
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


The following is a short list of salient points related to the podcast and the corresponding source literature. As always, read the source literature and critically appraise it for yourself. Take none of the following as a substitution for local protocol or procedure.
2018 NAEMSP Spinal Immobilization paper
Securing a patient to the stretcher mattress significantly reduces lateral motion:
C-Collar limits visible external motion in the intact spine, but not internal motion in the unstable injured spine:
C-Collar increases ICP:
C-Collar causes distraction of unstable C-spine:
Spinal immobilization negatively impacts the physical exam:
Even Manual In Line Stabilization alone increased difficulty during intubation and increases forces applied to the neck:
Spinal immobilization makes it harder to breath and decreases forced expiratory volume:
“...produce a significantly restrictive effect on pulmonary function in the healthy, nonsmoking man.”
Prehospital providers can effectively apply selective immobilization criteria without causing harm:
Out of 32,000 trauma encounters, a prehospital clearance protocol resulted in ONE patient with an unstable injury that was not immobilized. This patient injured her back one week prior, required fixation, but had no neurological injury:
Ambulatory patients self extricating with a cervical collar results in less cervical spine motion than with the use of a backboard:
Lift and slide technique is superior to log roll:
Despite there not being any randomized control trials evaluating spinal immobilization, patients transferred to hospitals immobilized have more disability than those transported without immobilization:
“Mechanism of injury does not affect the ability of clinical criteria to predict spinal injury”
Spinal immobilization in penetrating trauma is associated with an increased risk of death:
“The number needed to treat with spine immobilization to potentially benefit one patient was 1,032. The number needed to harm with spine immobilization to potentially contribute to one death was 66.”
Use of LSB can cause sufficient pressure to create pressure ulcers in a short period of time:
The natural progression of some C-spine injuries is to get worse, sometimes because we force them into immobilization devices, sometimes because of hypotension, vascular injury, or hypoxia, but surprisingly not because of EMS providers…
Reports of asymptomatic but clinically important spine injuries are, at best, dubious:
By Curbside to BedsideThe following is a short list of salient points related to the podcast and the corresponding source literature. As always, read the source literature and critically appraise it for yourself. Take none of the following as a substitution for local protocol or procedure.
2018 NAEMSP Spinal Immobilization paper
Securing a patient to the stretcher mattress significantly reduces lateral motion:
C-Collar limits visible external motion in the intact spine, but not internal motion in the unstable injured spine:
C-Collar increases ICP:
C-Collar causes distraction of unstable C-spine:
Spinal immobilization negatively impacts the physical exam:
Even Manual In Line Stabilization alone increased difficulty during intubation and increases forces applied to the neck:
Spinal immobilization makes it harder to breath and decreases forced expiratory volume:
“...produce a significantly restrictive effect on pulmonary function in the healthy, nonsmoking man.”
Prehospital providers can effectively apply selective immobilization criteria without causing harm:
Out of 32,000 trauma encounters, a prehospital clearance protocol resulted in ONE patient with an unstable injury that was not immobilized. This patient injured her back one week prior, required fixation, but had no neurological injury:
Ambulatory patients self extricating with a cervical collar results in less cervical spine motion than with the use of a backboard:
Lift and slide technique is superior to log roll:
Despite there not being any randomized control trials evaluating spinal immobilization, patients transferred to hospitals immobilized have more disability than those transported without immobilization:
“Mechanism of injury does not affect the ability of clinical criteria to predict spinal injury”
Spinal immobilization in penetrating trauma is associated with an increased risk of death:
“The number needed to treat with spine immobilization to potentially benefit one patient was 1,032. The number needed to harm with spine immobilization to potentially contribute to one death was 66.”
Use of LSB can cause sufficient pressure to create pressure ulcers in a short period of time:
The natural progression of some C-spine injuries is to get worse, sometimes because we force them into immobilization devices, sometimes because of hypotension, vascular injury, or hypoxia, but surprisingly not because of EMS providers…
Reports of asymptomatic but clinically important spine injuries are, at best, dubious: