Cargando…

Maintaining immobilisation devices on trauma patients during CT: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND: To reduce the possibility of secondary deterioration of spinal injuries, it is desirable to maintain the spinal immobilisation that is applied in the prehospital setting throughout computed tomography (CT) scanning. A previous study found that metallic components within the inflation val...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stokkeland, Pål Johan, Andersen, Erlend, Bjørndal, Maria Myhre, Mikalsen, Arne Morten, Aslaksen, Sindre, Hyldmo, Per Kristian
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5569509/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28835284
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-017-0428-3
_version_ 1783259007239061504
author Stokkeland, Pål Johan
Andersen, Erlend
Bjørndal, Maria Myhre
Mikalsen, Arne Morten
Aslaksen, Sindre
Hyldmo, Per Kristian
author_facet Stokkeland, Pål Johan
Andersen, Erlend
Bjørndal, Maria Myhre
Mikalsen, Arne Morten
Aslaksen, Sindre
Hyldmo, Per Kristian
author_sort Stokkeland, Pål Johan
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: To reduce the possibility of secondary deterioration of spinal injuries, it is desirable to maintain the spinal immobilisation that is applied in the prehospital setting throughout computed tomography (CT) scanning. A previous study found that metallic components within the inflation valve of the vacuum mattresses caused CT artefacts. The aim of our study was to investigate the effect of vacuum mattresses with plastic valves on CT artefacts, the radiation dose, and noise compared to a trauma transfer board and the spine boards currently used in our trauma system. METHODS: We scanned an anthropomorphic whole body phantom with different immobilisation devices on a 128-slice CT scanner using the standard polytrauma CT-protocol at our institution. The phantom was scanned without any immobilisation device and with three different vacuum mattresses, two spine boards, and one trauma transfer board. Two radiologists independently assessed the artefacts. Agreement between the two radiologists was measured using the kappa coefficient. The radiation dose and noise were assessed. RESULTS: One spine board produced major artefacts due to its metal components. One of the vacuum mattresses resulted in artefacts that impaired clinical judgement. Otherwise, the artefacts predominantly did not impede clinical judgement and were mainly subtle. One of the vacuum mattresses resulted in no artefacts that affected clinical judgement. The overall inter-rater agreement was substantial (0.86, kappa 0.77). We did not observe any artefacts due to plastic valves. The mean CT radiation dose was slightly higher for two of the devices in the head series than that for the trauma transfer board, used as the standard in our system. Only marginal differences were noted for the other devices and series. Small differences in image noise were found between the devices. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that it is feasible to maintain some vacuum mattresses with plastic valves on trauma patients during CT scanning. The tested mattresses did not result in a considerably increased radiation dose or artefacts that hampered clinical judgement. One of the tested vacuum mattresses produced no artefacts that hampered clinical judgement whatsoever.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5569509
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55695092017-08-29 Maintaining immobilisation devices on trauma patients during CT: a feasibility study Stokkeland, Pål Johan Andersen, Erlend Bjørndal, Maria Myhre Mikalsen, Arne Morten Aslaksen, Sindre Hyldmo, Per Kristian Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Original Research BACKGROUND: To reduce the possibility of secondary deterioration of spinal injuries, it is desirable to maintain the spinal immobilisation that is applied in the prehospital setting throughout computed tomography (CT) scanning. A previous study found that metallic components within the inflation valve of the vacuum mattresses caused CT artefacts. The aim of our study was to investigate the effect of vacuum mattresses with plastic valves on CT artefacts, the radiation dose, and noise compared to a trauma transfer board and the spine boards currently used in our trauma system. METHODS: We scanned an anthropomorphic whole body phantom with different immobilisation devices on a 128-slice CT scanner using the standard polytrauma CT-protocol at our institution. The phantom was scanned without any immobilisation device and with three different vacuum mattresses, two spine boards, and one trauma transfer board. Two radiologists independently assessed the artefacts. Agreement between the two radiologists was measured using the kappa coefficient. The radiation dose and noise were assessed. RESULTS: One spine board produced major artefacts due to its metal components. One of the vacuum mattresses resulted in artefacts that impaired clinical judgement. Otherwise, the artefacts predominantly did not impede clinical judgement and were mainly subtle. One of the vacuum mattresses resulted in no artefacts that affected clinical judgement. The overall inter-rater agreement was substantial (0.86, kappa 0.77). We did not observe any artefacts due to plastic valves. The mean CT radiation dose was slightly higher for two of the devices in the head series than that for the trauma transfer board, used as the standard in our system. Only marginal differences were noted for the other devices and series. Small differences in image noise were found between the devices. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that it is feasible to maintain some vacuum mattresses with plastic valves on trauma patients during CT scanning. The tested mattresses did not result in a considerably increased radiation dose or artefacts that hampered clinical judgement. One of the tested vacuum mattresses produced no artefacts that hampered clinical judgement whatsoever. BioMed Central 2017-08-23 /pmc/articles/PMC5569509/ /pubmed/28835284 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-017-0428-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Original Research
Stokkeland, Pål Johan
Andersen, Erlend
Bjørndal, Maria Myhre
Mikalsen, Arne Morten
Aslaksen, Sindre
Hyldmo, Per Kristian
Maintaining immobilisation devices on trauma patients during CT: a feasibility study
title Maintaining immobilisation devices on trauma patients during CT: a feasibility study
title_full Maintaining immobilisation devices on trauma patients during CT: a feasibility study
title_fullStr Maintaining immobilisation devices on trauma patients during CT: a feasibility study
title_full_unstemmed Maintaining immobilisation devices on trauma patients during CT: a feasibility study
title_short Maintaining immobilisation devices on trauma patients during CT: a feasibility study
title_sort maintaining immobilisation devices on trauma patients during ct: a feasibility study
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5569509/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28835284
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-017-0428-3
work_keys_str_mv AT stokkelandpaljohan maintainingimmobilisationdevicesontraumapatientsduringctafeasibilitystudy
AT andersenerlend maintainingimmobilisationdevicesontraumapatientsduringctafeasibilitystudy
AT bjørndalmariamyhre maintainingimmobilisationdevicesontraumapatientsduringctafeasibilitystudy
AT mikalsenarnemorten maintainingimmobilisationdevicesontraumapatientsduringctafeasibilitystudy
AT aslaksensindre maintainingimmobilisationdevicesontraumapatientsduringctafeasibilitystudy
AT hyldmoperkristian maintainingimmobilisationdevicesontraumapatientsduringctafeasibilitystudy