Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T08:03:34.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Prehospital Cervical Immobilization Devices Using Video and Electromyography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Thomas Manix ,
Michael R. Gunderson  and
Geoffrey C. Garth
Thomas Manix*
Affiliation:
Education Services Manager, Laerdal California, Inc., Long Beach, California
Michael R. Gunderson
Affiliation:
Director of Research and Education, Office of the Medical Director, Pinellas County, Emergency Medical Services, Largo, Florida
Geoffrey C. Garth
Affiliation:
Vice President, Creative Design, Laerdal California, Inc., Long Beach, California
*
Laerdal California, Inc., 1901 Obispo Ave., Long Beach, CA 90804USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction:

Previous evaluations of prehospital devices intended for spinal immobilization have focused on the device's ability to restrict motion only. This study defines six relevant criteria for evaluation of cervical immobilization device (CID) performance.

Objectives:

To suggest relevant criteria for evaluation and use available technology to improve measurements for performance testing of prehospital-care devices.

Methods:

Six parameters (motion restriction, access, ease of application, environmental performance, radiolucency, and storage size) were used to evaluate three types of CIDs: Device A—a single-use corrugated board; Device B—a reusable foam-block CID; and Device C—hospital towels and adhesive tape. To test motion restriction, the most frequently compared parameters for immobilization devices, 20 volunteers were asked to move their heads and necks through a series of motions (flexion, extension, lateral bending and rotation). Their movements were videotaped, still images of each movement were generated, and the degrees of deflection recorded from these still images. To ensure a consistent level of force, electromyography (EMG) of the sternodydomastoid and extensor muscles was employed.

Results:

Data were produced for each parameter and presented for comparison. The use of video to determine deflection proved to be a useful and highly accurate (±1°) method for measurement. The use of EMG technology enabled force to be controlled indirectly when the subjects used moderate levels of exertion. Overall, Devices A and C restricted motion better than Device B. Although Device C required the shortest time for application, it took the longest to prepare for application. The total time required for preparation and application of A and B essentially were equivalent, with A requiring no preparation time but taking the longest for application, and B having an intermediate interval for application. Device A allowed for the best examination of the head and neck. No differences were detected in performance in extreme environmental conditions or in radiolucency for cervical spine X-ray examinations. Device A consumed the smallest storage volume, B the greatest storage volume, and C an intermediate volume substantially greater than that required for A.

Conclusion:

Device evaluation should include examination of all relevant performance parameters using the most accurate and meaningful methods possible.

Keywords

analysis of devicescervical immobilization devicecomparative evaluationelectromyographyequipmentimagingspinal immobilizationspinevideo
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , December 1995 , pp. 232 - 237
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1995

Access options

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

References

1. Journal of Emergency Medical Services: Journal of Emergency Medical Services 1992 Buyers' Guide 1991;6:117–176.Google Scholar
2. Althoff, B, Goldie, IF: Cervical collars in rheumatoid atlanto-axial subluxation: A radiographic comparison. Ann Emerg Med 1980;39:485–489.Google ScholarPubMed
3. Benzel, EC, Hadden, TA, Saulsbery, CM: A comparison of the Minerva and halo jackets for stabilization of the cervical spine. J Neurosurg 1989;70:411–414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Cline, JR, Scheidel, E, Bigsby, EF: A comparison of methods of cervical immobilization used in patient extrication and transport. J Trauma 1985;25:649–653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Cohen, AJ, Bosshard, RG, Yeo, JD: A new device for the care of acute spinal injuries: The Russell Extrication Device. Paraplegia 1990;28:151–157.Google Scholar
6. Graziano, AF, Scheidel, EA, Cline, JR, Baer, LJ: A radiographic comparison of prehospital cervical immobilization methods. Ann Emerg Med 1987;16:1127–1131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Hartman, JT, Palumbo, F, Hill, BJ: Cineradiography of the braced normal cervical spine: A comparative study of five commonly used cervical orthoses. Clinical Orthopedics and Related Research 1975;19:97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Johnson, RM, Hart, DL, Simmons, EF, et al. : Cervical orthoses: A study comparing their effectiveness in restricting cervical motion in normal subjects. J Bone Joint Surg 1977;59-A:332–339.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Kaufman, WA, Lunsford, TF, Lunsford, BR, Lance, LL: Comparison of three prefabricated cervical collars. Orthotics and Prosthetics 1986;39:21–28.Google Scholar
10. Podolsky, S, Baraff, LJ, Simon, RR, et al. : Efficacy of cervical spine immobilization methods. J Trauma 1983;23:461–464.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Basmajian, JV, DeLuca, CJ: Muscles Alive, 5th edition. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore, Chapter 7, EMG Signal Amplitude and Force, 1985.Google Scholar
12. Statistical Report for CID Research, University of Michigan Center for Statistical Consultation and Research, 1993.Google Scholar
13. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons: Joint Motion Method of Measuring and Recording, 1965.Google Scholar
14. Fisher, SV, Bowar, JF, Awad, EA, Gullickson, G: Cervical orthoses effect on cervical spine motion: Roentgenographic and goniometric method of study. Arch Physical Medical Rehabilitation 1977;58:109–115.Google ScholarPubMed
15. Sumchai, AP, Sabelman, EE, Martino, J: Effectiveness of cervical spine stabilization devices measured by accelerometry: Results of a pilot investigation. Presented at 1989 UAEM Scientific Assembly in San Diego, Calif., 1989:1–23.Google Scholar
16. Jones, MD: Cineradiographic studies of the collar-immobilized cervical spine. Presented at the meeting of the Harvey Cushing Society, New Orleans, La., 1 May 1959:633–637.Google Scholar