Analysis of spine motion during prehospital extrication procedures in motorsport.

PURPOSE: The appropriate extrication techniques for trauma patients after car accidents remain a topic of controversy. Various techniques for immobilizing the cervical spine during prehospital extrication have been investigated. METHODS: This explorative study compared the amount of spinal motion during five different extrication procedures from a racecar and a rallycar performed by two teams: a professional motorsport extrication team and a team of professional emergency medical technicians (EMTs). Two different microelectromechanical systems were used to measure spinal motion, and a motionscore was calculated to compare the amount of remaining spinal motion. A high motionscore indicates high remaining motion and a low motionscore indicates low remaining motion. RESULTS: The use of an extricable seat results in a mean overall motion score of 1617 [95% CI 308-2926]. Emergency extrication without equipment resulted in the lowest overall motionscore 1448 [95% CI 1070-1826]. In case of urgent extrication the Extrication team attained a motionscore of 2118 [95% CI 517-3718] and the EMT team a motionscore of 2932 [95% CI 1427-4435]. When performing the procedure with the aid of a rescue boa, the EMT team achieved an overall mean motionscore in the same range 2725 [95% CI 568-4881] with boa vs. 2932 [95% CI 1427-4435] without boa. When mean scores of individual spinal segments were analyzed, we found that the EMT team did especially worse in immobilizing the cervical spine 198 vs. 758. CONCLUSIONS: Regular training of extrication procedures has paid off considerably in reducing spinal movement during extrication from a racecar. If an extricable seat is available, extrication should be performed using it. However, if emergency extrication is necessary, an additional manual cervical spine immobilization should be conducted using the Rautek maneuver to sufficiently reduce cervical spine movement.

Analysis of cervical spine immobilization during patient transport in emergency medical services.

PURPOSE: It remains controversial how to immobilize the cervical spine (CS) in trauma patients. Therefore, we analyzed different CS immobilization techniques during prehospital patient transport. METHODS: In this explorative, biomechanical analysis of immobilization techniques conducted in a standardized setting, we recorded CS motion during patient transport using a wireless human motion tracker on a volunteer. To interpret spinal movement a benchmark called motionscore (MS) was developed based on biomechanics of the injured spine. RESULTS: We found the best spinal motion restriction using a spine board, head blocks and immobilization straps with and without a cervical collar (CC) (MS 45 vs. 27). Spinal motion restriction on a vacuum mattress with CC and head blocks was superior to no CC or head blocks (MS 103 vs. 152). An inclined vacuum mattress was more effective with head blocks than without (MS 124 vs. 187). Minimal immobilization with an ambulance cot, CC, pillow and tape was slightly superior to a vacuum mattress with CC and head blocks (MS 92 vs. 103). Minimal immobilization without CC showed the lowest spinal motion restriction (MS 517). CONCLUSIONS: We suggest an immobilization procedure customized to the individual situation. A spine board should be used whenever spinal motion restriction is indicated and the utilization is possible. In some cases, CS immobilization by a vacuum mattress with CC and head blocks could be more beneficial. In an unstable status of the patient, minimal immobilization may be performed using an ambulance cot, pillow, CC and tape to minimize time on scene caused by immobilization.