Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T05:44:42.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Long Backboard versus Vacuum Mattress Splint to Immobilize Whole Spine in Trauma Victims in the Field: a Randomized Clinical Trial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2013

Babak Mahshidfar ,
Mani Mofidi ,
Ali-Reza Yari  and
Saied Mehrsorosh
Babak Mahshidfar
Affiliation:
Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Mani Mofidi*
Affiliation:
Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Ali-Reza Yari
Affiliation:
Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
Saied Mehrsorosh
Affiliation:
Tehran Emergency Medical Service System, Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran
*
Correspondence: Mani Mofidi, MD Tehran University of Medical Sciences Rasoul Akram Hospital, Emergency Department Sattarkhan Ave, Nyaiesh St. Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran E-mail [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Introduction

Patients with possible spinal injury must be immobilized properly during transport to medical facilities. The aim of this research was comparing spinal immobilization using a long backboard (LBB) with using a vacuum mattress splint (VMS) in trauma victims transported by an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system.

Methods

In this randomized clinical trial, 60 trauma victims with possible spinal trauma were divided to two groups, each group immobilized with one of the two instruments. Speed and ease of application, immobilization rate, and the patients’ comfort were recorded.

Results

In this survey, LBB was faster to apply: 211.66 (SD = 28.53) seconds vs 654.00 (SD = 16.61) seconds. Various measures of immobilization were better by LBB. Also, LBB offered a significant improvement in comfort over a VMS for the patient with possible spinal injury. All of the results were statistically significant.

Conclusion

The results of this study showed that immobilization using LBB was easier, faster, and more comfortable for the patient, and provided additional decrease in spinal movement when compared with a VMS.

MahshidfarB, MofidiM, YariA, MehrsoroshS. Long Backboard versus Vacuum Mattress Splint to Immobilize Whole Spine in Trauma Victims in the Field: a Randomized Clinical Trial. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2013;28(5):1-4.

Keywords

immobilizationlong backboardprehospitaltraumavacuum mattress splint
Type
Original Research
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 28 , Issue 5 , October 2013 , pp. 462 - 465
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2013 

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.Ahn, H, Singh, J, Nathens, A, et al. Pre-hospital care management of a potential spinal cord injured patient: a systematic review of the literature and evidence-based guidelines. J Neurotrauma. 2011;28(8):1341-1361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Crosby, ET. Airway management in adults after cervical spine trauma. Anesthesiology. 2006;104(6):1293-1318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.Mackenzie, R. Spinal injuries. J R Army Med Corps. 2002;148(2):163-171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Eismont, FJ, Currier, BL, McGuire, RA Jr. Cervical spine and spinal cord injuries: recognition and treatment. Instr Course Lect. 2004;53:341-358.Google ScholarPubMed
5.Hemmes, B, Poeze, M, Brink, PR. Reduced tissue-interface pressure and increased comfort on a newly developed soft-layered long spineboard. J Trauma. 2010;68(3):593-598.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Bambi, S, Becattini, G. Use of devices for spine immobilization for trauma patients at the emergency department: review of the literature. Assist Inferm Ric. 2003;22(1):5-12.Google ScholarPubMed
7.Luscombe, MD, Williams, JL. Comparison of a long spinal board and vacuum mattress for spinal immobilisation. Emerg Med J. 2003;20(5):476-478.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8.Cross, DA, Baskerville, J. Comparison of perceived pain with different immobilization techniques. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2001;5(3):270-274.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10.Lovell, ME, Evans, JH. A comparison of the spinal board and the vacuum stretcher, spinal stability and interface pressure. Injury. 1994;25(3):179-180.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Johnson, DR, Hauswald, M, Stockhoff, C. Comparison of a vacuum splint device to a rigid backboard for spinal immobilization. Am J Emerg Med. 1996;14(4):369-372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12.Kwan, I, Bunn, F. Effects of prehospital spinal immobilization: a systematic review of randomized trials on healthy subjects. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2005;20(1):47-53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13.Singh, S, Kumaraswamy, V, Sharma, N, Saraf, SK, Khare, GN. Evaluation of role of anterior debridement and decompression of spinal cord and instrumentation in treatment of tubercular spondylitis. Asian Spine J. 2012;6(3):183-193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14.Sheerin, F, de Frein, R. The occipital and sacral pressures experienced by healthy volunteers under spinal immobilization: a trial of three surfaces. J Emerg Nurs. 2007;33(5):447-450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15.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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Mallmann, C, Wolf, KJ, Wacker, FK, Meyer, BC. Assessment of patient movement in interventional procedures using electromagnetic detection - comparison between conventional fixation and vacuum mattress. Rofo. 2012;184(1):37-41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Ahmad, M, Butler, J. Towards evidence based emergency medicine: best BETs from the Manchester Royal Infirmary. Spinal boards or vacuum mattresses for immobilization. Emerg Med J. 2001;18(5):379-380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma. Advanced Trauma Life Support for Doctors. 8th ed. Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons, 2008.Google Scholar