Penetrating injuries, such as gunshot or stab wounds, may cause spinal cord injuries and require prehospital spinal immobilization (PHSI) to stabilize the spine. However, the use of PHSI in penetrating spinal injuries remains controversial. This systematic review aimed to investigate the efficacy of prehospital PHSI in patients with penetrating trauma. We systematically searched Google Scholar, Medline (PubMed), The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and EMBASE between January 2000 and July 2021. All studies in English that assessed PHSI in patients (>16 years) with penetrating spinal injuries were included. Quality and risk of bias assessments were performed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. A narrative synthesis and a meta-analysis was conducted. Our search identified 928 studies but only 6 met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. All of the included studies were conducted in the US and the number of patients ranged from 156–75,567 over 3–9 study years. The majority of patients were gunshot or stab wounds. Three studies demonstrated an increased risk of mortality with spinal collars whilst the remaining three studies failed to show any benefits or the benefits remained unproven. All studies were retrospective studies with some risks of bias. This review highlights that the evidence from the literature on PHSI in penetrating trauma outweigh its benefits; thus, its use is discouraged in penetrating spinal trauma. However, further high-quality research is necessary to reach definitive conclusions and to possibly identify suitable alternatives to PHSI for penetrating spinal trauma.

Purpose: Although the use of a cervical collar in the prehospital setting is recommended to prevent secondary spinal cord injuries and ensure spinal immobilization, it is not known what effects this has on raising intracranial pressure (ICP) in traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients. In the absence of studies measuring ICP in the prehospital setting, the aim of this study was to systematically review the data related to ICP changes measured after presentation at the hospital in patients who had arrived wearing cervical collars. Methods: We searched Medline (PubMed), Embase, CINAHL, and Google Scholar for studies that investigated in-hospital ICP changes in TBI patients arriving at the hospital wearing collars. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were then searched for inclusion in the study. A narrative synthesis, as well as a meta-analysis, was performed. Results: Of the 1006 studies identified, only three met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. The quality of the three included studies was moderate and the risk of bias was low. All three studies used the Laerdal Stifneck collar, but all studies showed an increase in ICP after application of the collar. A further three studies that measured ICP but did not fit the systematic search were also included due to low patient numbers. A meta-analysis of the pooled data confirmed a significant increase in ICP, although between the four studies, only 77 patients were included. The meta-analysis also confirmed that after removal of the collar, there was a significant decrease in ICP. Conclusions: Our study suggests that the use of a cervical collar increases ICP in TBI and head injury patients, which may have detrimental effects. However, due to the extremely low sample size from all six studies, caution must be exercised when interpreting these data. Thus, further high-quality research is necessary to unequivocally clarify whether cervical collars should be used in patients with TBI.