Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Injury. 1994 Apr;25(3):179-80.

A comparison of the spinal board and the vacuum stretcher, spinal stability and interface pressure.

Author information

1
Noble's Hospital, Isle of Man, UK.

Abstract

The interface pressures were measured between the sacrum, mid-lumbar spine and various support surfaces. Thirty healthy male volunteers were recruited. The spinal board, padded spinal board and vacuum stretcher were the support surfaces evaluated. We found high and potentially ischaemic pressures between the sacrum and the spinal board interface (mean 147.3 mmHg). This was reduced in the padded board (115.5 mmHg) but dramatically reduced with the vacuum stretcher (36.7 mmHg). It was also noted that no support was given to the normal lumbar lordosis by the spinal board (padded and unpadded), but support was given by the vacuum stretcher. This raises the question of how stable is an unstable spinal injury on a flat supporting surface.

PMID:
8168891
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Elsevier Science
    Loading ...
    Support Center