicative of criteria other than the DI that likely would have resulted in immobilization (eg, head injury and compromised mental status). C-spine fracture is extremely rare in elderly patients who sustain hip fracture as a result of a low-level fall, and appears to be accompanied frequently by other known predictors of spinal injury besides DI. More research is needed to determine whether conservative use of spinal immobilization may be warranted in elderly patients with hip fracture after low-level falls when the only criteria for immobilization is the distracting hip injury.

Should suspected cervical spinal cord injuries be immobilised? A systematic review protocol

BackgroundCervical spinal cord injuries may result in life-threatening situations and long-term disability. Prehospital spinal immobilisation is the standard of care for patients with potential spinal cord injury (SCI). It aims...

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.

Assessing Attitudes toward Spinal Immobilization

BackgroundProspective studies have improved knowledge of prehospital spinal immobilization. The opinion of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) providers regarding spinal immobilization is unknown, as is their knowledge of recent research advances. Study ObjectivesTo examine the attitudes, knowledge, and comfort of prehospital and Emergency Department (ED) EMS providers regarding spinal immobilization performed under a non-selective protocol. Methods: An online survey was conducted from May to July of 2011. Participants were drawn from the Howard County Department of Fire and Rescue Services and the Howard County General Hospital ED. The survey included multiple choice questions and responses on a modified Likert scale. Correlation analysis and descriptive data were used to analyze results. ResultsComfort using the Kendrick Extrication Device was low among ED providers. Experienced providers were more likely to indicate comfort using this device. Respondents often believed that spinal immobilization is appropriate in the management of penetrating trauma to the chest and abdomen. Reported use of padding decreased along with the frequency with which providers practice and encounter immobilized patients. Respondents often indicated that they perform spinal immobilization due solely to mechanism of injury. Providers who feel as if spinal immobilization is often performed unnecessarily were more likely to agree that immobilization causes an unnecessary delay in patient care. ConclusionsThe results demonstrate the need for improved EMS education in the use of the Kendrick Extrication Device, backboard padding, and spinal immobilization in the management of penetrating trauma. The attitudes highlighted in this study are relevant to the implementation of a selective spinal immobilization protocol.

Variability of Prehospital Spinal Immobilization in Children at Risk for Cervical Spine Injury

This study aimed to compare prehospital spinal immobilization techniques applied to age-based cohorts of children with and without cervical spine injury (CSI) after blunt trauma. We compared prehospital spinal immobilization in 3 age-based cohorts of children with blunt trauma-related CSI transported to 1 of 17 participating hospitals. We also compared children younger than 2 years with CSI with those at risk for but without CSI after blunt trauma. We identified patients through query of billing and radiology databases. We compared immobilization methods using Fisher's exact test for homogeneity. We identified 16 children younger than 2 years, 78 children 2 to 7 years old, and 221 children 8 to 15 years old with CSI, and 66 children younger than 2 years without CSI. There were no significant differences in spinal immobilization techniques applied to children younger than 2 years old with and without CSI (P = 0.34). Of the 82 children younger than 2 years, 34 (41%) were fully immobilized in a cervical collar and rigid long board. There was a significant difference between spinal immobilization techniques applied to children with CSI younger than 2 years and 8 to 15 years old (P < 0.01). Six (38%) children with CSI younger than 2 years were fully immobilized versus 49 (63%) children 2 to 7 years old and 175 (79%) children 8 to 15 years old. In this retrospective, observational study involving several emergency departments and Emergency Medical Services systems, we found that full spinal immobilization is inconsistently applied to children younger than 2 years after blunt trauma regardless of the presence of CSI. Full spinal immobilization is applied more consistently to older children with CSI.

Prehospital Cervical Spinal Immobilization After Trauma

Prehospital Cervical Spinal Immobilization After Trauma

Cost-Utility Analysis of Prehospital Spine Immobilization for Penetrating Trauma

Cost-Utility Analysis of Prehospital Spine Immobilization for Penetrating Trauma

Prehospital Spine Immobilization for Penetrating Trauma—Review and Recommendations From the Prehospital Trauma Life Support Executive Committee

Stuke, Lance E. MD, MPH; Pons, Peter T. MD; Guy, Jeffrey S. MD, MSc, MMHC; Chapleau, Will P. RN, EMT-P; Butler, Frank K. MD, Capt MC USN (Ret); McSwain, Norman E. MD Author Information

Pre-Hospital Care Management of a Potential Spinal Cord Injured Patient: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Evidence-Based Guidelines

An interdisciplinary expert panel of medical and surgical specialists involved in the management of patients with potential spinal cord injuries (SCI) was assembled. Four key questions were created that were of significant interest. These were: (1) what is the optimal type and duration of pre-hospital spinal immobilization in patients with acute SCI?; (2) during airway manipulation in the pre-hospital setting, what is the ideal method of spinal immobilization?; (3) what is the impact of pre-hospital transport time to definitive care on the outcomes of patients with acute spinal cord injury?; and (4) what is the role of pre-hospital care providers in cervical spine clearance and immobilization? A systematic review utilizing multiple databases was performed to determine the current evidence about the specific questions, and each article was independently reviewed and assessed by two reviewers based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Guidelines were then created related to the questions by a national Canadian expert panel using the Delphi method for reviewing the evidence-based guidelines about each question. Recommendations about the key questions included: the pre-hospital immobilization of patients using a cervical collar, head immobilization, and a spinal board; utilization of padded boards or inflatable bean bag boards to reduce pressure; transfer of patients off of spine boards as soon as feasible, including transfer of patients off spinal boards while awaiting transfer from one hospital institution to another hospital center for definitive care; inclusion of manual in-line cervical spine traction for airway management in patients requiring intubation in the pre-hospital setting; transport of patients with acute traumatic SCI to the definitive hospital center for care within 24 h of injury; and training of emergency medical personnel in the pre-hospital setting to apply criteria to clear patients of cervical spinal injuries, and immobilize patients suspected of having cervical spinal injury.

Spine Immobilization in Penetrating Trauma: More Harm Than Good?

Previous studies have suggested that prehospital spine immobilization provides minimal benefit to penetrating trauma patients but takes valuable time, potentially delaying definitive trauma care. We hypothesized that penetrating trauma patients who are spine immobilized before transport have higher mortality than nonimmobilized patients. We performed a retrospective analysis of penetrating trauma patients in the National Trauma Data Bank (version 6.2). Multiple logistic regression was used with mortality as the primary outcome measure. We compared patients with versus without prehospital spine immobilization, using patient demographics, mechanism (stab vs. gunshot), physiologic and anatomic injury severity, and other prehospital procedures as covariates. Subset analysis was performed based on Injury Severity Score category, mechanism, and blood pressure. We calculated a number needed to treat and number needed to harm for spine immobilization. In total, 45,284 penetrating trauma patients were studied; 4.3% of whom underwent spine immobilization. Overall mortality was 8.1%. Unadjusted mortality was twice as high in spine-immobilized patients (14.7% vs. 7.2%, p < 0.001). The odds ratio of death for spine-immobilized patients was 2.06 (95% CI: 1.35-3.13) compared with nonimmobilized patients. Subset analysis showed consistent trends in all populations. Only 30 (0.01%) patients had incomplete spinal cord injury and underwent operative spine fixation. The number needed to treat with spine immobilization to potentially benefit one patient was 1,032. The number needed to harm with spine immobilization to potentially contribute to one death was 66. Prehospital spine immobilization is associated with higher mortality in penetrating trauma and should not be routinely used in every patient with penetrating trauma.

Prehospital Spinal Immobilization Does Not Appear to Be Beneficial and May Complicate Care Following Gunshot Injury to the Torso

Prehospital spinal immobilization (PHSI) is routinely applied to patients sustaining torso gunshot wounds (GSW). Our objective was to evaluate the potential benefit of PHSI after torso GSW versus the potential to interfere with other critical aspects of care. A retrospective analysis of all patients with torso GSW in the Strong Memorial Hospital (SMH) trauma registry during a 41-month period and all patients with GSW in the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) during a 60-month period was conducted. PHSI was considered potentially beneficial in patients with spine fractures requiring surgical stabilization in the absence of spinal cord injury (SCI). Three hundred fifty-seven subjects from SMH and 75,210 from NTDB were included. A total of 9.2% of SMH subjects and 4.3% of NTDB subjects had spine injury, with 51.5% of SMH subjects and 32.3% of NTDB subjects having SCI. No SMH subject had an unstable spine fracture requiring surgical stabilization without complete neurologic injury. No subjects with SCI improved or worsened, and none developed a new deficit. Twenty-six NTDB subjects (0.03%) had spine fractures requiring stabilization in the absence of SCI. Emergent intubation was required in 40.6% of SMH subjects and 33.8% of NTDB subjects. Emergent surgical intervention was required in 54.5% of SMH subjects and 43% of NTDB subjects. Our data suggest that the benefit of PHSI in patients with torso GSW remains unproven, despite a potential to interfere with emergent care in this patient population. Large prospective studies are needed to clarify the role of PHSI after torso GSW.

Efficacy and compliance of a prehospital spinal immobilization guideline

BackgroundPrehospital spinal immobilization criteria are useful in identifying those at risk for spinal fractures, while reducing the number of patients unnecessarily immobilized. The use of immobilization criteria, without regard to mechanism of injury, has been shown to accomplish this task.AimsThe study’s purpose is to examine efficacy of a prehospital spinal clearance guideline and triage/management of these injuries.MethodsThis was a retrospective study of traumatically injured patients based on a clinical clearance spinal immobilization guideline between January 2006 and January 2007. Two gold standards were used in the analysis (radiographic findings and physician clearance without radiographs). This project was approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board.ResultsThe study included 942 patients documented to have a traumatic injury. Of these, 43 (4.6%) had an acute spinal fracture. The guideline allowed 558 (59.2%) patients to be cleared, and 1.3% (7/558) had fractures. The remaining 384 did not meet clearance criteria and accounted for 36 (9.4%, 36/384) fractures. The guideline correctly predicted 36 of 43 fractures. The median age of the 7 fractures not immobilized was 82 years and of the 36 patients with fractures that were immobilized was 48 years. When immobilization was indicated, caregivers were 77.6% (298/384) compliant. Of the noncompliant 22.4% (86/384) there were 9 fractures.ConclusionsThis spinal guideline demonstrates efficacy in identifying those at risk for spinal fractures. An age extreme criteria may enhance this already effective guideline. Further analysis of compliance failures may improve the guideline’s ability for fracture prediction.

Clinical Clearance of Spinal Immobilization in the Air Medical Environment: A Feasibility Study

Various decision algorithms have been developed for use in the prehospital setting to analyze those trauma patients who do not require spinal immobilization. The feasibility of applying these algorithms in the air medical transport environment has not been studied. All adult patients (>/=age 16) transported to three Level I trauma centers were eligible for the study. Medical crews completed a data collection sheet during transport which was later used to analyze whether the transported patient would be eligible for spinal clearance based on the absence of all of the following clinical findings: (1) abnormal level of consciousness; (2) evidence of intoxication; (3) distracting painful injury; (4) spinal tenderness or pain; or (5) abnormal neurologic examination. The outcomes were (1) the proportion of transported patients potentially eligible for spinal clearance and (2) the ability of the algorithm to predict spinal injury. Three hundred twenty-nine patients were enrolled in the study. Forty-nine (15%) had spinal injuries with 12 (24%) considered unstable. Only 40 patients met criteria for deferring spinal immobilization; 4 of these patients had spinal fractures. The algorithm had a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 16%. Clearance of spinal immobilization using prehospital clinical algorithms during air medical transport did not appear to be useful. These criteria were not found to be sensitive, specific, or predictive of spinal injury in this population of blunt trauma patients. Prehospital spinal immobilization clearance algorithms using existing criteria should not be adopted for patients transported by helicopter.

A Retrospective Study of Five Clinical Criteria and One Age Criterion for Selective Prehospital Spinal Immobilization.

Full spinal immobilization of blunt trauma victims is a widely accepted prehospital measure, applied in order to prevent (further) damage to the spinal cord. However, looking at the marginal evidence that exists for the effectiveness of spinal immobilization, and the growing evidence for the negative effects following immobilization, a more selective protocol might be able to reduce possible morbidity and mortality as good as the present prehospital immobilization protocol. In a retrospective study, the sensitivity of a selective prehospital immobilization protocol that adds an age criterion to five clinical spine clearance criteria is examined. Based on ICD-9 codes, all patients admitted to the trauma center diagnosed with spinal fractures with or without spinal damage were identified. The sensitivity of the combination of five clinical criteria (reduced awareness, evidence of intoxication, neurological deficit, pain of the spine on palpation, (significant) distracting injury) and an age criterion (65 years or older at time of accident) was determined. If one or more criteria were positive, standard full immobilization would be indicated. The other patients would not have been immobilized. A total of 238 blunt trauma victims primarily admitted to the trauma center were included for this study. Median age of the included patients was 39 years (range 5-98), with 32.8% female. A total of 236 had at least one positive criterion (sensitivity 99.2%). The two missed patients were male, 40 and 41 years old. Radiology showed a small fissure in the arch of C2, and a transverse process fracture of L3, respectively. Both patients were discharged the next day without complications or medical interventions. In this retrospective study, a selective protocol based on clinical criteria instead of trauma mechanism showed 99.2% sensitivity for spinal fractures with or without spinal cord damage. Based on this study and the current controversy surrounding spinal immobilization, a prospective study should be considered to evaluate the five clinical criteria and one age criterion in the prehospital setting.

Prehospital Spinal Immobilization andthe Backboard Quality Assessment Study

Introduction. Prehospital spinal immobilization (PSI) for patients with suspected spinal injury has been the universal standard of practice for emergency medical services (EMS) in the United States since the early 1970s. PSI research has faced numerous methodological difficulties, including an inability to evaluate whether the immobilizations being studied were carried out appropriately. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of spinal immobilization to a long spine board in patients presenting via EMS to an emergency department (ED). Methods. All noncritically ill patients presenting to a tertiary care academic trauma center who had been immobilized on a long spine board for EMS transport were approached for enrollment. Each subject was evaluated for the number andlocation of restraining straps andtheir degree of tightness. Results. Of 50 consenting subjects, 15 (30%) had at least one unattached strap or piece of tape that should have attached their head to the board. Of 50 subjects, 44 (88%) were found to have greater than 2 cm of slack between their body andat least one strap. Among those with any straps looser than 2 cm, the average number of loose straps was 3.4. Conclusions. This study suggests that many patients are not well immobilized on arrival at the Emergency department.