Abstract
Methods: Nine volunteers wearing standardised clothing and rigid neck collars were secured on to a backboard and vacuum mattress using a standard strapping arrangement. An operating department table was used to tilt the volunteers from 45 degrees head up to 45 degrees head down, and additionally 45 degrees laterally. Movements of the head, sternum, and pubic symphysis (pelvis) from a fixed position were then recorded. The comfort level during the procedure was assessed using a 10 point numerical rating scale (NRS) where 1=no pain and 10=worst pain imaginable.
Results: The mean body movements in the head up position (23.3 v 6.66 mm), head down (40.89 v 8.33mm), and lateral tilt (18.33 v 4.26mm) were significantly greater on the backboard than on the vacuum mattress (p<0.01 for all planes of movement). Using the NRS the vacuum mattress (mean score=1.88) was significantly more comfortable than the backboard (mean score=5.22) (p<0.01).
Conclusions: In the measured planes the vacuum mattress provides significantly superior stability and comfort than a backboard.
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (79.5 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Chan D., Goldberg R. M., Mason J., Chan L. Backboard versus mattress splint immobilization: a comparison of symptoms generated. J Emerg Med. 1996 May-Jun;14(3):293–298. doi: 10.1016/0736-4679(96)00034-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Chan D., Goldberg R., Tascone A., Harmon S., Chan L. The effect of spinal immobilization on healthy volunteers. Ann Emerg Med. 1994 Jan;23(1):48–51. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(94)70007-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Cordell W. H., Hollingsworth J. C., Olinger M. L., Stroman S. J., Nelson D. R. Pain and tissue-interface pressures during spine-board immobilization. Ann Emerg Med. 1995 Jul;26(1):31–36. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(95)70234-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- De Lorenzo R. A. A review of spinal immobilization techniques. J Emerg Med. 1996 Sep-Oct;14(5):603–613. doi: 10.1016/s0736-4679(96)00140-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- De Lorenzo R. A., Olson J. E., Boska M., Johnston R., Hamilton G. C., Augustine J., Barton R. Optimal positioning for cervical immobilization. Ann Emerg Med. 1996 Sep;28(3):301–308. doi: 10.1016/s0196-0644(96)70029-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hamilton R. S., Pons P. T. The efficacy and comfort of full-body vacuum splints for cervical-spine immobilization. J Emerg Med. 1996 Sep-Oct;14(5):553–559. doi: 10.1016/s0736-4679(96)00170-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Hauswald M., Hsu M., Stockoff C. Maximizing comfort and minimizing ischemia: a comparison of four methods of spinal immobilization. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2000 Jul-Sep;4(3):250–252. doi: 10.1080/10903120090941281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Herzenberg J. E., Hensinger R. N., Dedrick D. K., Phillips W. A. Emergency transport and positioning of young children who have an injury of the cervical spine. The standard backboard may be hazardous. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989 Jan;71(1):15–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Johnson D. R., Hauswald M., Stockhoff C. Comparison of a vacuum splint device to a rigid backboard for spinal immobilization. Am J Emerg Med. 1996 Jul;14(4):369–372. doi: 10.1016/S0735-6757(96)90051-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lerner E. B., Billittier A. J., 4th, Moscati R. M. The effects of neutral positioning with and without padding on spinal immobilization of healthy subjects. Prehosp Emerg Care. 1998 Apr-Jun;2(2):112–116. doi: 10.1080/10903129808958853. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lerner E. B., Moscati R. Duration of patient immobilization in the ED. Am J Emerg Med. 2000 Jan;18(1):28–30. doi: 10.1016/s0735-6757(00)90043-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Lovell M. E., Evans J. H. A comparison of the spinal board and the vacuum stretcher, spinal stability and interface pressure. Injury. 1994 Apr;25(3):179–180. doi: 10.1016/0020-1383(94)90158-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Main P. W., Lovell M. E. A review of seven support surfaces with emphasis on their protection of the spinally injured. J Accid Emerg Med. 1996 Jan;13(1):34–37. doi: 10.1136/emj.13.1.34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- McGuire R. A., Neville S., Green B. A., Watts C. Spinal instability and the log-rolling maneuver. J Trauma. 1987 May;27(5):525–531. doi: 10.1097/00005373-198705000-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Vickery D. The use of the spinal board after the pre-hospital phase of trauma management. Emerg Med J. 2001 Jan;18(1):51–54. doi: 10.1136/emj.18.1.51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]