A biomechanical comparison between the thoracolumbosacral surface contact area (SCA) of a standard backboard with other rigid immobilization surfaces.

Y. Kosashvili, D. Backstein, Y. B. Ziv, O. Safir, A. Blumenfeld, Y. Mirovsky
{"title":"A biomechanical comparison between the thoracolumbosacral surface contact area (SCA) of a standard backboard with other rigid immobilization surfaces.","authors":"Y. Kosashvili, D. Backstein, Y. B. Ziv, O. Safir, A. Blumenfeld, Y. Mirovsky","doi":"10.1097/TA.0b013e318156835c","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"INTRODUCTION Backboards are routinely used to protect the spine of trauma patients during transportation. Nevertheless, little is known about the biomechanical properties of this type of immobilization. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the mechanical support of the thoracolumbosacral spine provided by a standard backboard in comparison with various rigid immobilization surfaces, by examining their respective surface contact area (SCA). MATERIALS SCAs comparisons of a standard aluminum backboard, a rigid military stretcher, an aluminum backboard covered by blanket, 3 and 5 cm thickness foam, and a cushioned stretcher were made using 12 volunteers. The evaluation was performed by a computer- mediated system that generated a diagram indicating pressure distribution and SCA score in each volunteer. These data were compared with a medical grade mattress, which served as the control group. RESULTS The median backboard's SCA was 14.6 +/- 5.5 times smaller than the stretcher's SCA (range 4.6-28, average 15, p < 0.001). Its median SCA was essentially doubled by covering it by a standard military blanket and tripled when covered by 3 cm layer of foam. Using a 5-cm layer of foam increased the backboard's SCA by 11 times. Cushioning the stretcher beneath the lumbar spine and the hamstrings by folded blankets, significantly improved its median SCA (96 +/- 31.1, range 36-125, average 89.7). CONCLUSIONS The backboard's SCA was significantly inferior to all the other surfaces. Although no dynamic evaluation was performed, these data imply that backboards need to be appropriately cushioned or alternate surfaces should be employed to improve the mechanical support during trauma patient transportation. Level of evidence, Level I.","PeriodicalId":92962,"journal":{"name":"The journal of cardiothoracic trauma","volume":"23 4 1","pages":"191-4"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of cardiothoracic trauma","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e318156835c","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

INTRODUCTION Backboards are routinely used to protect the spine of trauma patients during transportation. Nevertheless, little is known about the biomechanical properties of this type of immobilization. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the mechanical support of the thoracolumbosacral spine provided by a standard backboard in comparison with various rigid immobilization surfaces, by examining their respective surface contact area (SCA). MATERIALS SCAs comparisons of a standard aluminum backboard, a rigid military stretcher, an aluminum backboard covered by blanket, 3 and 5 cm thickness foam, and a cushioned stretcher were made using 12 volunteers. The evaluation was performed by a computer- mediated system that generated a diagram indicating pressure distribution and SCA score in each volunteer. These data were compared with a medical grade mattress, which served as the control group. RESULTS The median backboard's SCA was 14.6 +/- 5.5 times smaller than the stretcher's SCA (range 4.6-28, average 15, p < 0.001). Its median SCA was essentially doubled by covering it by a standard military blanket and tripled when covered by 3 cm layer of foam. Using a 5-cm layer of foam increased the backboard's SCA by 11 times. Cushioning the stretcher beneath the lumbar spine and the hamstrings by folded blankets, significantly improved its median SCA (96 +/- 31.1, range 36-125, average 89.7). CONCLUSIONS The backboard's SCA was significantly inferior to all the other surfaces. Although no dynamic evaluation was performed, these data imply that backboards need to be appropriately cushioned or alternate surfaces should be employed to improve the mechanical support during trauma patient transportation. Level of evidence, Level I.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
标准背板胸腰骶表面接触面积(SCA)与其他刚性固定表面的生物力学比较。
在运输过程中,担架通常用于保护创伤患者的脊柱。然而,人们对这种固定的生物力学特性知之甚少。目的通过检测不同刚性固定表面的接触面积(SCA),评价标准背板与不同刚性固定表面对胸腰骶椎的机械支撑作用。材料:采用12名志愿者对标准铝制担架、刚性军用担架、覆盖有毯子的铝制担架、3和5厘米厚的泡沫以及有缓冲的担架进行了比较。评估是通过计算机中介系统进行的,该系统生成一个图表,显示每位志愿者的压力分布和SCA评分。这些数据与作为对照组的医用级床垫进行比较。结果担架患者的SCA中位数比担架患者的SCA小14.6±5.5倍(范围4.6 ~ 28,平均15,p < 0.001)。如果用标准的军用毯子覆盖,它的中间SCA基本上是原来的两倍,如果用3厘米厚的泡沫覆盖,它的中间SCA是原来的三倍。使用5厘米的泡沫层使背板的SCA增加了11倍。在腰椎和腘绳肌下用折叠毯子缓冲担架,显著改善其中位SCA(96 +/- 31.1,范围36-125,平均89.7)。结论背板的SCA明显低于其他表面。虽然没有进行动态评估,但这些数据表明,在创伤患者运输过程中,背板需要适当的缓冲或更换表面来改善机械支持。证据等级,一级。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Minimal invasive approach for rib fractures: Feasibility and safety in a single-center experience Is flail chest correctly defined: A new definition is suggested Factors associated with early complications of surgical management due to penetrating laryngotracheal trauma in Colombia Posttraumatic pulmonary abscess Postoperative outcomes following surgical stabilization of rib fractures stratified by 5-factor modified frailty index
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1