Cervical collar-induced changes in intracranial pressure

Kolb, James C; Summers, Richard L.; Galli, Robert

doi:10.1016/s0735-6757(99)90044-x

Cited by 101 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Pain is almost universal with the use of a backboard. 22−25 There are other potential problems, such as mild respiratory compromise 26 , increased intracranial pressure, 27,28 or the rare cases of distracting an unstable fracture. 29,30 A recent pediatric study demonstrated that immobilized children with a similar level of trauma had higher rates of pain and were more likely to undergo radiographic evaluation and admission to the hospital.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Spinal Motion Restriction: An Educational and Implementation Program to Redefine Prehospital Spinal Assessment and Care

Morrissey¹,

Kusel²,

Sporer³

2014

Prehospital Emergency Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction. Prehospital spine immobilization has long been applied to victims of trauma in the United States and up to 5 million patients per year are immobilized mostly with a cervical collar and a backboard. Objective. The training of paramedics and emergency medical technicians on the principals of spine motion restriction (SMR) will decrease the use of backboards. Methods. The training for SMR emphasized the need to immobilize those patients with a significant potential for an unstable cervical spine fracture and to use alternative methods of maintaining spine precautions for those with lower risk. The training addressed the potential complications of the use of the unpadded backboard and education was provided about the mechanics of spine injuries. Emergency medical services (EMS} personnel were taught to differentiate between the critical multisystem trauma patients from the more common moderate, low kinetic energy trauma patients. A comprehensive education and outreach program that included all of the EMS providers (fire and private), hospitals, and EMS educational institutions was developed. Results. Within 4 months of the policy implementation, prehospital care practitioners reduced the use of the backboard by 58%. This was accomplished by a decrease in the number of patients considered for SMR with low kinetic energy and the use of other methods, such as the cervical collar only. Conclusion. The implementation of a SMR training program significantly decreases the use of backboards and allows alternative methods of maintaining spine precautions.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Spinal Motion Restriction: An Educational and Implementation Program to Redefine Prehospital Spinal Assessment and Care

Morrissey¹,

Kusel²,

Sporer³

2014

Prehospital Emergency Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For the critical outcome of complications (intracranial pressure), we identified low-quality evidence from 5 nonrandomized studies [132][133][134][135][136] For the critical outcome of complications (tidal volume), we identified very-low-quality evidence (downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision) from 1 nonrandomized study 138 with 38 patients, showing no decrease in tidal volume (a significant decrease was reported in the publication; however, we were unable to calculate the CI because the SD of the intervention and control group was not reported).…”

Section: (Semi)rigid Collar (I) Compared With No Collar (C)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Part 9: First Aid

Em¹,

Da²,

Buck³

et al. 2015

Circulation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

and curriculum development, and a specialist in first aid evidence evaluation methodology and guideline development.The task force convened in June 2013 to review the topics and questions that were evaluated in 2005 and 2010, past research questions formulated in the PICO style (population, intervention, comparator, outcomes) that were never completed, and the new questions that had been submitted since 2010 to the task force, and a priority list created. Topics were reviewed for areas of controversy, known additional new science, and subject matter not previously evaluated. Task force members created a priority list for review, and the top 10 priority-ranked PICO questions were assigned. After the successful commencement of the workflow, the task force co-chairs added a further 12 PICO questions, including 5 new questions, 1 derived question, and 6 that had been previously reviewed. Selected PICO questions that had been previously reviewed were, in some cases, reworded to facilitate literature searches, and outcomes were decided upon by group consensus.Evidence reviewers were recruited through a call for volunteers distributed by ILCOR to stakeholder organizations around the world. More than 30 individual reviewers were assigned to topics, usually by preference or expertise, but avoiding any direct conflicts of interest. In general, 2 evidence reviewers were assigned to each PICO, supervised by a member of the task force designated as the task force question owner. Evidence reviewers included physicians with diverse specialties including emergency medicine, EMS, wilderness medicine, critical care, cardiology, occupational medicine, toxicology, anesthesia, pediatric emergency medicine, public health, and epidemiology, as well as paramedics, nurse practitioners and first aid education specialists with experience in guideline and curriculum development, and professional evidence evaluation and methodology experts. The Evidence Evaluation ProcessFor the 2015 international evidence evaluation process, the AHA developed a new Web-based information and documentation platform, the Systematic Evidence Evaluation and Review System (SEERS), to support the ILCOR systematic reviews and to capture the data in reusable formats. This Webbased system facilitated structured reviews in a consistent format that would support the ultimate development of science summaries and evidence-based treatment recommendations.Each task force performed a detailed systematic review based on the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, 1 using the methodological approach proposed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group.2 After identifying and prioritizing the PICO questions to be addressed, 3 and with the assistance of information specialists, a detailed search for relevant articles was performed in each of 3 online databases (PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library).By using detailed inclusion and exclusion criteria, articles were screened for further evalu...

show abstract

“…Darüber hinaus sind klinisch relevante Komplikationen beschrieben worden, wie z. B. ein erhöhter intrakranieller Druck nach der Anlage eines Halskragens [893][894][895][896][897]. Das routinemä-ßige Anlegen durch Ersthelfer wird nicht empfohlen.…”

Section: Einschränkung Der Halswirbelsäulenbeweglichkeitunclassified