Department of Orthopaedics, University of Florida, Gainesville;
J Athl Train. 2013 Nov-Dec;48(6):797-803. doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-48.5.07. Epub 2013 Aug 16.
Two methods have been proposed to transfer an individual in the prone position to a spine board. Researchers do not know which method provides the best immobilization.
To determine if motion produced in the unstable cervical spine differs between 2 prone logrolling techniques and to evaluate the effect of equipment on the motion produced during prone logrolling.
Crossover study.
Laboratory.
Tests were performed on 5 fresh cadavers (3 men, 2 women; age = 83 ± 8 years, mass = 61.2 ± 14.1 kg).
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Three-dimensional motions were recorded during 2 prone logroll protocols (pull, push) in cadavers with an unstable cervical spine. Three equipment conditions were evaluated: football shoulder pads and helmet, rigid cervical collar, and no equipment. The mean range of motion was calculated for each test condition.
The pull technique produced 16% more motion than the push technique in the lateral-bending angulation direction (F1,4 = 19.922, P = .01, η(2) = 0.833). Whereas the collar-only condition and, to a lesser extent, the football-shoulder-pads-and-helmet condition demonstrated trends toward providing more stability than the no-equipment condition, we found no differences among equipment conditions. We noted an interaction between technique and equipment, with the pull maneuver performed without equipment producing more anteroposterior motion than the push maneuver in any of the equipment conditions.
We saw a slight difference in the motion measured during the 2 prone logrolling techniques tested, with less lateral-bending and anteroposterior motion produced with the logroll push than the pull technique. Therefore, we recommend adopting the push technique as the preferred spine-boarding maneuver when a patient is found in the prone position. Researchers should continue to seek improved methods for performing prone spine-board transfers to further decrease the motion produced in the unstable spine.
有两种方法被提议用于将俯卧位的个体转移到脊柱板上。研究人员不知道哪种方法提供最佳的固定效果。
确定在两种俯卧翻身技术中不稳定颈椎产生的运动是否存在差异,并评估设备对俯卧翻身过程中产生的运动的影响。
交叉研究。
实验室。
对 5 具新鲜尸体(3 名男性,2 名女性;年龄=83±8 岁,体重=61.2±14.1kg)进行了测试。
在有不稳定颈椎的尸体上进行两种俯卧翻身协议(拉、推)时,记录了三维运动。评估了三种设备条件:橄榄球肩垫和头盔、刚性颈椎固定器和无设备。计算了每种测试条件的平均运动范围。
在侧屈角度方向上,拉技术比推技术产生的运动多 16%(F1,4=19.922,P=0.01,η2=0.833)。尽管仅使用固定器的条件,以及在较小程度上使用橄榄球肩垫和头盔的条件,与无设备条件相比,表现出提供更高稳定性的趋势,但我们发现设备条件之间没有差异。我们注意到技术和设备之间存在相互作用,在没有任何设备的情况下进行的拉操作比在任何设备条件下进行的推操作产生更多的前后运动。
我们在测试的两种俯卧翻身技术中观察到运动测量值略有差异,与推技术相比,拉技术产生的侧屈和前后运动较少。因此,我们建议在发现患者处于俯卧位时,采用推技术作为首选脊柱板固定操作。研究人员应继续寻求改进的俯卧脊柱板转移方法,以进一步减少不稳定脊柱产生的运动。