Dewayne Dubose

Total motion generated in the unstable cervical spine during management of the typical trauma patient: a comparison of methods in a cadaver model.

Study Design. Biomechanical cadaveric study. Objective. We sought to analyze the amount of motion generated in the unstable cervical spine during various maneuvers and transfers that a trauma patient would typically be subjected to prior to definitive fixation, using 2 different protocols. Summary of Background Data. From the time of injury until the spine is adequately stabilized in the operating room, every step in management of the spine-injured patient can result in secondary injury to the spinal cord. Methods. The amount of angular motion between C5 and C6, after a surgically created unstable injury, was measured using an electromagnetic motion analysis device (Polhemus Inc., Colchester, VT). A total sequence of maneuvers and transfers was then performed that a patient would be expected to go through from the time of injury until surgical fixation. This included spine board placement and removal, bed transfers, lateral therapy, and turning the patient prone onto the operating table. During each of these, we performed what has been shown to be the best and commonly used (log-roll) techniques. Results. During bed transfers and the turn prone for surgery, there was statistically more angular motion in each plane for traditional transfer with the spine board and manually turning the patient prone as commonly done (P < 0.01). During spine board placement, there was more motion in all 3 planes with log-rolling, and this reached statistical significance for axial rotation (P = 0.015) and lateral bending (P = 0.004). There was more motion during board removal with log-rolling in all 3 planes. This was statistically significant for lateral bending (P = 0.009) and approached significance in flexion-extension (P = 0.058) and axial rotation (P = 0.058). During lateral therapy, there was statistically more motion in flexion-extension and lateral bending with the manual log-roll technique (P < 0.001). The total motion was decreased by more than 50% in each plane when using an alternative to log-roll techniques during the total sequence (P < 0.006). Conclusion. We have demonstrated the total angular motion incurred to the unstable cervical spine as experienced by the typical trauma patient from the field to stabilization in the operating room using the best compared with the most commonly used techniques. As previously reported, using log-roll techniques consistently results in unwanted motion at the injured spinal segment.

Comparison of external fixation versus the trauma pelvic orthotic device on unstable pelvic injuries: A cadaveric study of stability

BACKGROUND Most institutions treating pelvic fractures use some method of acute mechanical stabilization. This typically involves use of pelvic binders or circumferential sheeting, and/or external fixation. The comparative value of these different modalities is controversial. We hypothesized that an external fixator would provide more stability to an unstable pelvic injury than a commercially available binder device (trauma pelvic orthotic device [T-POD]). METHODS Unstable pelvic injuries (Tile C) were surgically created in five fresh whole human cadavers. Electromagnetic sensors were placed on the same position of each hemipelvis. The amount of angular motion during testing was measured using a Fastrak, three-dimensional, electromagnetic motion analysis device. Maximum displacements were recorded during application of the stabilizing devices, bed transfer, logrolling, and head-of-bed elevation. External fixation frames were constructed by placing two 5.0-mm half pins into the iliac crest and then connected them with a 10-mm curved bar. The T-POD device was placed at the level of the greater trochanters as per manufacturer’s recommendations. RESULTS While logrolling the patient and performing bed transfers, the T-POD conferred more stability in all planes of motion, although this did not reach statistical significance. During elevation of the head of the bed, the T-POD allowed less motion in the sagittal and coronal planes but permitted equivalent motion in axial rotation. These differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION There were no significant differences in stability conferred by an external fixator or a T-POD for unstable pelvic injuries. We advocate acute, temporary stabilization of pelvic injuries with a binder device and early conversion to internal fixation when the patient’s medical condition allows.

Total motion generated in the unstable thoracolumbar spine during management of the typical trauma patient: A comparison of methods in a cadaver model - Laboratory investigation

OBJECT The proper prehospital and inpatient management of patients with unstable spinal injuries is critical for prevention of secondary neurological compromise. The authors sought to analyze the amount of motion generated in the unstable thoracolumbar spine during various maneuvers and transfers that a trauma patient would typically be subjected to prior to definitive fixation. METHODS Five fresh cadavers with surgically created unstable L-1 burst fractures were tested. The amount of angular motion between the T-12 and L-2 vertebral segments was measured using a 3D electromagnetic motion analysis device. A complete sequence of maneuvers and transfers was then performed that a patient would be expected to go through from the time of injury until surgical fixation. These maneuvers and transfers included spine board placement and removal, bed transfers, lateral therapy, and turning the patient prone onto the operating table. During each of these, the authors performed what they believed to be the most commonly used versus the best techniques for preventing undesirable motion at the injury level. RESULTS When placing a spine board there was more motion in all 3 planes with the log-roll technique, and this difference reached statistical significance for axial rotation (p = 0.018) and lateral bending (p = 0.003). Using logrolling for spine board removal resulted in increased motion again, and this was statistically significant for flexion-extension (p = 0.014). During the bed transfer and lateral therapy, the log-roll technique resulted in more motion in all 3 planes (p ≤ 0.05). When turning the cadavers prone for surgery there was statistically more angular motion in each plane for manually turning the patient versus the Jackson table turn (p ≤ 0.01). The total motion was decreased by almost 50% in each plane when using an alternative to the log-roll techniques during the complete sequence (p ≤ 0.007). CONCLUSIONS Although it is unknown how much motion in the unstable spine is necessary to cause secondary neurological injury, the accepted tenet is to minimize motion as much as possible. This study has demonstrated the angular motion incurred by the unstable thoracolumbar spine as experienced by the typical trauma patient from the field to positioning in the operating room using the best and most commonly used techniques. As previously reported, using the log-roll technique consistently results in unwanted motion at the injured spinal segment.

Motion Produced in the Unstable Cervical Spine by the HAINES and Lateral Recovery Positions

Abstract Study objective. To compare the amount of segmental vertebral motion produced with the lateral recovery position and the HAINES technique when performed on cadavers with destabilized cervical spines. Methods. The cervical spines of 10 cadavers were surgically destabilized at the C5–C6 vertebral segment. Sensors from an electromagnetic tracking device were affixed to the vertebrae in question to monitor the amount of anterior/posterior, medial/lateral, and distraction/compression linear motion produced during the application of the two study techniques. Results. The statistical analysis of linear motion data did not reveal any significant differences between the two recovery positions. Conclusion. At this time, no single version of the recovery position can be endorsed for the spine-injured trauma patient. More research is needed to fully ascertain the safety of commonly used recovery positions.

Safety of the lateral trauma position in cervical spine injuries: a cadaver model study

Endotracheal intubation is not always an option for unconscious trauma patients. Prehospital personnel are then faced with the dilemma of maintaining an adequate airway without risking deleterious movement of a potentially unstable cervical spine. To address these two concerns various alternatives to the classical recovery position have been developed. This study aims to determine the amount of motion induced by the recovery position, two versions of the HAINES (High Arm IN Endangered Spine) position, and the novel lateral trauma position (LTP).

Learning from the dead: improving safety while placing unconscious trauma patients in various lateral positions

Background The unconscious trauma patient with a possible unstable spinal injury constitutes a clinical challenge. To protect the unintubated airway, some guidelines [1,2] recommend that the patient be turned into a lateral position, e.g. the Recovery Position (RP) [1] or the Lateral Trauma Position (LTP) [2]. Other lateral positions have also been proposed, as the HAINES position [3] and variations thereof. However, moving the patient may cause secondary neurological injury. The aim of this study was to explore how much motion lateral position techniques produce in an unstable cervical spine injury.

Comparison of the Vacuum Mattress versus the Spine Board Alone for Immobilization of the Cervical Spine Injured Patient: A Biomechanical Cadaveric Study

Study Design. A biomechanical cadaveric study. Objective. We sought to determine the amount of motion generated in an unstable cervical spine fracture with use of the vacuum mattress versus the spine board alone. Our hypothesis is that the vacuum mattress will better immobilize an unstable cervical fracture. Summary of Background Data. Trauma patients in the United States are immobilized on a rigid spine board, whereas in many other places, vacuum mattresses are used with the proposed advantages of improved comfort and better immobilization of the spine. Methods. Unstable subaxial cervical injuries were surgically created in five fresh whole human cadavers. The amount of motion at the injured motion segment during testing was measured using a Fastrak, three-dimensional, electromagnetic motion analysis device (Polhemus Inc.). The measurements recorded in this investigation included maximum displacements during application and removal of the device, while tilting to 90°, during a bed transfer, and a lift onto a gurney. Linear and angular displacements were compared using the Generalized Linear Model analysis of variance for repeated measures for each of the six dependent variables (three planes of angulations and three axes of displacement). Results. There was more motion in all six planes of motion during the application process with use of the spine board alone, and this was statistically significant for axial rotation (P = 0.011), axial distraction (P = 0.035), medial-lateral translation (P = 0.027), and anteroposterior translation (P = 0.026). During tilting, there was more motion with just the spine board, but this was only statistically significant for anteroposterior translation (P = 0.033). With lifting onto the gurney, there was more motion with the spine board in all planes with statistical significance, except lateral bending. During the removal process, there was more motion with the spine board alone, and this was statistically significant for axial rotation (P = 0.035), lateral bending (P = 0.044), and axial distraction (P = 0.023). Conclusion. There was more motion when using a spine board alone during typical maneuvers performed during early management of the spine injured patient than the vacuum mattress. There may be benefit of use of the vacuum mattress versus the spine board alone in preventing motion at an unstable, subaxial cervical spine injury. Level of Evidence: 2

Is it safe to use a kinetic therapy bed for care of patients with cervical spine injuries

INTRODUCTION Bedrest is often used for temporary management, as well as definitive treatment, for many spinal injuries. Under such circumstances patients cannot remain flat for extended periods due to possible skin breakdown, blood clots, or pulmonary complications. Kinetic therapy beds are often used in the critical care setting, although this is felt to be unsafe for turning patients with spine fractures. We sought to evaluate whether a kinetic therapy bed would cause as much spinal motion at an unstable cervical injury as occurs during manual log-rolling on a standard intensive care unit bed. METHODS Unstable C5-C6 ligamentous injuries were surgically created in 15 fresh, whole cadavers. Sensors were affixed to C5 and C6 posteriorly and electromagnetic motion tracking analysis performed. In all cases a cervical collar was applied by an orthotist after creation of the injury. The amount of angular motion and linear displacement that occurred at this injured level was measured during manual log-rolling and patient turning using a kinetic therapy bed. For statistical analysis, the range of motion for angles about each axis and displacement in each direction was analyzed by multivariate analysis of variance with repeated measures. RESULTS When comparing manual log-rolling and kinetic bed therapy, significantly more angular motion was created by the log-roll manoeuvre in flexion-extension (p=0.03) and lateral bending (p=0.01). There was no significant difference in axial rotation between the two methods (p=0.80). There were no significant differences demonstrated in medial-lateral and anterior-posterior translation. There was almost two times the axial displacement between manual log-rolling and the kinetic therapy bed and this reached statistical significance (p=0.05). CONCLUSION There is less motion at an unstable cervical injury in flexion-extension, lateral bending, and axial displacement when turning a patient using a kinetic therapy bed as opposed to traditional manual log-rolling. It may be preferable to use a kinetic therapy bed rather than manual log-rolling for patients with cervical spine injuries to decrease unwanted spinal motion. In addition, it may be easier and less physically demanding on nursing staff that must regularly turn the patient if manual log-rolling is implemented.