Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2008 Jan-Mar;43(1):6-13.
doi: 10.4085/1062-6050-43.1.6.

The 6-plus-person lift transfer technique compared with other methods of spine boarding

Gianluca Del Rossi  1 , Marybeth H Horodyski, Bryan P Conrad, Christian P Di Paola, Matthew J Di Paola, Glenn R Rechtine
Affiliations
Comparative Study

The 6-plus-person lift transfer technique compared with other methods of spine boarding

Gianluca Del Rossi et al. J Athl Train. 2008 Jan-Mar.

Abstract

Context: To achieve full spinal immobilization during on-the-field management of an actual or potential spinal injury, rescuers transfer and secure patients to a long spine board. Several techniques can be used to facilitate this patient transfer.

Objective: To compare spinal segment motion of cadavers during the execution of the 6-plus-person (6+) lift, lift-and-slide (LS), and logroll (LR) spine-board transfer techniques.

Design: Crossover study.

Setting: Laboratory.

Patients or other participants: Eight medical professionals (1 woman, 7 men) with 5 to 32 years of experience were enlisted to help carry out the transfer techniques. In addition, test conditions were performed on 5 fresh cadavers (3 males, 2 females) with a mean age of 86.2 +/- 11.4 years.

Main outcomes measure(s): Three-dimensional angular and linear motions initially were recorded during execution of transfer techniques, initially using cadavers with intact spines and then after C5-C6 spinal segment destabilization. The mean maximal linear displacement and angular motion obtained and calculated from the 3 trials for each test condition were included in the statistical analysis.

Results: Flexion-extension angular motion, as well as anteroposterior and distraction-compression linear motion, did not vary between the LR and either the 6+ lift or LS. Compared with the execution of the 6+ lift and LS, the execution of the LR generated significantly more axial rotation (P = .008 and .001, respectively), more lateral flexion (P = .005 and .003, respectively), and more medial-lateral translation (P = .003 and .004, respectively).

Conclusions: A small amount of spinal motion is inevitable when executing spine-board transfer techniques; however, the execution of the 6+ lift or LS appears to minimize the extent of motion generated across a globally unstable spinal segment.

Keywords: lift-and-slide transfer technique; logroll transfer technique; prehospital care; spinal immobilization; spine injuries.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 2
Figure 2. Angular motion occurring in transverse plane. aDenotes significantly different (P < .05) from stable condition. bIndicates significantly different from logroll (P < .05). Error bars denote standard error of the mean.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Angular motion occurring in sagittal plane. aIndicates significantly different from stable spine for all techniques (P < .05). Error bars denote standard error of the mean.
Figure 4
Figure 4. Angular motion occurring in frontal plane. aDenotes significantly different (P < .05) from stable condition. bIndicates significantly different from logroll (P < .05). Error bars denote standard error of the mean.
Figure 5
Figure 5. Anteroposterior translation. aIndicates significantly different from stable spine for all techniques (P < .05). Error bars denote standard error of the mean.
Figure 6
Figure 6. Distraction. aIndicates significantly different from stable spine for all techniques (P < .05). Error bars denote standard error of the mean.
Figure 7
Figure 7. Medial-lateral translation. aDenotes significantly different (P < .05) from stable condition. bIndicates significantly different from logroll (P < .05). Error bars denote standard error of the mean.
Figure 1
Figure 1. Sensor placement.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Poonnoose P.M, Ravichandran G, McClelland M.R. Missed and mismanaged injuries of the spinal cord. J Trauma. 2002;53(2):314–320. - PubMed
    1. Krohmer J.R, Marshall L, Newell L.D, American College of Emergency Physicians, editors. EMT – Basic Field Care: A Case-Based Approach. St Louis, MO: Mosby Inc; 1999. pp. 153,510–513,521–525.
    1. De Lorenzo R.A, Olson J.E, Boska M, et al. Optimal positioning for cervical immobilization. Ann Emerg Med. 1996;28(3):301–308. - PubMed
    1. Suter R.E, Tighe T.V, Sartori J, Reed K. Thoraco-lumbar spinal instability during variations of the log-roll maneuver. Prehosp Disaster Med. 1992;7:133–138.
    1. Del Rossi G, Horodyski M, Kaminski T.W. Management of cervical-spine injuries. Athl Ther Today. 2002;7(2):46–51.

Publication types