Traditional Spinal Immobilization versus Spinal Motion Restriction in Cervical Spine Movement; a Randomized Crossover Trial

• Published in: Archives of academic emergency medicine 2024-01, Vol.12 (1), p.e36-e36
• Main Authors: Nuanprom, Promphet, Yuksen, Chaiyaporn, Tienpratarn, Welawat, Jamkrajang, Parunchaya
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Original Research; prehospital care; spinal board; spinal immobilization; spinal motion restriction; traditional spinal immobilization
• ISSN: 2645-4904
• DOI: 10.22037/aaem.v12i1.2263

Proper cervical spine immobilization is essential to prevent further injury following trauma. This study aimed to compare the cervical range of motion (ROM) and the immobilization time between traditional spinal immobilization (TSI) and spinal motion restriction (SMR). This study was a randomized 2x2 crossover design in healthy volunteers. Participants were randomly assigned by Sequential numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes (SNOSE) with permuted block-of-four randomization to TSI or SMR. We used an inertial measurement unit (IMU) sensor to measure the cervical ROM in three dimensions focusing on flexion-extension, rotation, and lateral bending. The immobilization time was recorded by the investigator. A total of 35 healthy volunteers were enrolled in the study. The SMR method had cervical spine movement lower than the TSI method about 3.18 degrees on ROM in flexion-extension (p < 0.001). The SMR method had cervical spine movement lower than the TSI method about 2.01 degrees on ROM in lateral bending (p = 0.022). The immobilization time for the SMR method was 11.88 seconds longer than for the TSI method (p < 0.001) but not clinically significant. SMR that used scoop stretcher resulted in significantly less cervical spine movement than immobilization with a TSI that used long spinal board. We recommend implementing the SMR protocol for transporting trauma patients, as minimizing cervical motion may enhance patient outcomes.