Johnson D R, Hauswald M, Stockhoff C
New Mexico EMS Academy, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque 87106, USA.
Am J Emerg Med. 1996 Jul;14(4):369-72. doi: 10.1016/S0735-6757(96)90051-0.
In this study, comparison of a vacuum splint device to a rigid backboard was made with respect to comfort, speed of application, and degree of immobilization. The study was a prospective, nonblinded comparative study conducted at a statewide emergency medical services (EMS) training facility and included a convenience sample of emergency medical technician (EMT) and paramedic students. The vacuum splint was judged to be significantly more comfortable on a 10-point scale than the rigid backboard after subjects had been lying on each device for 30 minutes (P < .001). It was also faster to apply: 131.6 +/- 24.3 seconds versus 154.6 +/- 22.2 seconds (P < .001). Various measures of immobilization were similar for the two devices. The vacuum splint provided better Immobilization of the torso and less slippage on a gradual lateral tilt. The rigid backboard with head blocks was slightly better at immobilizing the head. Vacuum splints offer a significant improvement in comfort over a traditional backboard for the patient with possible spinal injury. They can be applied in reasonable time frames and provide a similar degree of immobilization when compared to a standard rigid backboard.
在本研究中，对真空夹板装置和硬质背板在舒适度、应用速度和固定程度方面进行了比较。该研究是一项在全州紧急医疗服务（EMS）培训设施进行的前瞻性、非盲法比较研究，纳入了急救医疗技术员（EMT）和护理人员学生的便利样本。在受试者分别躺在每种装置上30分钟后，在10分制量表上，真空夹板被判定比硬质背板明显更舒适（P < .001）。应用真空夹板也更快：分别为131.6 +/- 24.3秒和154.6 +/- 22.2秒（P < .001）。两种装置的各种固定措施相似。真空夹板能更好地固定躯干，在逐渐侧倾时滑动较少。带有头部固定装置的硬质背板在固定头部方面略胜一筹。对于可能有脊柱损伤的患者，真空夹板在舒适度方面比传统背板有显著改善。与标准硬质背板相比，它们可以在合理的时间内应用，并提供相似程度的固定。
