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
. 2024 Sep;25(5):793-799.
doi: 10.5811/westjem.18342.

Use of Long Spinal Board Post-Application of Protocol for Spinal Motion Restriction for Spinal Cord Injury

Amber D Rice  1   2 , Philipp L Hannan  1   2 , Memu-Iye Kamara  3 , Joshua B Gaither  1   4 , Robyn Blust  1   5 , Vatsal Chikani  5 , Franco Castro-Marin  6 , Gail Bradley  1   5 , Bentley J Bobrow  7   3 , Rachel Munn  1   2 , Mary Knotts  1   2 , Justin Lara  1   4
Affiliations

Use of Long Spinal Board Post-Application of Protocol for Spinal Motion Restriction for Spinal Cord Injury

Amber D Rice et al. West J Emerg Med. 2024 Sep.

Abstract

Introduction: Historically, prehospital care of trauma patients has included nearly universal use of a cervical collar (C-collar) and long spine board (LSB). Due to recent evidence demonstrating harm in using LSBs, implementation of new spinal motion restriction (SMR) protocols in the prehospital setting should reduce LSB use, even among patients with spinal cord injury. Our goal in this study was to evaluate the rates of and reasons for LSB use in high-risk patients-those with hospital-diagnosed spinal cord injury (SCI)-after statewide implementation of SMR protocols.

Methods: Applying data from a state emergency medical services (EMS) registry to a state hospital discharge database, we identified cases in which a participating EMS agency provided care for a patient later diagnosed in the hospital with a SCI. Cases were then retrospectively reviewed to determine the prevalence of both LSB and C-collar use before and after agency adoption of a SMR protocol. We reviewed cases with LSB use after SMR protocol implementation to determine the motivations driving continued LSB use. We used simple descriptive statistics, odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) to describe the results.

Results: We identified 52 EMS agencies in the state of Arizona with 417,979 encounters. There were 225 patients with SCI, of whom 74 were excluded. The LSBs were used in 52 pre-SMR (81%) and 49 post-SMR (56%) cases. The odds of LSB use after SMR protocol implementation was 70% lower than it had been before implementation (OR 0.297, 95% CI 0.139-0.643; P = 0.002). Use of a C-collar after SMR implementation was not significantly changed (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.23-1.143; P = 0.10). In the 49 cases of LSB use after agency SMR implementation, the most common reasons for LSB placement were ease of lifting (63%), placement by non-transporting agency (18%), and extrication (16.3%). High suspicion of SCI was determined as the primary or secondary reason for not removing LSB after assessment in 63% of those with LSB placement, followed by multiple transfers required (20%), and critical illness (10%).

Conclusion: Implementation of selective spinal motion restriction protocols was associated with a statistically significant decrease in the utilization of long spine boards among prehospital patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: By the WestJEM article submission agreement, all authors are required to disclose all affiliations, funding sources and financial or management relationships that could be perceived as potential sources of bias. No author has professional or financial relationships with any companies that are relevant to this study. There are no conflicts of interest or sources of funding to declare.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Flowchart of spinal cord injury cases and long spinal board use before and after implemention of a spinal motion restriction protocol. EMS, emergency medical services; SMR, spinal motion restriction.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians, American College of Surgeons, The Committee on Trauma. PHTLS: Pre-Hospital Trauma Life Support. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 1986.
    1. Ten Brinke JG, Groen SR, Dehnad M, et al. . Prehospital care of spinal injuries: a historical quest for reasoning and evidence. Eur Spine J. 2018;27(12):2999–3006. - PubMed
    1. Kornhall DK, Jorgensen JJ, Brommeland T, et al. . The Norwegian guidelines for the prehospital management of adult trauma patients with potential spinal injury. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2017;25(1):2. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Theodore N, Hadley MN, Aarabi B, et al. . Prehospital cervical spinal immobilization after trauma. Neurosurgery. 2013;72(Suppl 2):22–34. - PubMed
    1. Hood N, Considine J. Spinal immobilisaton in pre-hospital and emergency care: a systematic review of the literature. Australas Emerg Nurs J. 2015;18(3):118–37. - PubMed