Prehospital care of spinal injuries: a historical quest for reasoning and evidence
Autor: | S. R. Groen, J. C. Goslings, J. G. ten Brinke, M. Hogervorst, M. Dehnad, T. P. Saltzherr |
---|---|
Přispěvatelé: | Graduate School, Surgery, AMS - Restoration & Development |
Jazyk: | angličtina |
Rok vydání: | 2018 |
Předmět: |
Emergency Medical Services
medicine.medical_specialty Evidence-based practice Wounds Penetrating Wounds Nonpenetrating Scientific evidence Evidence-Based Emergency Medicine Immobilization 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Blunt Humans Medicine Orthopedics and Sports Medicine Intensive care medicine Spinal cord injury Spinal Cord Injuries business.industry 030208 emergency & critical care medicine medicine.disease Trauma care Advanced trauma life support Spinal Injuries Surgery Neurosurgery business High standard 030217 neurology & neurosurgery |
Zdroj: | European spine journal, 27(12), 2999-3006. Springer Verlag |
ISSN: | 0940-6719 |
Popis: | Purpose: The practice of prehospital immobilization is coming under increasing scrutiny. Unravelling the historical sequence of prehospital immobilization might shed more light on this matter and help resolve the situation. Main purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the development and reasoning behind the implementation of prehospital spine immobilization. Methods: An extensive search throughout historical literature and recent evidence based studies was conducted. Results: The history of treating spinal injuries dates back to prehistoric times. Descriptions of prehospital spinal immobilization are more recent and span two distinct periods. First documentation of its use comes from the early 19th century, when prehospital trauma care was introduced on the battlefields of the Napoleonic wars. The advent of radiology gradually helped to clarify the underlying pathology. In recent decades, adoption of advanced trauma life support has elevated in-hospital trauma-care to an high standard. Practice of in-hospital spine immobilization in case of suspected injury has also been implemented as standard-care in prehospital setting. Evidence for and against prehospital immobilization is equally divided in recent evidence-based studies. In addition, recent studies have shown negative side-effects of immobilisation in penetrating injuries. Conclusion: Although widely implementation of spinal immobilization to prevent spinal cord injury in both penetrating and blunt injury, it cannot be explained historically. Furthermore, there is no high-level scientific evidence to support or reject immobilisation in blunt injury. Since evidence in favour and against prehospital immobilization is equally divided, the present situation appears to have reached something of a deadlock. Graphical abstract: These slides can be retrieved under Electronic Supplementary Material.[Figure not available: see fulltext.]. |
Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
Externí odkaz: |