Objectives: The extrication of patients following a road traffic collision is among the basic procedures in emergency medicine. Thus, extrication is a frequently performed procedure by most of the emergency medical services worldwide. The appropriate extrication procedure depends on the patient's current condition and accompanying injuries. A rapid extrication should be performed within a few minutes, and the cervical spine (at least) should be immobilized. To our knowledge, the scientific literature and current guidelines do not offer detailed recommendations on the extrication of injured patients. Thus, the aim of the current study is to compare the effectiveness of spinal stabilization during various out-of-hospital extrication procedures. Methods: This is an explorative, biomechanical analysis of spine motion during different extrication procedures on an example patient. Movement of the cervical spine was measured using a wireless human motion tracker. Movement of the thoracic and lumbar spine was quantified with 12 strain gauge sensors, which were positioned paravertebrally on both sites along the thoracic and lumbar spine. To interpret angular movement, a motionscore was developed based on newly defined axioms on the biomechanics of the injured spine. Results: Self-extrication showed the least spinal movement (overall motionscore sum = 667). Movement in the cervical spine could further be reduced by applying a cervical collar. The extrication by a rescue boa showed comparable results in overall spinal movement compared to the traditional extrication via spineboard (overall motionscore sum = 1862vs. 1743). Especially in the cervical spine, the spinal movement was reduced (motionscore sum = 339 vs. 595). However, the thoracic spine movement was increased (motionscore sum = 812 vs. 432). Conclusion: In case of a suspected cervical spine injury, guided self-extrication seems to be the best option. If the patient is not able to perform self-extrication, using a rescue boa might reduce cervical spinal movement compared to the traditional extrication procedure. Since promising results are shown in the case of extrication using a patient transfer sheet that has already been placed below the driver, future developments should focus on novel vehicle seats that already include an extrication device.

No abstract

Background:Immobilization of the cervical spine by Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel is a standard procedure. In most EMS, multiple immobilization tools are available.The aim of this study is the analysis of residual spine motion under different types of cervical spine immobilization.Methods:In this explorative biomechanical study, different immobilization techniques were performed on three healthy subjects. The test subjects’ heads were then passively moved to cause standardized spinal motion. The primary endpoints were the remaining range of motion for flexion, extension, bending, and rotation measured with a wireless human motion detector.Results:In the case of immobilization of the test person (TP) on a straight (0°) vacuum mattress, the remaining rotation of the cervical spine could be reduced from 7° to 3° by additional headblocks. Also, the remaining flexion and extension were reduced from 14° to 3° and from 15° to 6°, respectively. The subjects’ immobilization was best on a spine board using a headlock system and the Spider Strap belt system (MIH-Medical; Georgsmarienhütte, Germany). However, the remaining cervical spine extension increased from 1° to 9° if a Speedclip belt system was used (Laerdal; Stavanger, Norway). The additional use of a cervical collar was not advantageous in reducing cervical spine movement with a spine board or vacuum mattress.Conclusions:The remaining movement of the cervical spine is minimal when the patient is immobilized on a spine board with a headlock system and a Spider Strap harness system or on a vacuum mattress with additional headblocks. The remaining movement of the cervical spine could not be reduced by the additional use of a cervical collar.

The quantification of spinal movement to investigate the efficacy of prehospital immobilization devices and techniques remains difficult. Therefore, we aim to systematically review the literature on reported measurement tools applicable within this research field. A keyword literature search of relevant articles was performed using the database of PubMed including international literature published in English between January 2010 and December 2015. Only studies describing methods applicable to estimate spinal movement during prehospital immobilization were included. Six measurement tools were found that have either been used (goniometer/inclinometer, imaging modalities, electromagnetic systems, and optoelectronic systems) or have the potential to be used (inertial measurement units and a combination of strain gauge technology and accelerometers) in this research field. Novel devices can assess spinal motion during prehospital care including extrication, application of immobilization devices, and transportation from the site of the accident to the final destination, and therefore can be considered for usage.

This investigation aimed to compare spinopelvic kinematics during rowing on an ergometer vs. in a rowing tank and to evaluate changes with progressing fatigue. Spinal and pelvic kinematics of 8 competitive scull rowers (19.0 6 2.1 years, 179.9 6 7.6 cm, and 74.8 6 8.1 kg) were collected during 1 hour of rowing on an ergometer and in a rowing tank using a routine training protocol. Kinematics of the upper thoracic spine, lower thoracic spine, lumbar spine, and pelvis were determined using an infrared camera system (Vicon, Oxford, United Kingdom). There was a greater lumbar range of motion (ROM) and less posterior pelvic tilt at the catch during rowing on the ergometer compared with in the rowing tank (p 5 0.001-0.048), but no differences in pelvic ROM. In the rowing tank, the pelvic ROM increased over time (p 5 0.002) and the ROM of the lower thoracic spine decreased (p 5 0.002). In addition, there was an extended drive phase (when the rower applies pressure to the oar levering the boat forward) and an abbreviated recovery phase (setting up the rower's body for the next stroke) in the rowing tank (p 5 0.032). Different rowing training methods lead to differences in spinopelvic kinematics, which may lead to substantially different spinal loading situations. Greater pelvic rotation and lesser lumbar ROM are considered ideal; therefore, the present results indicate that rowing in the rowing tank might facilitate the maintenance of this targeted spinopelvic posture, which might help protect the lower back. Rowers, coaches, and researchers should consider the differences between rowing training methods, especially when giving training recommendations.