Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background: A mid-fidelity simulation mannequin, equipped with an instrumented cervical and lumbar spine, was developed to investigate best practices and train healthcare professionals in applying spinal motion restrictions (SMRs) during the early mobilization and transfer of accident victims with suspected spine injury. The study objectives are to (1) examine accuracy of the cervical and lumbar motions measured with the mannequin; and (2) confirm that the speed of motion has no bearing on this accuracy. Methods: Accuracy was evaluated by concurrently comparing the orientation data obtained with the mannequin with that from an optoelectronic system. The mannequin’s head and pelvis were moved in all anatomical planes of motion at different speeds. Results: Accuracy, assessed by root-mean-square error, varied between 0.7° and 1.5° in all anatomical planes of motion. Bland–Altman analysis revealed a bias ranging from −0.7° to 0.6°, with the absolute limit of agreement remaining below 3.5°. The minimal detectable change varied between 1.3° and 2.6°. Motion speed demonstrated no impact on accuracy. Conclusions: The results of this validation study confirm the mannequin’s potential to provide accurate measurements of cervical and lumbar motion during simulation scenarios for training and research on the application of SMR.

Background The use of cervical collars in the management of acute cervical spine injuries has been part of standard practice in the trauma setting for decades, aimed at preventing secondary injuries. Objectives To review the recent evidence challenging the routine use of cervical collars, addressing the limited scientific support, associated risks, and guidelines for their use. Methods A comprehensive literature review was conducted, analyzing recent studies and guidelines from authoritative bodies such as the American Association for Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. The review focused on the efficacy, risks, and recommendations regarding cervical collar use in acute cervical spine injuries. Results Recent evidence questions the routine use of cervical collars, highlighting limited scientific support and several associated risks, including pressure ulcers and decreased venous return. Cervical collars may also be contraindicated in individuals with abnormal spinal structures, such as those with Ankylosing Spondylitis. The efficacy of cervical collars is debated, particularly concerning undiagnosed spinal fractures, where delayed diagnosis can result in permanent injuries. Despite these risks, cervical collars may be beneficial in low‐resource areas and when used effectively with early clearance post‐injury. Current guidelines recommend immobilizing patients suspected of cervical spine injury but stress the importance of proper evaluation of the need for immobilization. Recent guidelines advocate for spinal motion restriction over traditional immobilization, emphasizing the need for better risk assessment and implementation strategies. Conclusions/Clinical Importance Re‐evaluating the routine use of cervical collars is crucial due to potential risks and limited supporting evidence, with a focus on individualized assessment and adherence to updated guidelines favoring spinal motion restriction.

Improved data on spinal motion restriction (SMR) use can improve pediatric prehospital guidelines and inform the appropriate use of this procedure. We sought to evaluate the prevalence and factors associated with SMR among injured children in the prehospital setting. We performed a retrospective analysis using retrospective data using the 2022–2023 National Emergency Medical Services Information System datasets, including injured pediatric (<18 years) ground encounters at the scene transported to the hospital. We identified the percentage of encounters for which SMR was applied. We identified demographic and clinical associations with SMR application using a linear mixed effects model. We identified 623,785 encounters for injured children (median age 13 years, IQR 6–15; 55.5 % for boys). Among these, 67,551 (10.8 %) had SMR applied in the prehospital setting. In multivariable analysis, SMR use was positively associated (odds ratio, 95 % confidence interval) with older age (1.05, 1.05–1.05), longer transport times (1.23, 1.20–1.25), altered consciousness (increasing odds ratios from 3.12 to 4.54 with worsening AVPU scores), high reported pain scores (1.24, 1.21–1.27 relative to low/medium pain), advanced life support transports (1.81, 1.74–1.88), tachycardia (1.11, 1.06–1.16), tachypnea (1.45, 1.37–1.52), bradypnea (1.15, 1.05–1.26). Hypotension was negatively associated with SMR (0.59, 0.54–0.65). Pedestrian and non-traffic MVCs were positively associated with SMR; mechanisms of falls, penetration with sharp objects, and environmental injuries were negatively associated with SMR. We identified multiple factors associated with SMR use. These findings provide an opportunity to evaluate practices, track changes, and assess the impact of updated SMR guidelines in pediatric EMS.

Background:Over the past decade, Emergency Medical Service (EMS) systems decreased backboard use as they transition from spinal immobilization (SI) protocols to spinal motion restriction (SMR) protocols. Since this change, no study has examined its effect on the neurologic outcomes of patients with spine injuries.Objectives:The object of this study is to determine if a state-wide protocol change from an SI to an SMR protocol had an effect on the incidence of disabling spinal cord injuries.Methods:This was a retrospective review of patients in a single Level I trauma center before and after a change in spinal injury protocols. A two-step review of the record was used to classify spinal cord injuries as disabling or not disabling. A binary logistic regression was used to determine the effects of protocol, gender, age, level of injury, and mechanism of injury (MOI) on the incidence of significant disability from a spinal cord injury.Results:A total of 549 patients in the SI period and 623 patients in the SMR period were included in the analysis. In the logistic regression, the change from an SI protocol to an SMR protocol did not demonstrate a significant effect on the incidence of disabling spinal injuries (OR: 0.78; 95% CI, 0.44 - 1.36).Conclusion:This study did not demonstrate an increase in disabling spinal cord injuries after a shift from an SI protocol to an SMR protocol. This finding, in addition to existing literature, supports the introduction of SMR protocols and the decreased use of the backboard.

Since the early 1970s, initial management of patients with suspected spinal injuries has involved the use of a cervical collar and long spine board for full immobilization, which was thought to prevent additional injury to the cervical spine. Despite a growing body of literature demonstrating the detrimental effects and questionable efficacy of spinal immobilization, the practice continued until 2013, when the National Association of EMS Physicians issued a position statement calling for a reduction in the use of spinal immobilization and a shift to spinal-motion restriction. This article examines the literature that prompted the change in spinal-injury management and the virtual elimination of the long spine board as a tool for transport.

In response to the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR; Niel, Belgium) release of an updated recommendation related to out-of-hospital spinal immobilization (SI) practice in 2015, a systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist of English-language studies published from January 2000 through July 2019 on the use of SI in resource-scarce environments (RSEs). Studies meeting the following criteria were included in the analysis: peer-reviewed statistical studies or reports detailing management of potential traumatic spinal injury in RSE, civilian, and military environments; as well as consensus clinical guidelines, academic center, or professional association protocols or policy statements detailing management of potential traumatic spinal injury in RSE, civilian, and military environments; statistical analysis; and subsequent management of spinal injuries after mass-casualty incidents, in complex humanitarian events or conflict zones, low-to middle-income countries, or prolonged transport times published by government and non-government organizations. Studies excluded from consideration were those not related to a patient with a potential traumatic spinal injury after a mass-casualty incident, in complex humanitarian event or conflict zones, in low-to middle-income countries, or with prolonged transport times. There were one thousand twenty-nine (1029) studies initially identified. After removal of duplicates, nine hundred-nineteen (919) were screened with eight hundred sixty-three (863) excluded. The remaining fifty-six (56) received further review with fourteen (14) selected studies achieving inclusion. The reviewed articles comprised six (6) types of studies and represented research from institutions in seven (7) different countries (Israel, United States, Haiti, Wales, Pakistan, China, and Iran). Thirteen (13) references were case reports/narrative reviews, policy statements, retrospective observational studies, narrative literature reviews, scoping reviews, and one systematic review. The majority of literature describing spinal cord injury was predominantly associated with earthquakes and blast-related disasters. There were no SI evidence-based clinical guidelines (EBG) in RSE. Information was obtained that could be used to formulate statements in a modified Delphi study to present to experts to obtain consensus SI EBG in RSE.

Introduction:Emerging evidence is guiding changes in prehospital management of potential spinal injuries. The majority of settings related to current recommendations are in resource-rich environments (RREs), whereas there is a lack of guidance on the provision of spinal motion restriction (SMR) in resource-scarce environments (RSEs), such as: mass-casualty incidents (MCIs); low-middle income countries; complex humanitarian emergencies; conflict zones; and prolonged transport times. The application of Translational Science (TS) in the Disaster Medicine (DM) context was used to develop this study, leading to statements that can be used in the creation of evidence-based clinical guidelines (CGs).Objective:What is appropriate SMR in RSEs?Methods:The first round of this modified Delphi (mD) study was a structured focus group conducted at the World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine (WADEM) Congress in Brisbane Australia on May 9, 2019. The result of the focus group discussion of open-ended questions produced ten statements that were added to ten statements derived from Fischer (2018) to create the second mD round questionnaire.Academic researchers and educators, operational first responders, or first receivers of patients with suspected spinal injuries were identified to be mD experts. Experts rated their agreement with each statement on a seven-point linear numeric scale. Consensus amongst experts was defined as a standard deviation ≤1.0. Statements that were in agreement reaching consensus were included in the final report; those that were not in agreement but reached consensus were removed from further consideration. Those not reaching consensus advanced to the third mD round.For subsequent rounds, experts were shown the mean response and their own response for each of the remaining statements and asked to reconsider their rating. As above, those that did not reach consensus advanced to the next round until consensus was reached for each statement.Results:Twenty-two experts agreed to participate with 19 completing the second mD round and 16 completing the third mD round. Eleven statements reached consensus. Nine statements did not reach consensus.Conclusions:Experts reached consensus offering 11 statements to be incorporated into the creation of SMR CGs in RSEs. The nine statements that did not reach consensus can be further studied and potentially modified to determine if these can be considered in SMR CGs in RSEs.

Background:Cadaveric and older radiographic studies suggest that concurrent cervical spine fractures are rare in gunshot wounds (GSWs) to the head. Despite this knowledge, patients with craniofacial GSWs often arrive with spinal motion restriction (SMR) in place. This study quantifies the incidence of cervical spine injuries in GSWs to the head, identified using computerized tomography (CT). Fracture frequency is hypothesized to be lower in self-inflicted (SI) injuries.Methods:Isolated craniofacial GSWs were queried from this Level I trauma center registry from 2013-2017 and the US National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) from 2012–2016 (head or face abbreviated injury scale [AIS] >2). Datasets included age, gender, SI versus not, cervical spine injury, spinal surgery, and mortality. For this hospital’s data, prehospital factors, SMR, and CTs performed were assessed. Statistical evaluation was done with Stata software, with P <.05 significant.Results:Two-hundred forty-one patients from this hospital (mean age 39; 85% male; 66% SI) and 5,849 from the NTDB (mean age 38; 84% male; 53% SI) were included. For both cohorts, SI patients were older (P < .01) and had increased mortality (P < .01). Overall, cervical spine fractures occurred in 3.7%, with 5.4% requiring spinal surgery (0.2% of all patients). The frequency of fracture was five-fold greater in non-SI (P < .05). Locally, SMR was present in 121 (50.2%) prior to arrival with six collars (2.5%) placed in the trauma bay. Frequency of SMR was similar regardless of SI status (49.0% versus 51.0%; P = not significant) but less frequent in hypotensive patients and those receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The presence of SMR was associated with an increased use of CT of the cervical spine (80.0% versus 33.0%; P < .01).Conclusion:Cervical spine fractures were identified in less than four percent of isolated GSWs to the head and face, more frequently in non-SI cases. Prehospital SMR should be avoided in cases consistent with SI injury, and for all others, SMR should be discontinued once CT imaging is completed with negative results.

Physicians providing medical oversight of EMS clinicians and those providing direct patient care in the prehospital environment must possess a significant level of expertise in the use of noninvasive and invasive procedures for the prehospital stabilization of trauma patients. Procedures discussed in this chapter include needle thoracostomy, tube thoracostomy, pericardiocentesis, and spinal motion restriction. The nature of the care and the procedures that are appropriate for different levels of clinicians is based on the education, training, and legal scope of practice of the clinicians in the EMS system. An EMS physician or medical director must be skilled in these procedures and maintain active educational programs and continuous quality improvement activities to ensure these procedures are being performed correctly and under the correct circumstances.

Background: Flexion-rotation test predominantly measures rotation in C1-2 segment. Restriction in flexion-rotation may be due to direct limitation in C1-2, but also to a premature tightening of the alar ligament as a result of lack of movement in C0-1 or C2-3. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of a 20-min single cervical exercise session, with or without manual therapy of C0-1 and C2-3 segment in flexion-rotation test, in patients with chronic neck pain and positive flexion-rotation test. Methods: Randomized controlled clinical trial in 48 subjects (24 manual therapy+exercise/24 exercise). Range of motion and pain during flexion-rotation test, neck pain intensity and active cervical range of motion were measured before and after the intervention. Results: Significant differences were found in favour of the manual therapy group in the flexion-rotation test: right (p < 0.001) and left rotation (p < 0.001); pain during the flexion-rotation test: right (p < 0.001) and left rotation (p < 0.001); neck pain intensity: (p < 0.001); cervical flexion (p < 0.038), extension (p < 0.010), right side-bending (p < 0.035), left side-bending (p < 0.002), right rotation (p < 0.001), and left rotation (p < 0.006). Conclusions: Addition of one C0-C1 and C2-C3 manual therapy session to cervical exercise can immediately improve flexion-rotation test and cervical range of motion and reduce pain intensity.