首页> 外文期刊>Prehospital emergency care >CERVICAL SPINE MOTION DURING TRANSFER AND STABILIZATION TECHNIQUES
【24h】

CERVICAL SPINE MOTION DURING TRANSFER AND STABILIZATION TECHNIQUES

机译:颈椎脊柱运动的转移和稳定技术

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objectives. To compare paramedics' ability to minimize cervical spine motion during patient transfer onto a vacuum mattress with two stabilization techniques (head squeeze vs. trap squeeze) and two transfer methods (log roll with one assistant (LR2) vs. 3 assistants (LR4)). Methods. We used a crossover design to minimize bias. Each lead paramedic performed 10 LR2 transfers and 10 LR4 transfers. For each of the 10 LR2 and 10 LR4 transfers, the lead paramedic stabilized the cervical spine using the head squeeze technique five times and the trap squeeze technique five times. We randomized the order of the stabilization techniques and LR2/LR4 across lead paramedics to avoid a practice or fatigue effect with repeated trials. We measured relative cervical spinemotion between the head and trunk using inertial measurement units placed on the forehead and sternum. Results. On average, total motion was 3.9. less with three assistants compared to one assistant (p = 0.0002), and 2.8. less with the trap squeeze compared to the head squeeze (p = 0.002). There was no interaction between the transfer method and stabilization technique. When examining specific motions in the six directions, the trap squeeze generally produced less lateral flexion and rotation motion but allowed more extension. Examining within paramedic differences, some paramedics were clearly more proficient with the trap squeeze technique and others were clearly more proficient with the head squeeze technique. Conclusion. Paramedics performing a log roll with three assistants created less motion compared to a log roll with only one assistant, and using the trap squeeze stabilization technique resulted in less motion than the head squeeze technique but the clinical relevance of the magnitude remains unclear. However, large individual differences suggest future paramedic training should incorporate both best evidence practice as well as recognition that there may be individual differences between paramedics.
机译:目标。为了比较医护人员在患者转移到真空床垫上时使用两种稳定技术(头部挤压vs.陷物挤压)和两种转移方法(1位助手(LR2)与3位助手(LR4)进行对位翻滚)使医护人员最小化颈椎运动的能力。 。方法。我们使用分频器设计来最小化偏差。每个主管护理人员执行10次LR2转移和10次LR4转移。对于10次LR2和10次LR4的每次传输,铅辅助医护人员使用头部挤压技术五次和陷阱挤压技术五次来稳定颈椎。我们将稳定技术和LR2 / LR4的次序随机分配给主治医生,以避免重复试验的练习或疲劳效果。我们使用放置在前额和胸骨上的惯性测量单位测量了头部和躯干之间相对的颈椎脊柱运动。结果。平均而言,总运动为3.9。与一名助手相比,三名助手要少(p = 0.0002),为2.8。疏水阀的挤压比头部的挤压要少(p = 0.002)。转移方法和稳定技术之间没有相互作用。当检查六个方向上的特定运动时,陷阱挤压通常产生较少的横向弯曲和旋转运动,但允许更多的伸展。通过检查医护人员的不同之处,一些医护人员显然更精通疏水阀挤压技术,而另一些医护人员显然更精通头部挤压技术。结论。与只有一个助手的原木卷相比,护理人员执行三个助手进行的原木滚动产生的运动较少,并且使用诱集器挤压稳定技术所产生的运动少于头部挤压技术,但是幅度的临床相关性仍不清楚。但是,个体差异较大,建议将来的护理人员培训应同时结合最佳证据做法以及对护理人员之间可能存在个体差异的认识。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号