Cargando…

Assessing spinal movement during four extrication methods: a biomechanical study using healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND: Motor vehicle collisions are a common cause of death and serious injury. Many casualties will remain in their vehicle following a collision. Trapped patients have more injuries and are more likely to die than their untrapped counterparts. Current extrication methods are time consuming an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nutbeam, Tim, Fenwick, Rob, May, Barbara, Stassen, Willem, Smith, Jason E., Bowdler, Jono, Wallis, Lee, Shippen, James
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8760816/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35033160
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-022-00996-5
_version_ 1784633402322845696
author Nutbeam, Tim
Fenwick, Rob
May, Barbara
Stassen, Willem
Smith, Jason E.
Bowdler, Jono
Wallis, Lee
Shippen, James
author_facet Nutbeam, Tim
Fenwick, Rob
May, Barbara
Stassen, Willem
Smith, Jason E.
Bowdler, Jono
Wallis, Lee
Shippen, James
author_sort Nutbeam, Tim
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Motor vehicle collisions are a common cause of death and serious injury. Many casualties will remain in their vehicle following a collision. Trapped patients have more injuries and are more likely to die than their untrapped counterparts. Current extrication methods are time consuming and have a focus on movement minimisation and mitigation. The optimal extrication strategy and the effect this extrication method has on spinal movement is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the movement at the cervical and lumbar spine for four commonly utilised extrication techniques. METHODS: Biomechanical data was collected using inertial Measurement Units on 6 healthy volunteers. The extrication types examined were: roof removal, b-post rip, rapid removal and self-extrication. Measurements were recorded at the cervical and lumbar spine, and in the anteroposterior (AP) and lateral (LAT) planes. Total movement (travel), maximal movement, mean, standard deviation and confidence intervals are reported for each extrication type. RESULTS: Data from a total of 230 extrications were collected for analysis. The smallest maximal and total movement (travel) were seen when the volunteer self-extricated (AP max = 2.6 mm, travel 4.9 mm). The largest maximal movement and travel were seen in rapid extrication extricated (AP max = 6.21 mm, travel 20.51 mm). The differences between self-extrication and all other methods were significant (p < 0.001), small non-significant differences existed between roof removal, b-post rip and rapid removal. Self-extrication was significantly quicker than the other extrication methods (mean 6.4 s). CONCLUSIONS: In healthy volunteers, self-extrication is associated with the smallest spinal movement and the fastest time to complete extrication. Rapid, B-post rip and roof off extrication types are all associated with similar movements and time to extrication in prepared vehicles.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8760816
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-87608162022-01-18 Assessing spinal movement during four extrication methods: a biomechanical study using healthy volunteers Nutbeam, Tim Fenwick, Rob May, Barbara Stassen, Willem Smith, Jason E. Bowdler, Jono Wallis, Lee Shippen, James Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Original Research BACKGROUND: Motor vehicle collisions are a common cause of death and serious injury. Many casualties will remain in their vehicle following a collision. Trapped patients have more injuries and are more likely to die than their untrapped counterparts. Current extrication methods are time consuming and have a focus on movement minimisation and mitigation. The optimal extrication strategy and the effect this extrication method has on spinal movement is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the movement at the cervical and lumbar spine for four commonly utilised extrication techniques. METHODS: Biomechanical data was collected using inertial Measurement Units on 6 healthy volunteers. The extrication types examined were: roof removal, b-post rip, rapid removal and self-extrication. Measurements were recorded at the cervical and lumbar spine, and in the anteroposterior (AP) and lateral (LAT) planes. Total movement (travel), maximal movement, mean, standard deviation and confidence intervals are reported for each extrication type. RESULTS: Data from a total of 230 extrications were collected for analysis. The smallest maximal and total movement (travel) were seen when the volunteer self-extricated (AP max = 2.6 mm, travel 4.9 mm). The largest maximal movement and travel were seen in rapid extrication extricated (AP max = 6.21 mm, travel 20.51 mm). The differences between self-extrication and all other methods were significant (p < 0.001), small non-significant differences existed between roof removal, b-post rip and rapid removal. Self-extrication was significantly quicker than the other extrication methods (mean 6.4 s). CONCLUSIONS: In healthy volunteers, self-extrication is associated with the smallest spinal movement and the fastest time to complete extrication. Rapid, B-post rip and roof off extrication types are all associated with similar movements and time to extrication in prepared vehicles. BioMed Central 2022-01-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8760816/ /pubmed/35033160 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-022-00996-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Original Research
Nutbeam, Tim
Fenwick, Rob
May, Barbara
Stassen, Willem
Smith, Jason E.
Bowdler, Jono
Wallis, Lee
Shippen, James
Assessing spinal movement during four extrication methods: a biomechanical study using healthy volunteers
title Assessing spinal movement during four extrication methods: a biomechanical study using healthy volunteers
title_full Assessing spinal movement during four extrication methods: a biomechanical study using healthy volunteers
title_fullStr Assessing spinal movement during four extrication methods: a biomechanical study using healthy volunteers
title_full_unstemmed Assessing spinal movement during four extrication methods: a biomechanical study using healthy volunteers
title_short Assessing spinal movement during four extrication methods: a biomechanical study using healthy volunteers
title_sort assessing spinal movement during four extrication methods: a biomechanical study using healthy volunteers
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8760816/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35033160
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13049-022-00996-5
work_keys_str_mv AT nutbeamtim assessingspinalmovementduringfourextricationmethodsabiomechanicalstudyusinghealthyvolunteers
AT fenwickrob assessingspinalmovementduringfourextricationmethodsabiomechanicalstudyusinghealthyvolunteers
AT maybarbara assessingspinalmovementduringfourextricationmethodsabiomechanicalstudyusinghealthyvolunteers
AT stassenwillem assessingspinalmovementduringfourextricationmethodsabiomechanicalstudyusinghealthyvolunteers
AT smithjasone assessingspinalmovementduringfourextricationmethodsabiomechanicalstudyusinghealthyvolunteers
AT bowdlerjono assessingspinalmovementduringfourextricationmethodsabiomechanicalstudyusinghealthyvolunteers
AT wallislee assessingspinalmovementduringfourextricationmethodsabiomechanicalstudyusinghealthyvolunteers
AT shippenjames assessingspinalmovementduringfourextricationmethodsabiomechanicalstudyusinghealthyvolunteers