Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 5, 2026
A Contusive Model of Unilateral Cervical Spinal Cord Injury Using the Infinite Horizon Impactor
Published on: July 24, 2012
Inertial Sensor-Based Analysis of Cervical and Upper-Thoracic Motion During Extrication: SNAID® vs. Rautek Maneuver
Antonio J Segura-Fornieles1, Verónica V Márquez-Hernández2, Alba García-Viola3
1Regimiento Acorazado "Alcázar de Toledo" Nº 61, Brigada Guadarrama XII, 28760 Madrid, Spain.
Background:
Spinal immobilization during extrication is a key component of trauma care aimed at reducing secondary neurological injury, although conventional techniques such as the Rautek maneuver may induce unintended spinal motion that could increase biomechanical stress on vulnerable structures. Recent developments, including the SNAID® cervical restraint system, have been designed to improve motion restriction while maintaining operational feasibility in emergency settings. This study aimed to quantitatively compare spinal kinematics during extrication using SNAID® versus the Rautek maneuver in a simulated environment.
Methods:
A controlled experimental study was conducted with 15 nursing students performing standardized extrication tasks under both conditions. Four synchronized 9-axis inertial measurement units were placed at the occiput, C7, sternum, and left shoulder to capture kinematic data at 100 Hz. Range of motion (ROM) was calculated for absolute and intersegmental movements, and statistical comparisons were performed using paired non-parametric tests with effect size estimation.
Results:
The results showed that SNAID® significantly reduced cervical lateral flexion-extension compared with Rautek (p = 0.013, rmb = -0.71), as well as markedly reducing head-trunk relative motion, particularly in sagittal flexion-extension (p < 0.001, rmb = -0.99). In contrast, Rautek produced significantly greater shoulder and trunk motion, with the largest effect observed in shoulder lateral displacement (p < 0.001, rmb = -0.99).
Conclusions:
the SNAID® system demonstrated reduced cervical and intersegmental motion compared with the Rautek maneuver under standardized simulation conditions. These findings indicate differences in biomechanical behavior between both approaches; however, their clinical significance cannot be established from the present study and should not be interpreted as evidence of improved patient outcomes or neurological protection.
