Traditional Spinal Immobilization versus Spinal Motion Restriction in Cervical Spine Movement; a Randomized Crossover Trial
Issued Date
2024-01-01
Resource Type
eISSN
26454904
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-85200119480
Journal Title
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine
Volume
12
Issue
1
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine Vol.12 No.1 (2024)
Suggested Citation
Nuanprom P., Yuksen C., Tienpratarn W., Jamkrajang P. Traditional Spinal Immobilization versus Spinal Motion Restriction in Cervical Spine Movement; a Randomized Crossover Trial. Archives of Academic Emergency Medicine Vol.12 No.1 (2024). doi:10.22037/aaem.v12i1.2263 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/100405
Title
Traditional Spinal Immobilization versus Spinal Motion Restriction in Cervical Spine Movement; a Randomized Crossover Trial
Author(s)
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
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.