• Salam Rahmatalla, Jonathan DeShaw, Joshua Stilley, Gerene Denning, and Charles Jennissen.
• Center for Computer-Aided Design, College of Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA; Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. Electronic address: srahmata@engineering.uiowa.edu.
• Air Med. J. 2018 May 1; 37 (3): 178-185.

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare the relative efficacy of immobilization systems in limiting thoracic-lumbar movements.MethodsA dynamic simulation system was used to reproduce transport-related shocks and vibration, and involuntary movements of the thoracic-lumbar region were measured using 3 immobilization configurations.ResultsThe vacuum mattress and the long spine board were generally more effective than the cot alone in reducing thoracic-lumbar rotation and flexion/extension. However, the vacuum mattress reduced these thoracic-lumbar movements to a greater extent than the long spine board. In addition, the vacuum mattress significantly decreased thoracic-lumbar lateral movement relative to the cot alone under all simulated transport conditions. In contrast, the long spine board allowed greater lateral movement than the cot alone in a number of the simulated transport rides.ConclusionUnder the study conditions, the vacuum mattress was more effective for limiting involuntary movements of the thoracic-lumbar region than the long spine board. Moreover, the increased lateral bend observed with the long spine board under some conditions suggests it may be inadequate for immobilizing this anatomic region as presently designed. Should emergency medical service providers choose to immobilize patients with suspected injuries of the thoracic-lumbar spine, study results support the use of the vacuum mattress.Copyright © 2018 Air Medical Journal Associates. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

12 keywords...

hide…