• S M Joyce and C S Moser.
• Division of Emergency Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City 84132.
• Prehosp Disaster Med. 1992 Jan 1; 7 (1): 61-4.

UnlabelledA new cervical immobilization device (the Philadelphia Red E.M. Collar with Head Immobilizer/Stabilizer), has been introduced as an adjunct in extricating potentially neck-injured patients. This study compared the efficacy of immobilization using the collar to that of a short spine board. In addition, experienced EMS personnel rated the collar in simulated field situations.MethodsIn Part I of the study, the collar and a short spine board were applied to 25 adult volunteers in a sitting position, using standard methods. Each subject then exerted maximal force in flexion, extension, rotation, and abduction. Degrees of head motion from neutral position were measured in each direction. Mean values were compared using Student's t-test. For Part II, 10 EMS personnel were asked to apply the collar to volunteers. Each rated the performance of the collar on a scale of 1 (poor) to 4 (excellent) regarding: ease of application (sitting and supine), ease of extrication (lifting, logrolling, transfer), access to patient (chest auscultation, CPR, airway management), storage, and overall utility.ResultsThe collar was significantly better than the short spine board in both lateral and rotational immobilization (p less than 0.001). There was no significant difference for flexion or extension (p greater than 0.05). The Red E.M. limited motion to a mean of 15 degrees or less in any direction. Ratings by EMS personnel for the device (mean+/- standard error) were: ease of application (sitting) 3.5+/-0.2, (supine) 2.7+/-0.2; ease of extrication 3.1+/-0.2; access to patient 3.4+/-0.2; storage 3.1+/-0.3; and overall utility 3.1+/-0.2.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

8 keywords...

hide…