Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
A Change from a Spinal Immobilization to a Spinal Motion Restriction Protocol was Not Associated with an Increase in Disabling Spinal Cord Injuries
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
A Change from a Spinal Immobilization to a Spinal Motion Restriction Protocol was Not Associated with an Increase in Disabling Spinal Cord Injuries
Do you wish to request the book?
A Change from a Spinal Immobilization to a Spinal Motion Restriction Protocol was Not Associated with an Increase in Disabling Spinal Cord Injuries
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
A Change from a Spinal Immobilization to a Spinal Motion Restriction Protocol was Not Associated with an Increase in Disabling Spinal Cord Injuries
2021
Overview
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.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press,Jems Publishing Company, Inc
Subject
