Cervical spine motion during football equipment-removal protocols: a challenge to the all-or-nothing endeavor.

CONTEXT

The National Athletic Trainers' Association position statement on acute management of the cervical spine-injured athlete recommended the all-or-nothing endeavor, which involves removing or not removing both helmet and shoulder pads, from equipment-laden American football and ice hockey athletes. However, in supporting research, investigators have not considered alternative protocols.

OBJECTIVE

To measure cervical spine movement (head relative to sternum) produced when certified athletic trainers (ATs) use the all-or-nothing endeavor and to compare these findings with the movement produced using an alternative pack-and-fill protocol, which involves packing the area under and around the cervical neck and head with rolled towels.

DESIGN

Crossover study.

SETTING

Movement analysis laboratory.

PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS

Eight male collegiate football players (age = 21.4 ± 1.4 years; height = 1.87 ± 0.02 m; mass = 103.6 ± 12.5 kg).

INTERVENTION(S): Four ATs removed equipment under 4 conditions: removal of helmet only followed by placing the head on the ground (H), removal of the helmet only followed by pack-and-fill (HP), removal of the helmet and shoulder pads followed by placing the head on the ground (HS), and removal of the helmet and shoulder pads followed by pack-and-fill (HSP). Motion capture was used to track the movement of the head with respect to the sternum during equipment removal.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): We measured head movement relative to sternum movement (translations and rotations). We used 4 × 4 analyses of variance with repeated measures to compare discrete motion variables (changes in position and total excursions) among protocols and ATs.

RESULTS

Protocol HP resulted in a 0.1 ± 0.6 cm rise in head position compared with a 1.4 ± 0.3 cm drop with protocol HS (P < .001). Protocol HP produced 4.9° less total angular excursion (P < .001) and 2.1 cm less total vertical excursion (P < .001) than protocol HS.

CONCLUSIONS

The pack-and-fill protocol was more effective than shoulder pad removal in minimizing cervical spine movement throughout the equipment-removal process. This study provides evidence for including the pack-and-fill protocol in future treatment recommendations when helmet removal is necessary for on-field care.