Suppr超能文献

不同固定技术下的疼痛感知比较。

Comparison of perceived pain with different immobilization techniques.

作者信息

Cross D A, Baskerville J

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Scott & White Clinic and Memorial Hospital, Texas A & M University System Health Science Center, College of Medicine, Temple 76508, USA.

出版信息

Prehosp Emerg Care. 2001 Jul-Sep;5(3):270-4. doi: 10.1080/10903120190939779.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare the locations and severities of pain generated by a hard wooden spine board vs a soft vacuum mattress splint on immobilized volunteers.

METHODS

This was a prospective randomized crossover study conducted in an emergency medical services (EMS) classroom within a university teaching hospital. Participants were 18 healthy volunteers with no history of acute or chronic back pain, pregnancy, or recent analgesic use. The subjects were placed in one of three immobilization boards (hard spine board and two different vacuum splint models, identified as red and blue) for 60 minutes. At 0, 30, and 60 minutes the subjects rated their pain at multiple locations on their body using a visual analog scale (VAS). After a two-day washout period, this procedure was repeated on a different board and later a third board until all the subjects had been tested on all three boards.

RESULTS

Although many pressure point locations were studied, only three had results that appeared statistically significant: the occiput, lower back, and sacrum. The hard spine board had higher mean pain scores as well as a higher percentage of subjects who reported any pain when compared with the two vacuum mattress splints. Mean scores for the 30- and 60-minute times were: occiput 2.06 and 2.78 for the hard board compared with 0.78 and 0.56 for red and 0.44 and 0.67 for blue; lower back 1.39 and 1.44 for the hard board compared with 0.28 and 1.11 for red and 0.06 and 0.17 for blue; and sacrum 1.56 and 2.06 for the hard board compared with 0.33 and 0.39 for red and 0.89 and 1.06 for blue.

CONCLUSION

The hard-board method of spinal immobilization generates higher self-reported pain scale scores than the two vacuum mattresses.

摘要

目的

比较硬木脊柱板与软质真空床垫夹板在固定志愿者时产生疼痛的部位和严重程度。

方法

这是一项前瞻性随机交叉研究,在大学教学医院的急诊医疗服务(EMS)教室进行。参与者为18名健康志愿者,无急性或慢性背痛史、妊娠史或近期使用镇痛药史。受试者被放置在三种固定板之一(硬脊柱板和两种不同的真空夹板模型,分别标识为红色和蓝色)上60分钟。在0、30和60分钟时,受试者使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)对身体多个部位的疼痛进行评分。经过两天的洗脱期后,在另一块板上重复此过程,随后在第三块板上进行,直到所有受试者都在三块板上接受了测试。

结果

尽管研究了许多压力点位置,但只有三个位置的结果具有统计学意义:枕骨、下背部和骶骨。与两种真空床垫夹板相比,硬脊柱板的平均疼痛评分更高,报告有任何疼痛的受试者比例也更高。30分钟和60分钟时的平均评分分别为:硬板枕骨处为2.06和2.78,红色真空夹板为0.78和0.56,蓝色真空夹板为0.44和0.67;硬板下背部为1.39和1.44,红色真空夹板为0.28和1.11,蓝色真空夹板为0.06和0.17;硬板骶骨处为1.56和2.06,红色真空夹板为0.33和0.39,蓝色真空夹板为0.89和1.06。

结论

脊柱固定的硬板法比两种真空床垫产生的自我报告疼痛量表评分更高。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验