The efficacy of head immobilization techniques during simulated vehicle motion.

STUDY DESIGN Laboratory experiment. OBJECTIVE To compare the efficacy of different head immobilization techniques during motion simulating ambulance transport. BACKGROUND A significant number of neurologic injuries associated with cervical spine fractures arise or are aggravated during emergency extrication or patient transport. Previous studies have not addressed the effect of head immobilization on the passive motion that could occur across the neck during transport. METHODS Three different head-immobilization methods were compared in six healthy young adults by using a computer-controlled moving platform to simulate the swaying and jarring movements that can occur during ambulance transport. In all tests, the trunk was secured by means of a commonly used "criss-cross" strapping technique. Efficacy of head immobilization was evaluated using measures of head motion and neck rotation. RESULTS None of the three immobilization techniques was successful in eliminating head motion or neck rotation. Movement of the trunk contributed substantially to the lateral bending that occurred across the neck. A new product involving the placement of wedges underneath the head provided some small, but statistically significant improvements in fixation of the head to the fracture board; however, there was no improvement in terms of the relative motion occurring across the neck. CONCLUSIONS Somewhat improved fixation of the head to the fracture board can be achieved by placing wedges under the head; however, the benefits of any fixation method, in terms of cervical spine immobilization, are likely to be limited unless the motion of the trunk is also controlled effectively. Future research and development should address techniques to better control head and trunk motion.

[1]  A. Kaigle,et al.  Electromyographic Response of the Porcine Multifidus Musculature After Nerve Stimulation , 1995, Spine.

[2]  P. Mazolewski,et al.  The effectiveness of strapping techniques in spinal immobilization. , 1994, Annals of emergency medicine.

[3]  R. Waters,et al.  Emergency cervical-spine immobilization. , 1992, Annals of emergency medicine.

[4]  N. Mcswain,et al.  Comparison of two new immobilization collars. , 1992, Annals of emergency medicine.

[5]  M. Henley,et al.  Failure of Halo Vest to Prevent in Vivo Motion in Patients with Injured Cervical Spines , 1991, Spine.

[6]  J. Howell,et al.  A practical radiographic comparison of short board technique and Kendrick Extrication Device. , 1989, Annals of emergency medicine.

[7]  W N Hardy,et al.  Sensory innervation of soft tissues of the lumbar spine in the rat , 1989, Journal of orthopaedic research : official publication of the Orthopaedic Research Society.

[8]  R. Kowalski,et al.  Effect of spinal immobilization devices on pulmonary function in the healthy, nonsmoking man. , 1988, Annals of emergency medicine.

[9]  L. Baer,et al.  A radiographic comparison of prehospital cervical immobilization methods. , 1987, Annals of emergency medicine.

[10]  L. Baraff,et al.  Efficacy of cervical spine immobilization methods. , 1982, The Journal of trauma.

[11]  M J Griffin,et al.  The evaluation of vehicle vibration and seats. , 1978, Applied ergonomics.

[12]  S. Fisher,et al.  Cervical orthoses effect on cervical spine motion: roentgenographic and goniometric method of study. , 1977, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[13]  J F Kraus,et al.  The risk of neurologic damage with fractures of the vertebrae. , 1977, The Journal of trauma.

[14]  R. Cloward Acute cervical spine injuries. , 1980, Clinical symposia.

[15]  Cloward Rb Acute cervical spine injuries. , 1980 .

[16]  F. Palumbo,et al.  Cineradiography of the braced normal cervical spine. A comparative study of five commonly used cervical orthoses. , 1975, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.