Cytokine IL1α and lactate as markers for tissue damage in spineboard immobilisation. A prospective, randomised open-label crossover trial.

BACKGROUND: Spinal immobilisation using a rigid long spineboard is a well-established procedure in trauma care. During immobilisation, the body is exposed to high tissue-interface pressures. This may lead to a localised inflammatory response of the skin, which may be used to monitor the body's response to different types of immobilisation device. AIM: In this study we compared the standard rigid spineboard with a new soft-layered spineboard regarding tissue-interface pressures, skin redness as an indicator of reactive hyperaemia and cutaneous IL1α and lactate release. METHODS: Twelve healthy male participants were asked to lie supine on both a rigid and a soft-layered spineboard, loading the sacrum for one hour, followed by one hour in unloaded position. Tissue-interface pressures on the buttocks during loading were measured continuously using a pressure mapping mat. Cutaneous IL1α and lactate concentrations were assessed using Sebutapes, during 20-min periods. After each 20-min period, a photo of the buttocks was taken, which was later assessed for redness by two observers. RESULTS: Significant differences in tissue-interface pressure and reactive hyperaemia were found between the two types of spineboard. Release of IL1α and lactate were found to increase with prolonged exposure to pressure, and to decrease in the unloaded prone position. A significant relationship was found between tissue-interface pressure and reactive hyperaemia, but not with IL1α nor lactate release. Time course of IL1α and lactate release was similar for both types of spineboard. CONCLUSIONS: IL1α and lactate both have a strong relationship with pressure exposure time, but not with pressure magnitude. Furthermore, IL1α was measured even in the absence of visible redness of the skin. The study offers the potention of biomarkers, reflecting inflammation and/or tissue metabolism, for use in assessing the effects of prolonged spineboard support.

Effect of spineboard and headblocks on the image quality of head CT scans.

Trauma patients at risk for, or suspected of, spinal injury are frequently transported to hospital using full spinal immobilisation. At the emergency department, immobilisation is often maintained until radiological work-up is completed. In this study, we examined how these devices for spinal stabilization influence visual image quality. Image quality was judged for both patient CT scans and phantom CT scans. CT scans of 217 patients were assessed retrospectively by two radiologists for visual scoring of image quality, scoring both quantity and impact of artifacts caused by the immobilization devices. For the phantom CT scans, eight set-ups were made, using a vacuum mattress without headblocks and a rigid and a soft-layered spineboard without headblocks, with standard soft-foam headblocks, or with new design headblocks. Overall, artifacts were found in 67 % of CT scans of patients on immobilization devices, which hampered diagnosis in 10 % of the cases. In the phantom CT scans, artifacts were present in all set-ups with one or more devices present and were seen in 20 % of all scan slices. The presence of headblocks resulted in more artifacts in both the patient CT scans and the phantom CT scans. Considerable effort should therefore be made to adjust the design of the immobilization devices and to remove the headblocks before CT scans are made.

Effect of spinal immobilisation devices on radiation exposure in conventional radiography and computed tomography.

Trauma patients at risk for, or suspected of, spinal injury are frequently transported to hospital using full spinal immobilisation. At the emergency department, immobilisation is often maintained until radiological work-up is completed. In this study, we examined how these devices influence radiation exposure and noise, as a proxy for objective image quality. Conventional radiographs (CR) and computer tomography (CT) scans were made using a phantom immobilised on two types of spineboard and a vacuum mattress and using two types of headblocks. Images were compared for radiation transmission and quantitative image noise. In CR, up to 23 % and, in CT, up to 11 % of radiation were blocked by the devices. Without compensation for the decreased transmission, noise increased by up to 16 % in CT, depending on the device used. Removing the headblocks led to a statistically significant improvement in transmission with automatic exposure control (AEC) enabled. Physicians should make an informed decision whether the increased radiation exposure outweighs the risk of missing a clinically significant injury by not making a CR or CT scan. Manufacturers of immobilisation devices should take radiological properties of their devices into account in the development and production process.

Effects of unconsciousness during spinal immobilization on tissue-interface pressures: A randomized controlled trial comparing a standard rigid spineboard with a newly developed soft-layered long spineboard.

BACKGROUND: Immobilization of the spine of patients with trauma at risk of spinal damage is usually performed using a rigid long spineboard or vacuum mattress, both during prehospital and in-hospital care. However, disadvantages of these immobilization devices in terms of discomfort and tissue-interface pressures have guided the development of soft-layered long spineboards. We compared tissue-interface pressures between awake and anaesthetized (unconscious) patients during immobilization on a rigid spineboard and a soft-layered long spineboard. METHODS: In this comparative study, 30 anaesthetized patients were randomized to immobilization on either the rigid spineboard or the soft-layered spineboard for the duration of their elective surgery. Tissue-interface pressures measured using an Xsensor pressure-mapping device were compared with those of 30 healthy volunteers who were immobilized sequentially on the rigid spineboard and the soft-layered spineboard. Redness of the sacrum was also recorded for the anaesthetized patients immediately after the surgery. RESULTS: For both anaesthetized patients and awake volunteers, tissue-interface pressures were significantly lower on the soft-layered spineboard than on the rigid spineboard, both at start and after 15min. On the soft-layered spineboard, tissue interface pressure and peak pressure index (PPI) for the sacrum were significantly lower for anaesthetized patients than for awake volunteers. Peak pressures and PPI on the rigid spineboard were equal for both groups. Tissue-interface pressures did not change significantly over time. Redness of the sacrum was significantly more pronounced on the rigid spineboard than on the soft-layered spineboard. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective randomized controlled trial shows that using a soft-layered spineboard compared to a rigid spineboard for spinal immobilization resulted in lower tissue-interface pressures in both awake volunteers and anaesthetized patients. Moreover, tissue-interface pressures on the soft-layered spineboard were lower in anaesthetized patients than in awake volunteers. These findings show the importance of using a soft-layered spineboard to reduce tissue-interface pressure, especially for patients who cannot relieve pressure themselves by changing position.

Reduced tissue-interface pressure and increased comfort on a newly developed soft-layered long spineboard.

BACKGROUND: : Immobilization of the spine in patients with trauma at risk of spinal damage is performed using a rigid long spineboard or vacuum mattress both during prehospital and in-hospital care. However, disadvantages of these immobilization devices in terms of discomfort and tissue-interface pressures have guided the development of a new soft-layered long spineboard. We compared tissue-interface pressure and degree of discomfort during immobilization on a rigid spineboard, a vacuum mattress, and a newly developed soft-layered long spineboard. METHODS: : In this randomized crossover trial, 30 volunteers were immobilized sequentially on all three devices for 15 minutes per device. Tissue-interface pressures were measured using an Xsensor pressure mapping device, including the peak pressure and the Peak Pressure Index (PPI). Discomfort was rated on a Visual Analog Scale after 1 minute and after 15 minutes of immobilization. RESULTS: : Tissue-interface pressures were significantly higher on the standard long spineboard and the vacuum mattress than on the soft-layered long spineboard. PPI for the sacrum was close to peak pressure on both the spineboard and the vacuum mattress. PPI for the sacrum on the soft-layered long spineboard was significantly lower, with an average PPI close to normal diastolic blood pressures. The participants reported significantly less discomfort on the soft-layered long spineboard compared with the rigid long spineboard, both after 1 minute and 15 minutes (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: : This study revealed a relevant reduction in tissue-interface pressures and discomfort when using a soft-layered long spineboard compared with using a standard rigid long spineboard or a vacuum mattress. Emergency care providers should consider the use of the soft-layered long spineboard to reduce the discomfort and potential tissue damage caused by immobilization and transport on a rigid long spineboard or vacuum mattress.