Traditional Spinal Immobilization versus Spinal Motion Restriction in Cervical Spine Movement; a Randomized Crossover Trial.

Introduction: Proper cervical spine immobilization is essential to prevent further injury following trauma. This study aimed to compare the cervical range of motion (ROM) and the immobilization time between traditional spinal immobilization (TSI) and spinal motion restriction (SMR). Methods: This study was a randomized 2x2 crossover design in healthy volunteers. Participants were randomly assigned by Sequential numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes (SNOSE) with permuted block-of-four randomization to TSI or SMR. We used an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor to measure the cervical ROM in three dimensions focusing on flexion-extension, rotation, and lateral bending. The immobilization time was recorded by the investigator. Results: A total of 35 healthy volunteers were enrolled in the study. The SMR method had cervical spine movement lower than the TSI method about 3.18 degrees on ROM in flexion-extension (p < 0.001). The SMR method had cervical spine movement lower than the TSI method about 2.01 degrees on ROM in lateral bending (p = 0.022). The immobilization time for the SMR method was 11.88 seconds longer than for the TSI method (p < 0.001) but not clinically significant. Conclusion: SMR that used scoop stretcher resulted in significantly less cervical spine movement than immobilization with a TSI that used long spinal board. We recommend implementing the SMR protocol for transporting trauma patients, as minimizing cervical motion may enhance patient outcomes.

Validity of Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU Sensor) for Measurement of Cervical Spine Motion, Compared with Eight Optoelectronic 3D Cameras Under Spinal Immobilization Devices.

Background: The assessment of cervical spine motion is critical for out-of-hospital patients who suffer traumatic spinal cord injuries, given the profound implications such injuries have on individual well-being and broader public health concerns. 3D Optoelectronic systems (BTS SmartDX) are standard devices for motion measurement, but their price, complexity, and size prevent them from being used outside of designated laboratories. This study was designed to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of an inertial measurement unit (IMU) in gauging cervical spine motion among healthy volunteers, using a 3D optoelectronic motion capture system as a reference. Methods: Twelve healthy volunteers participated in the study. They underwent lifting, transferring, and tilting simulations using a long spinal board, a Sked stretcher, and a vacuum mattress. During these simulations, cervical spine angular movements-including flexion-extension, axial rotation, and lateral flexion-were concurrently measured using the IMU and an optoelectronic device. We employed the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and the Bland-Altman plot to assess reliability and validity. Results: A single statistically significant difference was observed between the two devices in the flexion-extension plane. The mean differences across all angular planes ranged from -1.129° to 1.053°, with the most pronounced difference noted in the lateral flexion plane. Ninety-five percent of the angular motion disparities ascertained by the SmartDX and IMU were less than 7.873° for the lateral flexion plane, 11.143° for the flexion-extension plane, and 25.382° for the axial rotation plane. Conclusion: The IMU device exhibited robust validity when assessing the angular motion of the cervical spine in the axial rotation plane and demonstrated commendable validity in both the lateral flexion and flexion-extension planes.