Pre-Hospital Spinal Immobilization: Neurological Outcomes for Spinal Motion Restriction Versus Spinal Immobilization

Aaron Nilhas, S. Helmer, Rachel M. Drake, J. Reyes, Megan Morriss, James M. Haan
{"title":"Pre-Hospital Spinal Immobilization: Neurological Outcomes for Spinal Motion Restriction Versus Spinal Immobilization","authors":"Aaron Nilhas, S. Helmer, Rachel M. Drake, J. Reyes, Megan Morriss, James M. Haan","doi":"10.17161/kjm.vol15.16213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction New recommendations for emergency medical services spinal precautions limit long spinal board use to extrication purposes only and are to be removed immediately. Outcomes for spinal motion restriction against spinal immobilization were studied. Methods A retrospective chart review of trauma patients was conducted over a six-month period at a level I trauma center. Injury severity details and neurologic assessments were collected on 277 patients. Results Upon arrival, 25 (9.0%) patients had a spine board in place. Patients placed on spine boards were more likely to be moderately or severely injured [injury severity score (ISS) > 15: 36.0% vs. 9.9%, p = 0.001] and more likely to have neurological deficits documented by emergency medical services (EMS; 30.4% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.01) and the trauma team (29.2% vs. 10.9%, p = 0.02). Conclusions This study suggested that the long spine board was being used properly for more critically injured patients. Further research is needed to compare neurological outcomes using a larger sample size and more consistent documentation.","PeriodicalId":94121,"journal":{"name":"Kansas journal of medicine","volume":"15 1","pages":"119 - 122"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kansas journal of medicine","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17161/kjm.vol15.16213","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Introduction New recommendations for emergency medical services spinal precautions limit long spinal board use to extrication purposes only and are to be removed immediately. Outcomes for spinal motion restriction against spinal immobilization were studied. Methods A retrospective chart review of trauma patients was conducted over a six-month period at a level I trauma center. Injury severity details and neurologic assessments were collected on 277 patients. Results Upon arrival, 25 (9.0%) patients had a spine board in place. Patients placed on spine boards were more likely to be moderately or severely injured [injury severity score (ISS) > 15: 36.0% vs. 9.9%, p = 0.001] and more likely to have neurological deficits documented by emergency medical services (EMS; 30.4% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.01) and the trauma team (29.2% vs. 10.9%, p = 0.02). Conclusions This study suggested that the long spine board was being used properly for more critically injured patients. Further research is needed to compare neurological outcomes using a larger sample size and more consistent documentation.
院前脊柱固定术:脊柱运动受限与脊柱固定术的神经结果
引言紧急医疗服务脊柱预防措施的新建议将长期使用脊椎板仅限于解脱目的,并应立即移除。研究了脊柱运动受限对脊柱固定的影响。方法在一级创伤中心对创伤患者进行为期六个月的回顾性图表审查。对277名患者的损伤严重程度细节和神经系统评估进行了收集。结果25例(9.0%)患者在抵达时安装了脊椎板。放置在脊椎板上的患者更有可能受到中度或重度损伤[损伤严重程度评分(ISS)>15:36.0%vs.9.9%,p=0.001],更有可能出现紧急医疗服务(EMS;30.4%vs.8.8%,p=0.01)和创伤小组(29.2%vs.10.9%,p=0.02)记录的神经系统缺陷对于更严重的受伤患者。需要进一步的研究来使用更大的样本量和更一致的文件来比较神经系统的结果。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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