Steadman Hawkins Clinic of the Carolinas, Greenville Health System, Greenville, SC, USA,
Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2014 Dec;7(4):381-6. doi: 10.1007/s12178-014-9235-x.
The practice of spinal immobilization has existed since the 1960s under the premise that trauma victims with cervical spine injuries may suffer neurologic injury if moved without stabilization consisting of a rigid cervical collar and long spine board. Because of this assumption, it is of particular importance to assess for movement of the cervical spine with and without spinal immobilization. Over time, the on-field management of athletes with a mechanism consistent with spinal cord injury (SCI) has evolved and produced protocols that can be considered standard of care. Attempts to find evidencebased research to verify the necessity of a rigid collar and long spine board as the only option in athletic medicine for suspected SCI is difficult. As changes occur in the Emergency Medical Services standards, there will be opportunities to see how their processes relate to athletes and the rationale for immobilization on the field of play. Going forward, there could very well be a significant change in the approach to and management of the athlete down on the field of play with a suspected spinal cord injury.
脊柱固定的做法自 20 世纪 60 年代以来就存在，前提是颈椎受伤的创伤患者，如果在没有使用刚性颈圈和长脊柱板进行稳定的情况下移动，可能会遭受神经损伤。由于这一假设，评估颈椎在有和没有脊柱固定的情况下的运动情况尤为重要。随着时间的推移，对符合脊髓损伤 (SCI) 机制的运动员的现场管理已经发展并制定了可以被认为是标准护理的方案。试图找到基于证据的研究来验证刚性颈圈和长脊柱板作为运动医学中唯一选择的必要性是困难的。随着紧急医疗服务标准的变化，我们将有机会了解其流程与运动员的关系以及在比赛场上进行固定的基本原理。展望未来，在对疑似脊髓损伤的运动员进行现场处理和管理方面，很可能会发生重大变化。
