Cargando…
Cervical collars and immobilisation: A South African best practice recommendation
INTRODUCTION: The consequences of spinal injury as a result of trauma can be devastating. Spinal immobilisation using hard trauma boards and rigid cervical collars has traditionally been the standard response to suspected spinal injury patients even though the risk may be extremely low. Recently, ad...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
African Federation for Emergency Medicine
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6234176/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30456099 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2017.01.007 |
_version_ | 1783370651211399168 |
---|---|
author | Stanton, D. Hardcastle, T. Muhlbauer, D. van Zyl, D. |
author_facet | Stanton, D. Hardcastle, T. Muhlbauer, D. van Zyl, D. |
author_sort | Stanton, D. |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: The consequences of spinal injury as a result of trauma can be devastating. Spinal immobilisation using hard trauma boards and rigid cervical collars has traditionally been the standard response to suspected spinal injury patients even though the risk may be extremely low. Recently, adverse events due to the method of immobilisation have challenged the need for motion restriction in all trauma patients. International guidelines have been published for protection of the spine during transport and this article brings those guidelines into the South African context. RECOMMENDATIONS: Trauma patients need to be properly assessed using both an approved list of high and low risk factors, as well as a thorough examination. They should then be managed accordingly. Internationally validated assessment strategies have been developed, and should be used as part of the patient assessment. The method of motion restriction should be selected to suit the situation. The use of a vacuum mattress is the preferable technique, with the use of a trauma board being the least desirable. CONCLUSION: The need for motion restriction in suspected spinal injury should be properly evaluated and appropriate action taken. Not all trauma patients require spinal motion restriction. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6234176 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | African Federation for Emergency Medicine |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-62341762018-11-19 Cervical collars and immobilisation: A South African best practice recommendation Stanton, D. Hardcastle, T. Muhlbauer, D. van Zyl, D. Afr J Emerg Med Commentary INTRODUCTION: The consequences of spinal injury as a result of trauma can be devastating. Spinal immobilisation using hard trauma boards and rigid cervical collars has traditionally been the standard response to suspected spinal injury patients even though the risk may be extremely low. Recently, adverse events due to the method of immobilisation have challenged the need for motion restriction in all trauma patients. International guidelines have been published for protection of the spine during transport and this article brings those guidelines into the South African context. RECOMMENDATIONS: Trauma patients need to be properly assessed using both an approved list of high and low risk factors, as well as a thorough examination. They should then be managed accordingly. Internationally validated assessment strategies have been developed, and should be used as part of the patient assessment. The method of motion restriction should be selected to suit the situation. The use of a vacuum mattress is the preferable technique, with the use of a trauma board being the least desirable. CONCLUSION: The need for motion restriction in suspected spinal injury should be properly evaluated and appropriate action taken. Not all trauma patients require spinal motion restriction. African Federation for Emergency Medicine 2017-03 2017-01-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6234176/ /pubmed/30456099 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2017.01.007 Text en © 2017 African Federation for Emergency Medicine. Publishing services provided by Elsevier B.V. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Commentary Stanton, D. Hardcastle, T. Muhlbauer, D. van Zyl, D. Cervical collars and immobilisation: A South African best practice recommendation |
title | Cervical collars and immobilisation: A South African best practice recommendation |
title_full | Cervical collars and immobilisation: A South African best practice recommendation |
title_fullStr | Cervical collars and immobilisation: A South African best practice recommendation |
title_full_unstemmed | Cervical collars and immobilisation: A South African best practice recommendation |
title_short | Cervical collars and immobilisation: A South African best practice recommendation |
title_sort | cervical collars and immobilisation: a south african best practice recommendation |
topic | Commentary |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6234176/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30456099 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.afjem.2017.01.007 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT stantond cervicalcollarsandimmobilisationasouthafricanbestpracticerecommendation AT hardcastlet cervicalcollarsandimmobilisationasouthafricanbestpracticerecommendation AT muhlbauerd cervicalcollarsandimmobilisationasouthafricanbestpracticerecommendation AT vanzyld cervicalcollarsandimmobilisationasouthafricanbestpracticerecommendation |