Biomechanical validation of the field-expedient pelvic splint.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Jonathan C Savakus, T Skacel, M Jindia, Y Al-Madani, L Spoletini, R C Ross, A Gehring, D J Stinner
{"title":"Biomechanical validation of the field-expedient pelvic splint.","authors":"Jonathan C Savakus, T Skacel, M Jindia, Y Al-Madani, L Spoletini, R C Ross, A Gehring, D J Stinner","doi":"10.1136/military-2024-002815","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Morbidity and mortality from pelvic ring injuries can be mitigated by early and effective external pelvic stabilisation. The field-expedient pelvic splint (FEPS) is a recently described technique to improvise an effective pelvic binder for an austere environment. This technique has not been biomechanically validated. We hypothesise that the FEPS will be biomechanically equivalent to a commercially available pelvic binder routinely used in the austere environment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Compressive force generation of the FEPS was measured using a commercial load frame. A SAM Pelvic Sling was used as a control. The FEPS was tested for initial force generation, persistence of force generation over a 6-hour longitudinal test period and force generation after repeated assembly/disassembly.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The FEPS generated 203N (±7N) with one windlass turn and 420N (±34N) with two windlass turns. The SAM Pelvic Sling generated 197N (±11N) of force. There was no significant difference between FEPS after one windlass crank and the SAM Pelvic Sling but the force generated by the FEPS with two windlass cranks was significantly higher than the SAM Pelvic Sling. Longitudinal testing showed that after 6 hours of continuous compression, the FEPS generated 189N (±19N) and the force generated at hour 6 was not significantly different from the initial force generated by SAM Pelvic Sling. Reusability testing showed no significant difference with force generation by the FEPS after repeated assembly/disassembly with one crank of the windlass but there was a significantly increased force generation by FEPS after repeated use trials with two cranks of the windlass.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The FEPS exerted equivalent pelvic compressive forces to its commercial equivalent and this force generation persists at effective levels over a 6-hour time course. The FEPS remained effective after repeated use. The FEPS is a viable alternative in the austere or resource-limited environment for temporary pelvic stabilisation.</p>","PeriodicalId":48485,"journal":{"name":"Bmj Military Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bmj Military Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/military-2024-002815","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Morbidity and mortality from pelvic ring injuries can be mitigated by early and effective external pelvic stabilisation. The field-expedient pelvic splint (FEPS) is a recently described technique to improvise an effective pelvic binder for an austere environment. This technique has not been biomechanically validated. We hypothesise that the FEPS will be biomechanically equivalent to a commercially available pelvic binder routinely used in the austere environment.

Methods: Compressive force generation of the FEPS was measured using a commercial load frame. A SAM Pelvic Sling was used as a control. The FEPS was tested for initial force generation, persistence of force generation over a 6-hour longitudinal test period and force generation after repeated assembly/disassembly.

Results: The FEPS generated 203N (±7N) with one windlass turn and 420N (±34N) with two windlass turns. The SAM Pelvic Sling generated 197N (±11N) of force. There was no significant difference between FEPS after one windlass crank and the SAM Pelvic Sling but the force generated by the FEPS with two windlass cranks was significantly higher than the SAM Pelvic Sling. Longitudinal testing showed that after 6 hours of continuous compression, the FEPS generated 189N (±19N) and the force generated at hour 6 was not significantly different from the initial force generated by SAM Pelvic Sling. Reusability testing showed no significant difference with force generation by the FEPS after repeated assembly/disassembly with one crank of the windlass but there was a significantly increased force generation by FEPS after repeated use trials with two cranks of the windlass.

Conclusion: The FEPS exerted equivalent pelvic compressive forces to its commercial equivalent and this force generation persists at effective levels over a 6-hour time course. The FEPS remained effective after repeated use. The FEPS is a viable alternative in the austere or resource-limited environment for temporary pelvic stabilisation.

现场快速骨盆夹板的生物力学验证。
导言:骨盆环损伤的发病率和死亡率可通过早期有效的骨盆外部稳定来降低。野战快速骨盆夹板(FEPS)是最近描述的一种技术,可在恶劣环境下临时制作有效的骨盆固定器。这种技术尚未经过生物力学验证。我们假设,FEPS 在生物力学上相当于在严酷环境中常规使用的市售骨盆固定器:方法:使用商用负载框架测量 FEPS 产生的压缩力。使用萨姆骨盆吊衣作为对照。对 FEPS 的初始产生力、6 小时纵向测试期间的持续产生力以及反复组装/拆卸后的产生力进行了测试:结果:FEPS 旋转一圈可产生 203N (±7N)的力,旋转两圈可产生 420N (±34N)的力。SAM 骨盆吊衣产生 197N (±11N)的力。摇动一个卷扬机后,FEPS 和 SAM 骨盆吊衣没有明显差异,但摇动两个卷扬机后,FEPS 产生的力明显高于 SAM 骨盆吊衣。纵向测试表明,在连续压缩 6 小时后,FEPS 产生的力为 189N(±19N),第 6 小时产生的力与 SAM 骨盆吊衣产生的初始力没有明显差异。可重复使用性测试表明,在使用一个卷扬机曲柄重复组装/拆卸后,FEPS 产生的力没有明显差异,但在使用两个卷扬机曲柄重复使用试验后,FEPS 产生的力明显增加:结论:FEPS 产生的骨盆压缩力与商用产品相当,而且在 6 小时的使用过程中,这种压缩力一直保持在有效水平。FEPS 在反复使用后仍然有效。在艰苦或资源有限的环境中,FEPS 是临时稳定骨盆的可行替代方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Bmj Military Health
Bmj Military Health MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
20.00%
发文量
116
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信