Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T17:52:26.008Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of Prehospital Spinal Immobilization: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials on Healthy Subjects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Irene Kwan  and
Frances Bunn
Irene Kwan*
Affiliation:
National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health, Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, London, England, UK
Frances Bunn
Affiliation:
Centre for Research in Primary and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, London, England, UK
*
National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health, Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 27 Sussex Place, Regent's Park, London NW1 4RG, United Kingdom E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

To evaluate the effects of spinal immobilization on healthy participants.

Methods:

A systematic review of randomized, controlled trials of spinal immobilization on healthy participants.

Results:

Seventeen randomized, controlled trials compared different types of immobilization devices, including collars, backboards, splints, and body strapping. For immobilization efficacy, collars, spine boards, vacuum splints, and abdominal/torso strapping provided a significant reduction in spinal movement. Adverse effects of spinal immobilization included a significant increase in respiratory effort, skin ischemia, pain, and discomfort.

Conclusions:

Data from this review provide the best available evidence to support the well-recognized efficacy and potential adverse effects of spinal immobilization. However, comparisons of different immobilization strategies on trauma victims must be considered in order to establish an evidence base for this practice.

Keywords

healthy subjectsprehospital spinal immobilizationsystematic reviewtrauma
Type
Comprehensive Review
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , February 2005 , pp. 47 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2005

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. Smith, M: Making the Difference: Efficacy of Specialist Versus Non-Specialist Management of Spinal Cord Injury. London: Spinal Injuries Association, 1999.Google Scholar
2. McDonald, JW, Sadowsky, C: Spinal-cord injury. Lancet 2002;359:417–425.Google Scholar
3. Burney, RE, Maio, RF, Maynard, F, Karunas, R: Incidence, characteristics, and outcomes of spinal cord injury at trauma centers in North America. Arch Surg 1993;128(5):596–599.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. DeVivo, MJ: Causes and costs of spinal cord injury in the United States. Spinal Cord 1997;35(12):809–813.Google Scholar
5. Davis, JW, Phreaner, DL, Hoyt, DB, Mackersie, RC: The etiology of missed spine injuries. J Trauma 1993;34(3):342–346.Google Scholar
6. Grossman, MD, Reilly, PM, Gillet, T, Gillet, D: National survey of the incidence of cervical spine injury and approach to cervical spine clearance in US trauma centers. J Trauma 1999;47(4):684–690.Google Scholar
7. Advanced Life Support Group. Advanced Paediatric Life Support, 1st edition. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 1993.Google Scholar
8. American College of Surgeons. Advanced Trauma Life Support Program for Doctors. 6th edition. Chicago: American College of Surgeons, 1997.Google Scholar
9. Hauswald, M, Ong, G, Tandberg, D, Zahila, O: Out-of-hospital spinal immobilization: Its effect on neurologic injury. Acad Emerg Med 1998;5(3): 214–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Orledge, JD, Pepe, PE: Out-of-hospital spinal immobilization: Is it really necessary? Acad Emerg Med 1998;5(3):203–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Davies, G, Deakin, A, Wilson, A: The effect of a rigid collar on intracranial pressure. Injury 1996;27(9):647–649.Google Scholar
12. Butman, A, Schelble, DT, Vomacka, RW: The relevance of the occult cervical spine controversy and mechanism of injury to prehospital protocols: A review of the issues and literature. Prehosp Disast Med 1996;11(3):228–233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Bauer, D, Kowalski, R: Effects of spinal immobilization devices on pulmonary function in the healthy, non-smoking man. Ann Emerg Med 1988; 17(9):915–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Schafermeyer, RW, Ribbeck, BM, Gaskins, J et al. : Respiratory effects of spinal immobilization in children. Ann Emerg Med 1991;20(9):1017–1019.Google Scholar
15. Houghton, DJ, Curley, JW: Dysphagia caused by a hard cervical collar. Br J Neurosurg 1996;10(5):501–502.Google Scholar
16. Hewitt, S: Skin necrosis caused by a semi-rigid cervical collar in a ventilated patient with multiple injuries. Injury 1994;25(5):323–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Kwan, I, Bunn, F, Roberts, I: Spine Immobilization for Trauma Patients (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 3. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd., 2003.Google Scholar
18. Schulz, KF, Chalmers, I, Hayes, RJ, Altman, DG: Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273(5):408–412.Google Scholar
19. Lunsford, TR, Davidson, M, Lunsford, BR: The effectiveness of four contemporary cervical orthoses in restricting cervical motion. Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics 1994;6(4):93–99.Google Scholar
20. Cline, JR, Scheidel, E, Bigsby, EF: A comparison of methods of cervical immobilization used in patient extrication and transport. J Trauma 1985;25(7):649–653.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Graziano, AF, Scheidel, EA, Cline, JR, Baer, LJ: A radiographic comparison of prehospital cervical immobilization methods. Ann Emerg Med 1987; 16(10):1127–1131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22. Hamilton, RS, Pons, PT: The efficacy and comfort of full-body vacuum splints for cervical-spine immobilization. J Emerg Med 1996;14(5):553–559.Google Scholar
23. Johnson, DR, Hauswald, M, Stockhoff, CY: Comparison of a vacuum splint device to a rigid backboard for spinal immobilization. Am J Emerg Med 1996:14(4):369–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24. Perry, SD, McLellan, B, McIlroy, WE et al. : The efficacy of head immobilization techniques during simulated vehicle motion. Spine 1999;24(17): 1839–1844.Google Scholar
25. Walton, R, DeSalva, JF, Ernst, AA, Shahane, A: Padded vs. unpadded spine board for cervical spine immobilization. Acad Emerg Med 1995;2(8): 725–728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Manix, T, Gunderson, MR, Garth, GC: Comparison of prehospital cervical immobilization devices using video and electromyography. Prehosp Disast Med 1995;10(4):232–238.Google Scholar
27. Mazolewski, P, Manix, TH: The effectiveness of strapping techniques in spinal immobilization. Ann Emerg Med 1994;23(6):1290–1296.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Totten, VY, Sugarman, DB: Respiratory effects of spinal immobilization. Prehosp Emerg Care 1999;3(4):347–352.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Black, CA, Buderer, NMF, Blaylock, B, Hogan, BJ: Comparative study of risk factors for skin breakdown with cervical orthotic devices: Philadelphia and Aspen. J Trauma Nurs 1998;5(3):62–66.Google Scholar
30. Chan, D, Goldberg, RM, Mason, J, Chan, L: Backboard versus mattress splint immobilization: A comparison of symptoms generated. J Emerg Med 1996;14(3):293–298.Google Scholar
31. Cordell, WH, Hollingsworth, JC, Olinger, ML et al. : Pain and tissue-interface pressures during spine-board immobilization. Ann Emerg Med 1995;26(1): 31–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Lerner, EB, Billittier, AJ 4th, Moscati, RM: The effects of neutral positioning with and without padding on spinal immobilization of healthy subjects. Prehosp Emerg Care 1998;2(2):112–116.Google Scholar
33. Delbridge, TR, Auble, TE, Garrison, HG, Menegazzi, JJ: Discomfort in healthy volunteers immobilized on wooden backboards and vacuum mattress splints. Prehosp Disast Med 1993;8 3Supplement:S63. (Abstract).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Jedlicka, DS: A comparison of the effects of two methods of spinal immobilization on respiratory effort in the older adult. Diss Abstra Int 1999;58–05B: 2354.Google Scholar
35. Hauswald, M, Hsu, M, Stockoff, C: Maximising comfort and minimizing ischemia: A comparison of four methods of spinal immobilization. Prehosp Emerg Care 2000;4(3):250–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
36. McHugh, TP, Taylor, JP: Unnecessary out-of-hospital use of full spinal immobilization. Acad Emerg Med 1998;5(3):278–280.Google Scholar
37. Hussain, LM, Redmond, AD: Are prehospital deaths from accidental injury preventable? Br Med J 1994;308(6936):1077–1080.Google Scholar
38. Hoffman, JR, Mower, WR, Wolfson, AB et al. : Validity of a set of clinical criteria to rule out injury to the cervical spine in patients with blunt trauma. N Engl J Med 2000;343(2):94–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
39. Domeier, RM, Evans, RW, Swor, RA et al. : Prospective validation of out-of-hospital spinal clearance criteria: A preliminary report. Acad Emerg Med 1997;4(6):643–646.Google Scholar
40. Domeier, RM, Evans, RW, Swor, RA et al. : Prehospital clinical findings associated with spinal injury. Prehosp Emerg Care 1997;1(1):11–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41. Domeier, RM, Evans, RW, Swor, RA et al. : The reliability of prehospital clinical evaluation for potential spine injury is not affected by the mechanism of injury. Prehosp Emerg Care 1999;3(4):332–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42. Domeier, RM: NAEMSP Position Paper: Indications for prehospital spinal immobilization. Prehosp Emerg Care 1999;3(4):251–253.Google Scholar
43. Domeier, RM, Swor, RA, Evans, RW et al. : Multicenter prospective validation of prehospital clinical spinal clearance criteria. J Trauma 2002;53(4): 744–750.Google Scholar
44. Hankins, DG, Rivera, EJ, Ornato, JP et al. : Spinal immobilization in the field: Clinical clearance criteria and implementation. Prehosp Emerg Care 2001;5(1):88–93.Google Scholar
45. Stroh, G, Braude, D: Can out-of-hospital cervical spine clearance protocol identify all patients with injuries? An argument for selective immobilization. Ann Emerg Med 2001;37(6):609–615.Google Scholar