A comparison of the spinal board and the vacuum stretcher, spinal stability and interface pressure.

The interface pressures were measured between the sacrum, mid-lumbar spine and various support surfaces. Thirty healthy male volunteers were recruited. The spinal board, padded spinal board and vacuum stretcher were the support surfaces evaluated. We found high and potentially ischaemic pressures between the sacrum and the spinal board interface (mean 147.3 mmHg). This was reduced in the padded board (115.5 mmHg) but dramatically reduced with the vacuum stretcher (36.7 mmHg). It was also noted that no support was given to the normal lumbar lordosis by the spinal board (padded and unpadded), but support was given by the vacuum stretcher. This raises the question of how stable is an unstable spinal injury on a flat supporting surface.

[1]  S. Williams,et al.  Dynamic measurement of human capillary blood pressure. , 1988, Clinical science.

[2]  D L Bader,et al.  Changes in transcutaneous oxygen tension as a result of prolonged pressures at the sacrum. , 1988, Clinical physics and physiological measurement : an official journal of the Hospital Physicists' Association, Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Medizinische Physik and the European Federation of Organisations for Medical Physics.

[3]  D. Stuss,et al.  How Long Does It Take to Recover from a Mild Concussion? , 1988, Neurosurgery.

[4]  D. Marchant,et al.  Risk factors. , 1994, Obstetrics and gynecology clinics of North America.

[5]  B. Green,et al.  Comparison of stability provided to the unstable spine by the kinetic therapy table and the Stryker frame. , 1988, Neurosurgery.

[6]  A. Guyton,et al.  Textbook of Medical Physiology , 1961 .

[7]  J. Reuler,et al.  The pressure sore: pathophysiology and principles of management. , 1981, Annals of internal medicine.

[8]  A. Mawson,et al.  Risk Factors for Early Occurring Pressure Ulcers Following Spinal Cord Injury , 1988, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.