Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Ann Emerg Med. 1992 Oct;21(10):1185-8.

Emergency cervical-spine immobilization.

Author information

  • 1Regional Spinal Cord Injury Care System of Southern California, Rancho Los Amigos Medical Center, Downey.

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE:

To determine the effectiveness of a cervical-spine immobilization using a rigid cervical extrication collar and an Ammerman halo orthosis with and without spine boards.

DESIGN:

A mixed model multivariate design with one within factor (device type) and one between factor (spine board application).

SETTING:

Radiology suite.

TYPE OF PARTICIPANTS:

Twenty normal men with a mean age of 29.6.

INTERVENTIONS:

Unrestrained cervical motion was compared with motion in a cervical extrication collar and an Ammerman halo orthosis with and without a spine board.

MEASUREMENTS:

Photographic measurement of head and neck motion during maximal flexion-extension, lateral bending, and rotation. Radiologic measurement of maximal intervertebral flexion-extension.

MAIN RESULTS:

Both cervical extrication collar and Ammerman halo orthosis significantly reduced motion in all planes (P less than .001) with the Ammerman halo orthosis reducing these motions significantly more (P less than .001). With the use of a spine board these motions were restricted even more (P less than .001). The Ammerman halo orthosis with a spine board provided the greatest immobilization, equivalent to that provided by an halo-vest.

CONCLUSION:

A rigid cervical collar and a spine board provide significantly better immobilization than the collar alone. Further immobilization is provided by an Ammerman halo orthosis.

PMID:
1416294
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk