Comparison of the Vacuum Mattress versus the Spine Board Alone for Immobilization of the Cervical Spine Injured Patient: A Biomechanical Cadaveric Study
| Autor: | MaryBeth Horodyski, Per Kristian Hyldmo, Dewayne Dubose, Mark L. Prasarn, Evan M. Loewy, Laura Ann Zdziarski, Glenn R. Rechtine |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2017 |
| Předmět: |
Restraint
Physical medicine.medical_specialty Motion analysis Vacuum 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Cadaver medicine Humans Orthopedics and Sports Medicine Displacement (orthopedic surgery) Range of Motion Articular Orthodontics Cervical fracture business.industry Orthopedic Equipment 030208 emergency & critical care medicine Rigid spine medicine.disease Cervical spine Surgery Biomechanical Phenomena Spinal Injuries Cervical Vertebrae Neurology (clinical) Range of motion Cadaveric spasm business 030217 neurology & neurosurgery |
| Zdroj: | Spine. 42(24) |
| ISSN: | 1528-1159 |
| Popis: | Biomechanical cadaveric study. Trauma patients in the United States are immobilized on a rigid spine board, whereas in many other places vacuum mattresses are used with the proposed advantages of improved comfort and better immobilization of the spine. We sought to determine the amount of motion generated in an unstable cervical spine fracture with use of the vacuum mattress versus the spine board alone. Our hypothesis is that the vacuum mattress will better immobilize an unstable cervical fracture. Unstable subaxial cervical injuries were surgically created in five fresh whole human cadavers. The amount of motion at the injured motion segment during testing was measured using a Fastrak, three-dimensional, electromagnetic motion analysis device (Polhemus Inc., Colchester, VT). The measurements recorded in this investigation included maximum displacements during application and removal of the device, while tilting to 90 degrees, during a bed transfer, and a lift onto a gurney. Linear and angular displacements were compared using the Generalized Linear Model ANOVA for repeated measures for each of the 6 dependent variables (three planes of angulations and 3 axes of displacement). There was more motion in all six planes of motion during the application process with use of the spine board alone, and this was statistically significant for axial rotation (p = 0.011), axial distraction (p = 0.035), medial-lateral translation (p = 0.027), and anteroposterior translation (p = 0.026). During tilting there was more motion with just the spine board, but this was only statistically significant for anteroposterior translation (p = 0.033). With lifting onto the gurney there was more motion with the spine board in all planes with statistical significants, except lateral bending. During the removal process there was more motion with the spine board alone, and this was statistically significant for axial rotation (p = 0.035), lateral bending (0.044), and axial distraction (p = 0.023). There was more motion when using a spine board alone during typical maneuvers performed during early management of the spine injured patient as compared to the vacuum mattress. There may be benefit of use of the vacuum mattress versus the spine board alone in preventing motion at an unstable, subaxial cervical spine injury. Level of evidence: 2 |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|