Safety of Blunt Spinal Injury Patient on Hospital Gurney

Objectives. Restraint of patients on a spine board has been used in the past to prevent further spinal cord injury after rescue of patients from the scene of an accident. Removal from the spine board is a routine protocol in many hospitals once the patient has been cleared of spinal injury. However, the benefit of using a spine board, in light-weight motorcycle-related accident victims, has never been studied before.

Materials and methods. A retrospective observational study enrolled patients who had sustained motorcycle-related acci-dents and were brought to our emergency department (ED). Patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale score lower than 15 and those who died at the ED, or had incomplete data, were excluded. The diagnosis of spinal injury was based upon clinical evaluation and was confirmed by computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging or X-ray reports, as interpreted by a qualified radiologist. A neurological examination was performed, according to the Standard Neurological Classification of Spinal Cord Injury, directly after arrival and again before leaving the ED. 

Results. During the study period, from January 2007 to December 2010, 91 patients with spinal injuries who met the inclusi-on criteria, consisting of 35 male and 56 female patients with a mean age of 45.44±18.12 years, were enrolled in our study. The scores of the motor and sensory neurological exams did not show any significant change during the ED stay after being placed in a gurney without a spine board (p=0.432). 

Conclusions. Removal of the spine board and placement on a hospital gurney sponge is safe in alert patients whose primary examination is completed at the ED.

motorcycle accident, spi-nal injury, spine board, emergency department  

1. De Lorenzo RA. A review of spinal immobilization techniques. J Emerg Med 1996 Sep-Oct;14(5):603-13.

2. Kosashvili Y, Backstein D, Ziv YB, Safir O, Blumenfeld A, Mirovsky Y. A biomechanical comparison between the thoracolumbosacral surface contact area (SCA) of a standard backboard with other rigid immobilization surfaces. J Trauma 2009 Jan;66(1):191-4.

3. Burton JH, Dunn MG, Harmon NR, Hermanson TA, Bradshaw JR. A statewide, prehospital emergency medical service selective patient spine immobilization protocol. J Trauma 2006 Jul;61(1):161-7.

4. Edlich RF, Mason SS, Vissers RJ, Gubler KD, Thacker JG, Pharr P, et al. Revolutionary advances in enhancing patient comfort on patients transported on a backboard. Am J Emerg Med 2011 Feb;29(2):181-6.

5. Chan D, Goldberg RM, Mason J, Chan L. Backboard versus mattress splint immobilization: a comparison of symptoms generated. J Emerg Med 1996 May-Jun;14(3):293-8.

6. Lerner EB, Moscati R. Duration of patient immobilization in the ED. Am J Emerg Med 2000 Jan;18(1):28-30.

7. Hauswald M, Braude D. Spinal immobilization in trauma patients: is it really necessary? Curr Opin Crit Care 2002 Dec;8(6):566-70.

8. Hauswald M, Ong G, Tandberg D, Omar Z. Out-of-hospital Spinal Immobilization: Its Effect on Neurologic Injury. Acad Emerg Med 1998;5(3):214-9.

9. Hauswald M, McNally T. Confusing extrication with immobilization: the inappropriate use of hard spine boards for interhospital transfers. Air Med J 2000 Oct-Dec;19(4):126-7.

10. Cordell WH, Hollingsworth JC, Olinger ML, Stroman SJ, Nelson DR. Pain and tissue-interface pressures during spine-board immobilization. Ann Emerg Med 1995 Jul;26(1):31-6.

11. Kwan I, Bunn F. Effects of prehospital spinal immobilization: a systematic review of randomized trials on healthy subjects. Prehosp Disaster Med 2005 Jan-Feb;20(1):47-53.

12. Horodyski M, Conrad BP, Del Rossi G, DiPaola CP, Rechtine GR 2nd. Removing a patient from the spine board: is the lift and slide safer than the log roll? J Trauma 2011 May;70(5):1282-5; discussion 5.

13. Del Rossi G, Horodyski M, Heffernan TP, Powers ME, Siders R, Brunt D, et al. Spine-board transfer techniques and the unstable cervical spine. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2004 Apr 1;29(7):E134-8.

14. Hemmes B, Poeze M, Brink PR. Reduced tissue-interface pressure and increased comfort on a newly developed soft-layered long spine-board. J Trauma 2010 Mar;68(3):593-8.

15. Keller BP, Lubbert PH, Keller E, Leenen LP. Tissue-interface pressures on three different support-surfaces for trauma patients. Injury 2005 Aug;36(8):946-8.

16. Luscombe MD, Williams JL. Comparison of a long spinal board and vacuum mattress for spinal immobilisation. Emerg Med J 2003 Sep;20(5):476-8.

17. Johnson DR, Hauswald M, Stockhoff C. Comparison of a vacuum splint device to a rigid backboard for spinal immobilization. Am J Emerg Med 1996 Jul;14(4):369-72.

18. Hauswald M, Hsu M, Stockoff C. Maximizing comfort and minimizing ischemia: a comparison of four methods of spinal immobilization. Prehosp Emerg Care 2000 Jul-Sep;4(3):250-2.