Spinal Motion Restriction
Erin E. Kane, Sabina A. Braithwaite
Abstract
Erin E. Kane, Sabina A. Braithwaite
Abstract
Spinal immobilization with a backboard and cervical collar for patients with suspected spine injury became common practice in the 1960s. This decision was driven by the increase in automobile accidents as automobiles became more commonplace, and a position paper was published by the American Academy of Orthopedics endorsing its use without evidence that spinal immobilization improved outcomes. Spinal immobilization included the use of a cervical collar and a rigid backboard with secured straps. Recent studies assessing the validity of spinal immobilization raised concern for harm instead of better outcomes). In the early 2010s, the common practice moved to spinal motion restriction to replace the common use of spinal immobilization. In 2019, a retrospective observational study from the University of Arizona showed no significant increase in spinal cord injury after the transition from a spinal immobilization protocol to one of spinal motion restriction. Indications A joint position paper between the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT), American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), and the National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP) in 2018 outlined the uniform recommendations for spinal motion restriction in the care of trauma patients. The indications for patients who have experienced blunt trauma are summarized in Table 1. Patients with none of the identified indications should not undergo spinal motion restriction due to the potential for harm by being placed in a cervical collar or backboard.In the pediatric population, there is no indication based on age alone for the use of spinal motion restriction. Young patients can present a challenge to providers due to communication issues. A retrospective review completed by Hale et al. of 2,972 pre-elementary trauma patients showed that CT scans were not necessary for patients less than five years old without clinical findings on the exam. In addition to the criteria listed in table 1, torticollis is considered an indication of spinal motion restriction (particularly cervical collar placement) in pediatric patients.
A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Spinal immobilization with a backboard and cervical collar for patients with suspected spine injury became common practice in the 1960s. This decision was driven by the increase in automobile accidents as automobiles became more commonplace, and a position paper was published by the American Academy of Orthopedics endorsing its use without evidence that spinal immobilization improved outcomes. Spinal immobilization included the use of a cervical collar and a rigid backboard with secured straps. Recent studies assessing the validity of spinal immobilization raised concern for harm instead of better outcomes). In the early 2010s, the common practice moved to spinal motion restriction to replace the common use of spinal immobilization. In 2019, a retrospective observational study from the University of Arizona showed no significant increase in spinal cord injury after the transition from a spinal immobilization protocol to one of spinal motion restriction. Indications A joint position paper between the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma (ACS-COT), American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP), and the National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP) in 2018 outlined the uniform recommendations for spinal motion restriction in the care of trauma patients. The indications for patients who have experienced blunt trauma are summarized in Table 1. Patients with none of the identified indications should not undergo spinal motion restriction due to the potential for harm by being placed in a cervical collar or backboard.In the pediatric population, there is no indication based on age alone for the use of spinal motion restriction. Young patients can present a challenge to providers due to communication issues. A retrospective review completed by Hale et al. of 2,972 pre-elementary trauma patients showed that CT scans were not necessary for patients less than five years old without clinical findings on the exam. In addition to the criteria listed in table 1, torticollis is considered an indication of spinal motion restriction (particularly cervical collar placement) in pediatric patients.
Key concepts: Medicine, Spinal injury, Spinal cord injury, Cervical collar, Spinal column, Whiplash, Spinal cord, Population