The Journal of emergency medicine · 2015
Horizontal Slide Creates Less Cervical Motion When Centering an Injured Patient on a Spine Board.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
DuBose Dewayne N, Zdziarski Laura Ann, Scott Nicole, Conrad Bryan, Long Allyson, Rechtine Glenn R, Prasarn Mark L, Horodyski MaryBeth
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A patient with a suspected cervical spine injury may be at risk for secondary neurologic injury when initially placed and repositioned to the center of the spine board.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine which centering adjustment best limits cervical spine movement and minimizes the chance for secondary injury.
METHODS: Using five lightly embalmed cadaveric specimens with a created global instability at C5-C6, motion sensors were anchored to the anterior surface of the vertebral bodies. Three repositioning methods were used to center the cadavers on the spine board: horizontal slide, diagonal slide, and V-adjustment. An electromagnetic tracking device measured angular (degrees) and translation (millimeters) motions at the C5-C6 level during each of the three centering adjustments. The dependent variables were angular motion (flexion-extension, axial rotation, lateral flexion) and translational displacement (anteroposterior, axial, and medial-lateral).
RESULTS: The nonuniform condition produced significantly less flexion-extension than the uniform condition (p = 0.048). The horizontal slide adjustment produced less cervical flexion-extension (p = 0.015), lateral bending (p = 0.003), and axial rotation (p = 0.034) than the V-adjustment. Similarly, translation was significantly less with the horizontal adjustment than with the V-adjustment; medial-lateral (p = 0.017), axial (p < 0.001), and anteroposterior (p = 0.006).
CONCLUSIONS: Of the three adjustments, our team found that horizontal slide was also easier to complete than the other methods. The horizontal slide best limited cervical spine motion and may be the most helpful for minimizing secondary injury based on the study findings.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine which centering adjustment best limits cervical spine movement and minimizes the chance for secondary injury.
METHODS: Using five lightly embalmed cadaveric specimens with a created global instability at C5-C6, motion sensors were anchored to the anterior surface of the vertebral bodies. Three repositioning methods were used to center the cadavers on the spine board: horizontal slide, diagonal slide, and V-adjustment. An electromagnetic tracking device measured angular (degrees) and translation (millimeters) motions at the C5-C6 level during each of the three centering adjustments. The dependent variables were angular motion (flexion-extension, axial rotation, lateral flexion) and translational displacement (anteroposterior, axial, and medial-lateral).
RESULTS: The nonuniform condition produced significantly less flexion-extension than the uniform condition (p = 0.048). The horizontal slide adjustment produced less cervical flexion-extension (p = 0.015), lateral bending (p = 0.003), and axial rotation (p = 0.034) than the V-adjustment. Similarly, translation was significantly less with the horizontal adjustment than with the V-adjustment; medial-lateral (p = 0.017), axial (p < 0.001), and anteroposterior (p = 0.006).
CONCLUSIONS: Of the three adjustments, our team found that horizontal slide was also easier to complete than the other methods. The horizontal slide best limited cervical spine motion and may be the most helpful for minimizing secondary injury based on the study findings.