• Sign Up

Use coupon code EXTENDEDHOLIDAY2020 at checkout for 20% off

EMS Immobilization Techniques


EMS Immobilization Techniques

Article Author:
Ron Feller
Article Author:
Molly Furin
Article Author:
Almothenna Alloush
Article Editor:
Crystal Reynolds
Updated:
11/21/2020 4:38:39 PM
For CME on this topic:
EMS Immobilization Techniques CME
PubMed Link:
EMS Immobilization Techniques

Introduction

Emergency medical services (EMS) personnel continue to be the first-line responders in dealing with the majority out of hospital emergencies including trauma situations. The ATLS guidelines ( advanced trauma life support) which have been developed in the eighties continue to be the gold standards in assessing and setting priorities in the management of life-threatening injuries in a time-efficient and logical manner. Immobilization of the spine has been an essential part of the teaching in addition to pelvic binders and splinting of long bone fractures. Different medical types of equipment have been developed to allow effectiveness and ease of application in addition to allowing flexibility and vital access for the management of airway and other procedures. 

The need for spinal immobilization is determined when assessing the scene and patient. Consider spinal immobilization when the mechanism of injury creates a high index of suspicion for head or spinal injury. Altered mental status and neurologic deficit are also indicators that spinal immobilization should be considered.[1][2][3][4]

The traditional ATLS teaching for adequate spinal immobilization of a patient in a major trauma situation is a well fitted hard collar with blocks and tape to secure the cervical spine in addition to a backboard to protect the rest of the spine. other devices currently in use are scoop stretcher and vacuum splint. The Kendrick extrication device allows the protection of the spine with the casualty in a seated position while being rapidly extricated from a vehicle or other situations with limited access to allow a full backboard. This however still requires the EMS to pay attention to limiting the movement of the cervical spine by using in-line mobilization until fitted [5].

The 10 edition of the ATLS guidelines and the consensus statement of the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT), National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP) states that in the situation of penetrating trauma, there is no indication for spinal movement restriction[6] this in keeping with a retrospective study of the American trauma data bank showed a very low number of unstable spinal injuries needing surgery in the context of penetrating trauma. The study further shows that the number needed to treat achieve potential benefit was much higher than the number needed to harm 1032/66. However, in the case of significant blunt trauma the restrictions continue to be indicated in the following situations:

  • Low GCS or evidence of alcohol and drug intoxication
  • Midline tenderness either in the back of the cervical spine
  • Obvious spinal deformity.
  • The presence of other distracting injuries 

The advice for effective restriction continues to be a cervical collar with full-length protection of the spine which is to be removed as soon as possible. This is due to the risk of multilevel injury. However, in the pediatric population, the risk of multi-level injury is low and therefore only cervical spine and not full spinal precautions are indicated ( unless signs or symptoms of other spinal injuries is present)

Rigid collar in a pediatric patient

  • Neck pain
  • Altered limb neurology not explained by limb trauma
  • Muscle spasm of the neck (torticollis)
  • Low GCS 
  • High-risk trauma (e.g., high energy motor vehicle accident, hyperextension neck injury, and significant upper-body injury).

 

Issues of Concern

There is a growing body of evidence and concern that field triaging has lead to the overuse of spinal immobilization methods and that some patients are potentially coming to harm[7][8][9][10]

Potential problems with spinal immobilization:

  • Discomfort and distress for the patient[11]
  • Lengthening the prehospital time with a potential delay of important investigations and treatment in addition to interfering with other interventions[11].
  • Restriction to respiration by the straps in addition to poorer respiratory function in the supine position compared to an upright position. This is especially important in the case of chest trauma either blunt or penetrating[12][13] Difficulty with intubation[14]
  • The case of patients with Ankylosing spondylitis or preexisting spinal deformity where actual harm could be caused by forcing the patient to conform to the predetermined position of a rigid cervical collar and backboard[15].

A new Scandinavian literature review which was carried out to review the available evidence for spinal movement restrictions [16] gives very valuable insight into comparing methods of prehospital spine stabilization with the assessment of the strength of the evidence.

Hard Collar

The hard collar has been used since the mid-1960s as a way of stabilization of the cervical spine with low-quality evidence to support its positive influence on the neurological outcome of cervical spine injury with potential negative effects with a significant rise of intracranial pressure and dysphagia [17]. It suggests as well that an alert cooperative patient, with muscle spasm caused by injury, will unlikely have significant displacement as noted in cadaveric studies trying to study the effect of an injury. The article suggests balancing the risks and benefits of this intervention. The American Association of neurological surgeons however continues to suggest the hard collar as a method for stabilizing the cervical spine in pre-hospital scenario[18]

Hardboard

The original spinal longboard has been used in conjunction with the hard collar, blocks, and straps to achieve immobilization of the spine. There is currently evidence of the potential harm especially pressure sores over the sacrum[19][20] This particularly true in the case of spinal injury with no protective sensation. The soft vacuum mattress offers a more gentle surface which protects from the effects of pressure sores while at the same time offers enough support if extended above the level of the head[16]

Blocks

Blocks have been part of the inline mobilization strategy for stabilization of the spine it seems to be effective when strapping the patient on a spinal board of achieving a degree of immobilization with no added benefit of using the hard collar in conjunction [21]

Vacuum Mattress

When comparing the vacuum mattress with hardboard on their own that mattress offers more control and less movement during application and lifting compared to the hardboard [22]. Taking into consideration the risk of pressure sores the mattress seems to offer a better option for patient transport. 

Clearing the Spine

The NEXUS criteria: an alert person not intoxicated without having any distracting injury has a very low probability of injury in the absence of midline tenderness, neurological deficiency. This seems to be a sensitive screening tool with 99% sensitivity and 99.8% negative predictive value[23]. However, other observational studies have suggested that an alert patient with a cervical spine injury will seek to stabilize his spine and that the presence of distracting injuries (not including the chest) does not affect clinical examination findings of the cervical spine and therefore the spine could be cleared clinically without further imaging[24]. Other studies suggest the same findings for the thoracolumbar spine[25][24]

 

 

 

Clinical Significance

While prehospital spinal immobilization has been performed for decades, current data indicate that not every patient needs to be immobilized. Now the National Association of EMS Physicians and the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma suggest a limited application of spinal immobilization. These latest guidelines indicate that the number of patients who may benefit from immobilization is very small. The committee went on to state that empirical utilization of the spinal backboards during transport should be used with caution as in some cases their potential risks outweigh the benefits. Further, in patients who have sustained penetrating trauma and have no obvious neurological deficit, the use of spinal immobilization is not recommended. The EMS worker must use clinical acumen before deciding to use the spinal board.[26]

Finally, spinal immobilization has been associated with back pain, neck pain, and making it very difficult to perform some procedures including imaging. Spinal immobilization has also been associated with respiratory difficulties, especially when large straps are applied across the chest.

While many EMS organizations have adopted these new guidelines on spinal immobilization, this is not universal. Some EMS systems fear litigation if they do not immobilize patients. Patients who should have spinal immobilization include the following:

  • Blunt trauma
  • Spinal tenderness or pain
  • Patients with an altered level of consciousness
  • Neurological deficits
  • Obvious anatomic deformity of the spine
  • High energy trauma in a patient intoxicated from drugs, alcohol, or a distracting injury.

References

[1] Hostler D,Colburn D,Seitz SR, A comparison of three cervical immobilization devices. Prehospital emergency care : official journal of the National Association of EMS Physicians and the National Association of State EMS Directors. 2009 Apr-Jun;     [PubMed PMID: 19291567]
[2] Joyce SM,Moser CS, Evaluation of a new cervical immobilization/extrication device. Prehospital and disaster medicine. 1992 Jan-Mar;     [PubMed PMID: 10171177]
[3] McCarroll RE,Beadle BM,Fullen D,Balter PA,Followill DS,Stingo FC,Yang J,Court LE, Reproducibility of patient setup in the seated treatment position: A novel treatment chair design. Journal of applied clinical medical physics. 2017 Jan;     [PubMed PMID: 28291911]
[4] Lacey CM,Finkelstein M,Thygeson MV, The impact of positioning on fear during immunizations: supine versus sitting up. Journal of pediatric nursing. 2008 Jun;     [PubMed PMID: 18492548]
[5] Engsberg JR,Standeven JW,Shurtleff TL,Eggars JL,Shafer JS,Naunheim RS, Cervical spine motion during extrication. The Journal of emergency medicine. 2013 Jan     [PubMed PMID: 23079144]
[6] Fischer PE,Perina DG,Delbridge TR,Fallat ME,Salomone JP,Dodd J,Bulger EM,Gestring ML, Spinal Motion Restriction in the Trauma Patient - A Joint Position Statement. Prehospital emergency care : official journal of the National Association of EMS Physicians and the National Association of State EMS Directors. 2018 Nov-Dec     [PubMed PMID: 30091939]
[7] Purvis TA,Carlin B,Driscoll P, The definite risks and questionable benefits of liberal pre-hospital spinal immobilisation. The American journal of emergency medicine. 2017 Jun;     [PubMed PMID: 28169039]
[8] Lerner EB,Billittier AJ 4th,Moscati RM, The effects of neutral positioning with and without padding on spinal immobilization of healthy subjects. Prehospital emergency care : official journal of the National Association of EMS Physicians and the National Association of State EMS Directors. 1998 Apr-Jun;     [PubMed PMID: 9709329]
[9] Hauswald M,Ong G,Tandberg D,Omar Z, Out-of-hospital spinal immobilization: its effect on neurologic injury. Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. 1998 Mar;     [PubMed PMID: 9523928]
[10] Haut ER,Kalish BT,Efron DT,Haider AH,Stevens KA,Kieninger AN,Cornwell EE 3rd,Chang DC, Spine immobilization in penetrating trauma: more harm than good? The Journal of trauma. 2010 Jan;     [PubMed PMID: 20065766]
[11] Freauf M,Puckeridge N, TO BOARD OR NOT TO BOARD: AN EVIDENCE REVIEW OF PREHOSPITAL SPINAL IMMOBILIZATION. JEMS : a journal of emergency medical services. 2015 Nov     [PubMed PMID: 26721114]
[12] Kwan I,Bunn F, Effects of prehospital spinal immobilization: a systematic review of randomized trials on healthy subjects. Prehospital and disaster medicine. 2005 Jan-Feb     [PubMed PMID: 15748015]
[13] Rasal Carnicer M,Juguera Rodríguez L,Vela de Oro N,García Pérez AB,Pérez Alonso N,Pardo Ríos M, Differences in lung function after the use of 2 extrication systems: a randomized crossover trial. Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias. 2018 Abr     [PubMed PMID: 29547234]
[14] Nemunaitis G,Roach MJ,Hefzy MS,Mejia M, Redesign of a spine board: Proof of concept evaluation. Assistive technology : the official journal of RESNA. 2016 Fall     [PubMed PMID: 26852872]
[15] Kornhall DK,Jørgensen JJ,Brommeland T,Hyldmo PK,Asbjørnsen H,Dolven T,Hansen T,Jeppesen E, The Norwegian guidelines for the prehospital management of adult trauma patients with potential spinal injury. Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine. 2017 Jan 5     [PubMed PMID: 28057029]
[16] Maschmann C,Jeppesen E,Rubin MA,Barfod C, New clinical guidelines on the spinal stabilisation of adult trauma patients - consensus and evidence based. Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine. 2019 Aug 19     [PubMed PMID: 31426850]
[17] Hood N,Considine J, Spinal immobilisaton in pre-hospital and emergency care: A systematic review of the literature. Australasian emergency nursing journal : AENJ. 2015 Aug     [PubMed PMID: 26051883]
[18]     [PubMed PMID: 23417176]
[19] Main PW,Lovell ME, A review of seven support surfaces with emphasis on their protection of the spinally injured. Journal of accident & emergency medicine. 1996 Jan     [PubMed PMID: 8821224]
[20] KOSIAK M, Etiology of decubitus ulcers. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation. 1961 Jan     [PubMed PMID: 13753341]
[21] Holla M, Value of a rigid collar in addition to head blocks: a proof of principle study. Emergency medicine journal : EMJ. 2012 Feb     [PubMed PMID: 21335583]
[22] Prasarn ML,Hyldmo PK,Zdziarski LA,Loewy E,Dubose D,Horodyski M,Rechtine GR, Comparison of the Vacuum Mattress versus the Spine Board Alone for Immobilization of the Cervical Spine Injured Patient: A Biomechanical Cadaveric Study. Spine. 2017 Dec 15     [PubMed PMID: 28591075]
[23] Hoffman JR,Mower WR,Wolfson AB,Todd KH,Zucker MI, Validity of a set of clinical criteria to rule out injury to the cervical spine in patients with blunt trauma. National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study Group. The New England journal of medicine. 2000 Jul 13     [PubMed PMID: 10891516]
[24] Konstantinidis A,Plurad D,Barmparas G,Inaba K,Lam L,Bukur M,Branco BC,Demetriades D, The presence of nonthoracic distracting injuries does not affect the initial clinical examination of the cervical spine in evaluable blunt trauma patients: a prospective observational study. The Journal of trauma. 2011 Sep     [PubMed PMID: 21248650]
[25]     [PubMed PMID: 26491795]
[26] Shank CD,Walters BC,Hadley MN, Current Topics in the Management of Acute Traumatic Spinal Cord Injury. Neurocritical care. 2018 Apr 12     [PubMed PMID: 29651626]