SCOOP STRETCHER VS THE LONG BACKBOARD FOR SPINAL IMMOBILIZATION

 

SCOOP STRETCHER VS THE LONG BACKBOARD FOR SPINAL IMMOBILIZATION

COMPARISON OF THE FERNO SCOOP STRETCHER WITH THE LONG BACKBOARD FOR SPINAL IMMOBILIZATION Julie M. Krell, MD, Matthew S. McCoy, MD, Patrick J. Sparto, PhD, PT, Gretchen L. Fisher, NEMT-P, Walt A. Stoy, PhD, David P. Hostler, PhD

Abstract

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.

Few industries have accountability to so many people, from city councils to state and federal organizations, than EMS.  Perhaps more importantly is the responsibility EMS has to the patient and their families. As a decision-maker, you consistently look at ways to improve your team's performance. New technologies and updated equipment have led many like you to reexamine protocols that have been in place for decades. One of those accepted protocols is the use of the long backboard for spinal immobilization. Now an independent study says that the Ferno EXL Scoop Stretcher (FSS) competes at or on the same level as the traditional long backboard, stating the Ferno EXL Scoop Stretcher "to be as effective as, if not superior to the standard of care, a rigid long backboard." LINK TO DOWNLOAD IN PDF  Cortesía EMS España / Emergency Medical Services en España @EMSESP Follow me / INVITA A TUS AMIGOS A SEGUIRNOS @drramonreyesdiaz https://www.facebook.com/drramonreyesdiaz

SCOOP STRETCHER VS THE LONG BACKBOARD FOR SPINAL IMMOBILIZATION

 

SCOOP STRETCHER VS THE LONG BACKBOARD FOR SPINAL IMMOBILIZATION

COMPARISON OF THE FERNO SCOOP STRETCHER WITH THE LONG BACKBOARD FOR SPINAL IMMOBILIZATION Julie M. Krell, MD, Matthew S. McCoy, MD, Patrick J. Sparto, PhD, PT, Gretchen L. Fisher, NEMT-P, Walt A. Stoy, PhD, David P. Hostler, PhD

Abstract

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.

Few industries have accountability to so many people, from city councils to state and federal organizations, than EMS.  Perhaps more importantly is the responsibility EMS has to the patient and their families. As a decision-maker, you consistently look at ways to improve your team's performance. New technologies and updated equipment have led many like you to reexamine protocols that have been in place for decades. One of those accepted protocols is the use of the long backboard for spinal immobilization. Now an independent study says that the Ferno EXL Scoop Stretcher (FSS) competes at or on the same level as the traditional long backboard, stating the Ferno EXL Scoop Stretcher "to be as effective as, if not superior to the standard of care, a rigid long backboard." LINK TO DOWNLOAD IN PDF