4.5 Article

Does the novel lateral trauma position cause more motion in an unstable cervical spine injury than the log roll maneuver?

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE
卷 35, 期 11, 页码 1630-1635

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajem.2017.05.002

关键词

Cervical spine injuries; Emergency treatment; Patient positioning; Lateral position; Patient safety

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Prehospital personnel who lack advanced airway management training must rely on basic techniques when transporting unconscious trauma patients. The supine position is associated with a loss of airway patency when compared to lateral recumbent positions. Thus, an inherent conflict exists between securing an open airway using the recovery position and maintaining spinal immobilization in the supine position. The lateral trauma position is a novel technique that aims to combine airway management with spinal precautions. The objective of this study was to compare the spinal motion allowed by the novel lateral trauma position and the well-established log-roll maneuver.& para;& para;Methods:Using a full-body cadaver model with an induced globally unstable cervical spine (C5-C6) lesion, we investigated the mean range of motion (ROM) produced at the site of the injury in six dimensions by performing the two maneuvers using an electromagnetic tracking device.& para;& para;Results: Compared to the log-roll maneuver, the lateral trauma position caused similar mean ROM in five of the six dimensions. Only medial/lateral linear motion was significantly greater in the lateral trauma position (1.4 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4, 2.4 mm)).& para;& para;Conclusions: In this cadaver study, the novel lateral trauma position and the well-established log-roll maneuver resulted in comparable amounts of motion in an unstable cervical spine injury model. We suggest that the lateral trauma position may be considered for unconscious non-intubated trauma patients. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据