Hamilton R S, Pons P T
University of California San Diego Medical Center/Mercy Hospital, CA 92103, USA.
J Emerg Med. 1996 Sep-Oct;14(5):553-9. doi: 10.1016/s0736-4679(96)00170-9.
We performed a prospective crossover study to determine the cervical spine immobilization and comfort level of healthy subjects on a full-body vacuum splint in comparison with a standard backboard, with and without cervical spine collars. Twenty-six healthy volunteers were immobilized on a backboard (BB) and a full-body vacuum splint (VS), both with and without a cervical collar (CC). Pre- and post-immobilization cervical spine range-of-motion measurements were made using an electronic digital inclinometer and a standard handheld goniometer. Subjects were also asked to subjectively grade their immobilization and discomfort both overall and in seven specific body regions. No statistically significant difference was found between the VS+CC and the BB+CC for flexion and rotation, although the VS+CC combination provided significantly superior immobilization to the BB+CC for extension and lateral bending. The VS alone, in all cases except extension, provided superior immobilization to the BB alone. A statistically significant difference in subjective perception of immobilization was noted, with the BB being less effective than the other three alternatives and the VS+CC providing the best immobilization. A significant difference in overall comfort and occipital region comfort, favoring the vacuum splint, was found. In conclusion, the vacuum splint is an effective and more comfortable alternative to the background for cervical spine immobilization.
我们进行了一项前瞻性交叉研究，以确定健康受试者在使用全身真空夹板与标准背板时，无论有无颈椎固定器，其颈椎固定情况和舒适度。26名健康志愿者分别被固定在带颈椎固定器（CC）和不带颈椎固定器的背板（BB）及全身真空夹板（VS）上。使用电子数字倾角仪和标准手持式测角仪在固定前后测量颈椎活动范围。受试者还被要求对整体及七个特定身体部位的固定情况和不适感进行主观评分。对于前屈和旋转，VS+CC与BB+CC之间未发现统计学上的显著差异，不过在伸展和侧屈方面，VS+CC组合提供的固定效果明显优于BB+CC。除伸展外，在所有情况下，单独使用VS提供的固定效果均优于单独使用BB。在固定的主观感受方面存在统计学上的显著差异，BB的效果不如其他三种方式，而VS+CC提供了最佳的固定效果。在整体舒适度和枕部舒适度方面发现了显著差异，真空夹板更具优势。总之，对于颈椎固定，真空夹板是一种比背板更有效且更舒适的选择。
