Comparing the Efficacy of Methods for Immobilizing the Cervical Spine

This was a prospective simulator study with 16 healthy male subjects.

The aim of this study was to compare the relative efficacy of immobilization systems in limiting involuntary movements of the cervical spine using a dynamic simulation model.

Relatively few studies have tested the efficacy of immobilization methods for limiting involuntary cervical movement, and only one of these studies used a dynamic simulation system to do so.

Immobilization configurations tested were cot alone, cot with cervical collar, long spine board (LSB) with cervical collar and head blocks, and vacuum mattress (VM) with cervical collar. A motion platform reproduced shocks and vibrations from ambulance and helicopter field rides, as well as more severe shocks and vibrations that might be encountered on rougher terrain and in inclement weather (designated as an "augmented" ride). Motion capture technology quantitated involuntary cervical rotation, flexion/extension, and lateral bend. The mean and 95% confidence interval of the mean were calculated for the root mean square of angular changes from the starting position and for the maximum range of motion.

All configurations tested decreased cervical rotation and flexion/extension relative to the cot alone. However, the LSB and VM were significantly more effective in decreasing cervical rotation than the cervical collar, and the LSB decreased rotation more than the VM in augmented rides. The LSB and VM, but not the cervical collar, significantly limited cervical lateral bend relative to the cot alone.

Under the study conditions, the LSB and the VM were more effective in limiting cervical movement than the cervical collar. Under some conditions, the LSB decreased repetitive and acute movements more than the VM. Further studies using simulation and other approaches will be essential for determining the safest, most effective configuration should providers choose to immobilize patients with suspected spinal injuries.

3.