Elsevier

Air Medical Journal

Volume 19, Issue 4, October–December 2000, Pages 126-127
Air Medical Journal

Original research
Confusing extrication with immobilization: The inappropriate use of hard spine boards for interhospital transfers

https://doi.org/10.1016/S1067-991X(00)90001-4Get rights and content

Abstract

Introduction: To determine if air medical interhospital transport of patients with spinal injuries is done with techniques that minimize ischemic skin damage

Methods: A formal telephone survey instrument was given to all U.S. flight services accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Transport Systems (CAMTS).

Results: Thirty-seven active services were listed by CAMTS; the author's service was excluded from the survey. One service did only scene responses; one was unreachable by phone; four were unwilling to complete the form, leaving 30 services for evaluation. Twenty-nine services used metal, plywood, or plastic “spine” boards for immobilization during interhospital transport. Eight services padded boards with blankets or cloth for patients immobilized for “extended periods.” Eighteen services routinely reimmobilized all major trauma patients even if cleared by the sending physician, and four others reimmobilized patients not “cleared” by a radiologist. No service moved patients with known spinal injuries to softer, more conforming devices before transport. Only three services followed patients for complications throughout hospitalization. Two services reported cases of skin breakdown thought to be a result of prolonged immobilization.

Conclusion: Air medical services often transport patients several hours after injury. Patients, particularly those unable to move because of their injuries, medication, or paralysis, are at risk for ischemic necroses of their skin. Decubitus ulcers are a major cause of morbidity and mortality, and preventing ulcers requires a very soft, conforming surface. Despite these facts, the highly select services surveyed continue to use hard, slippery boards designed for extrication at trauma scenes to immobilize patients for transport.

References (6)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (13)

  • An explorative, biomechanical analysis of spine motion during out-of-hospital extrication procedures

    2020, Injury
    Citation Excerpt :

    The overall motionscore sum was 724. The immobilization techniques and extrication procedures for injured patients are much-debated topics and the reason for numerous deliberations on the topic [1,6,7,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26]. However, current, widely accepted guidelines on prehospital trauma management do not give detailed recommendations about extrication procedures [3,4].

  • Prehospital analgesia: Multimodal considerations

    2013, British Journal of Anaesthesia
  • Prehospital Trauma Analgesia

    2008, Journal of Emergency Medicine
    Citation Excerpt :

    Splinting is an important part of reducing pain from fractures. A rigid backboard may be both uncomfortable and unnecessary; avoiding backboards has been identified as an area for significant improvement in both comfort and safety (because prolonged immobilization on the rigid board incurs risk of pressure sores) (61). Other non-pharmacologic approaches utilize innovative pain control techniques such as acupressure and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation.

  • Diffusion of Medical Progress: Early Spinal Immobilization in the Emergency Department

    2007, Academic Emergency Medicine
    Citation Excerpt :

    In the seven EDs sampled twice, the responses were identical both times. Patients with potential spine injuries generally arrive in the ED on hard boards designed to allow easy extrication from the crash site.6 Patients rapidly develop tissue ischemia in areas in contact with the board,7,8 and ischemic pain becomes intolerable within minutes.9–11

  • Transport of Patients with Spinal Injuries

    2017, Aeromedical transportation: A clinical Guide, 2nd edition
View all citing articles on Scopus

Reprint no. 74/1/110126

View full text