A Comparison of Cervical Spine Motion After Immobilization With a Traditional Spine Board and Full-Body Vacuum-Mattress Splint. Issue 12 (20th December 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Etier, Brian E.; Norte, Grant E.; Gleason, Megan M.; Richter, Dustin L.; Pugh, Kelli F.; Thomson, Keith B.; Slater, Lindsay V.; Hart, Joe M.; Brockmeier, Stephen F.; Diduch, David R.
• Is Part Of: Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine. Volume 5:Issue 12(2017:Dec.)
• Publication Date: 2017-12-20
• Subjects: cervical spine -- equipment removal -- immobilization -- football; Sports medicine -- Periodicals; Orthopedics -- Periodicals; Arthroscopy -- Periodicals; Arthroplasty -- Periodicals; Knee -- Surgery -- Periodicals; 616.7
• DOI: 10.1177/2325967117744757
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2325-9671

Abstract

Background: The National Athletic Trainers' Association (NATA) advocates for cervical spine immobilization on a rigid board or vacuum splint and for removal of athletic equipment before transfer to an emergency medical facility. Purpose: To (1) compare triplanar cervical spine motion using motion capture between a traditional rigid spine board and a full-body vacuum splint in equipped and unequipped athletes, (2) assess cervical spine motion during the removal of a football helmet and shoulder pads, and (3) evaluate the effect of body mass on cervical spine motion. Study Design: Controlled laboratory study. Methods: Twenty healthy male participants volunteered for this study to examine the influence of immobilization type and presence of equipment on triplanar angular cervical spine motion. Three-dimensional cervical spine kinematics was measured using an electromagnetic motion analysis system. Independent variables included testing condition (static lift and hold, 30° tilt, transfer, equipment removal), immobilization type (rigid, vacuum-mattress), and equipment (on, off). Peak sagittal-, frontal-, and transverse-plane angular motions were the primary outcome measures of interest. Results: Subjective ratings of comfort and security did not differ between immobilization types ( P > .05). Motion between the rigid board and vacuum splint did not differ by more than 2° under any testing condition, either with or without equipment. In removing equipment, the mean peak motion ranged from 12.5° to 14.0° for the rigid spine board and from 11.4° to 15.4° for the vacuum-mattress splint, and more transverse-plane motion occurred when using the vacuum-mattress splint compared with the rigid spine board (mean difference, 0.14 deg/s [95% CI, 0.05-0.23 deg/s]; P = .002). In patients weighing more than 250 lb, the rigid board provided less motion in the frontal plane ( P = .027) and sagittal plane ( P = .030) during the tilt condition and transfer condition, respectively. Conclusion: The current study confirms similar motion in the vacuum-mattress splint compared with the rigid backboard in varying sized equipped or nonequipped athletes. Cervical spine motion occurs when removing a football helmet and shoulder pads, at an unknown risk to the injured athlete. In athletes who weighed more than 250 lb, immobilization with the rigid board helped to reduce cervical spine motion. Clinical Relevance: Athletic trainers and team physicians should consider immobilization of athletes who weigh more than 250 lb with a rigid board.