首页> 外文期刊>Prehospital emergency care >Comparison of the ferno scoop stretcher with the long backboard for spinal immobilization.
【24h】

Comparison of the ferno scoop stretcher with the long backboard for spinal immobilization.

机译:Ferno铲式担架与长背板固定脊柱的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objectives. Spinal immobilization is essential in reducing risk of further spinal injuries in trauma patients. The authors compared the traditional long backboard (LBB) with the Ferno Scoop Stretcher (FSS) (Model 65-EXL). They hypothesized no difference in movement during application and immobilization between the FSS and the LBB. Methods. Thirty-one adult subjects had electromagnetic sensors secured over the nasion (forehead) and the C3 and T12 spinous processes and were placed in a rigid cervical collar, with movement recorded by a goniometer (a motion analysis system). Subjects were tested on both the FSS and the LBB. The sagittal flexion, lateral flexion, and axial rotation were recorded during each of four phases: 1) baseline, 2) application (logroll onto the LBB or placement of the FSS around the patient), 3) secured logroll, and 4) lifting. Comfort and perceived security also were assessed on a visual analog scale. Results. There was approximately 6-8 degrees greater motion in the sagittal, lateral, and axial planes during the application of the LBB compared with the FSS (both p < 0.001). No difference was found during a secured logroll maneuver. The FSS induced more sagittal flexion during the lift than the LBB (p < 0.001). The FSS demonstrated superior comfort and perceived security. Conclusion. The FSS caused significantly less movement on application and increased comfort levels. Decreased movement using the FSS may reduce the risk of further spinal cord injury.
机译:目标。固定脊柱对于降低创伤患者进一步脊柱损伤的风险至关重要。作者将传统的长背板(LBB)与Ferno铲式担架(FSS)(65-EXL型)进行了比较。他们假设FSS和LBB在应用和固定过程中运动没有差异。方法。 31名成年受试者的鼻梁(前额)以及C3和T12棘突上方固定有电磁传感器,被放置在刚性的颈托中,并通过测角计(运动分析系统)记录运动。在FSS和LBB上对受试者进行了测试。在四个阶段中的每个阶段均记录矢状屈曲,横向屈曲和轴向旋转:1)基线,2)应用(将记录纸滚动到LBB或将FSS放置在患者周围),3)固定的记录纸滚动和4)抬起。舒适度和感知的安全性也通过视觉模拟量表进行评估。结果。与FSS相比,在应用LBB的过程中,矢状,侧面和轴向平面的运动大约大6-8度(均p <0.001)。在安全的对数滚动操作中未发现任何差异。在举升过程中,FSS引起的矢状屈曲比LBB多(p <0.001)。 FSS展示了卓越的舒适性和可感知的安全性。结论。 FSS大大减少了应用时的运动并提高了舒适度。使用FSS的运动减少可能会降低脊髓进一步受伤的风险。

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