Cervical collars and immobilisation: A South African best practice recommendation
Introduction: The consequences of spinal injury as a result of trauma can be devastating. Spinal immobilisation using hard trauma boards and rigid cervical collars has traditionally been the standard response to suspected spinal injury patients even though the risk may be extremely low. Recently, ad...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2017-03-01
|
| Series: | African Journal of Emergency Medicine |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211419X16300878 |
| _version_ | 1818480325614895104 |
|---|---|
| author | D. Stanton T. Hardcastle D. Muhlbauer D. van Zyl |
| author_facet | D. Stanton T. Hardcastle D. Muhlbauer D. van Zyl |
| author_sort | D. Stanton |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Introduction: The consequences of spinal injury as a result of trauma can be devastating. Spinal immobilisation using hard trauma boards and rigid cervical collars has traditionally been the standard response to suspected spinal injury patients even though the risk may be extremely low. Recently, adverse events due to the method of immobilisation have challenged the need for motion restriction in all trauma patients. International guidelines have been published for protection of the spine during transport and this article brings those guidelines into the South African context.
Recommendations: Trauma patients need to be properly assessed using both an approved list of high and low risk factors, as well as a thorough examination. They should then be managed accordingly. Internationally validated assessment strategies have been developed, and should be used as part of the patient assessment. The method of motion restriction should be selected to suit the situation. The use of a vacuum mattress is the preferable technique, with the use of a trauma board being the least desirable.
Conclusion: The need for motion restriction in suspected spinal injury should be properly evaluated and appropriate action taken. Not all trauma patients require spinal motion restriction. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-10T11:21:59Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-2e740b8cb9064918bd6cad9e50c38422 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2211-419X |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-10T11:21:59Z |
| publishDate | 2017-03-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | African Journal of Emergency Medicine |
| spelling | doaj.art-2e740b8cb9064918bd6cad9e50c384222022-12-22T01:50:53ZengElsevierAfrican Journal of Emergency Medicine2211-419X2017-03-01714810.1016/j.afjem.2017.01.007Cervical collars and immobilisation: A South African best practice recommendationD. Stanton0T. Hardcastle1D. Muhlbauer2D. van Zyl3Netcare Education, Faculty of Emergency and Critical Care, South AfricaUniversity of Kwazulu Natal, Trauma Surgery Training Unit, Inkosi Albert Luthuli Central Hospital Trauma Service and Trauma ICU, South AfricaDepartment of Emergency Medical Care and Rescue, Durban University of Technology, South AfricaLife Flora Hospital Advanced Life Support Unit, South AfricaIntroduction: The consequences of spinal injury as a result of trauma can be devastating. Spinal immobilisation using hard trauma boards and rigid cervical collars has traditionally been the standard response to suspected spinal injury patients even though the risk may be extremely low. Recently, adverse events due to the method of immobilisation have challenged the need for motion restriction in all trauma patients. International guidelines have been published for protection of the spine during transport and this article brings those guidelines into the South African context. Recommendations: Trauma patients need to be properly assessed using both an approved list of high and low risk factors, as well as a thorough examination. They should then be managed accordingly. Internationally validated assessment strategies have been developed, and should be used as part of the patient assessment. The method of motion restriction should be selected to suit the situation. The use of a vacuum mattress is the preferable technique, with the use of a trauma board being the least desirable. Conclusion: The need for motion restriction in suspected spinal injury should be properly evaluated and appropriate action taken. Not all trauma patients require spinal motion restriction.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211419X16300878 |
| spellingShingle | D. Stanton T. Hardcastle D. Muhlbauer D. van Zyl Cervical collars and immobilisation: A South African best practice recommendation African Journal of Emergency Medicine |
| title | Cervical collars and immobilisation: A South African best practice recommendation |
| title_full | Cervical collars and immobilisation: A South African best practice recommendation |
| title_fullStr | Cervical collars and immobilisation: A South African best practice recommendation |
| title_full_unstemmed | Cervical collars and immobilisation: A South African best practice recommendation |
| title_short | Cervical collars and immobilisation: A South African best practice recommendation |
| title_sort | cervical collars and immobilisation a south african best practice recommendation |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211419X16300878 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT dstanton cervicalcollarsandimmobilisationasouthafricanbestpracticerecommendation AT thardcastle cervicalcollarsandimmobilisationasouthafricanbestpracticerecommendation AT dmuhlbauer cervicalcollarsandimmobilisationasouthafricanbestpracticerecommendation AT dvanzyl cervicalcollarsandimmobilisationasouthafricanbestpracticerecommendation |