Introduction. New recommendations for emergency medical services spinal precautions limit long spinal board use to extrication purposes only and are to be removed immediately. Outcomes for spinal motion restriction versus spinal immobilization were studied. Methods. A retrospective chart review of trauma patients was conducted over a 6-month period at a level I trauma center. Injury severity details and neurologic assessments were collected on 277 patients. Results. Upon arrival, 25 (9.0%) patients had a spine board in place. Patients placed on spine boards were more likely to be moderately or severely injured (ISS>15: 36.0% vs. 9.9%, p = 0.001) and more likely to have neurological deficits documented by EMS (30.4% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.01) and the trauma team (29.2% vs. 10.9%, p = 0.02). Conclusions. This study suggests that the long spine board is being properly used for more critically injured patients. Further research is needed to compare neurological outcomes using a larger sample size and more consistent documentation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.