Emergency spine immobilization may do more harm than good, study says

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

pseudoknot

Full Member
Lifetime Donor
15+ Year Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2004
Messages
2,923
Reaction score
6
As described in the LA Times:
January 11, 2010 | 3:57 pm
When emergency responders reach a gunshot or stabbing victim, they try to immobilize the spine to reduce the danger of paralysis upon movement of the victim. That effort, however, can have a fatal toll.

A study published in the Journal of Trauma has found that, among these types of trauma victims, those whose spines are held still are twice as likely to die as those whose spines aren’t immobilized.

Time is the crucial factor, said the study’s lead author, Elliott R. Haut, an assistant professor of surgery at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. "For someone who was shot in the liver or has a collapsed lung," Haut said, "those extra five minutes might mean life or death for them."

The study cuts to the heart of a debate among trauma surgeons about the roles of paramedics and other first responders, says Dr. Larry J. Baraff, associate director of the UCLA Emergency Medicine Center. Many feel that time spent treating the patient in the field is often better spent on the operating table.

Immobilization is "a tradition that started decades ago," says Dr. Demetrios Demetriades, who directs the Division of Acute Care Surgery at USC. "There was never any scientific evidence that it works."
It can even worsen the situation, he says.

First responders typically fasten a cervical collar tightly around a victim’s neck and then strap him or her to a plastic board to secure the spine. This takes time, and it can hide or exacerbate internal injuries.

The likelihood that the spine would be injured by a penetrating wound is pretty low, Baraff added. "Unless the bullet hits the spinal column in exactly the right way, it’s extremely unlikely there’s going to be an unstable spinal column," Baraff said.

In the new report, out of the more than 45,000 patients studied (about 2,000 of whom underwent spine immobilization), only 30 had some partial damage to the spine that may have benefited from the procedure. First responders would have to immobilize the spines of 1,032 patients before potentially benefiting one person, the study’s authors wrote. But it only took 66 patients to potentially contribute to one death.

The best thing to do is get a patient to the hospital as fast as possible, doctors said -- the cervical collar usually serves no purpose other than to get in a surgeon’s way.

"We remove it immediately," Demetriades said.

"We say to the paramedics, 'Thank you very much for taking care of them, you did a great job,' and immediately take [the collars] off and throw them away."

-- Amina Khan

You can find the original paper via pubmed here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20065766

I'm not surprised by this result, and frankly I seriously question the utility for spinal immobilization as currently practiced even in most blunt trauma. However, for penetrating trauma there was already a lot of data showing that immobilization was unlikely to be of any benefit. I would hope that this might be the nail in its coffin, but it is such a well entrenched tradition I think it will be hard to stop.

Members don't see this ad.
 
As described in the LA Times:


You can find the original paper via pubmed here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20065766

I'm not surprised by this result, and frankly I seriously question the utility for spinal immobilization as currently practiced even in most blunt trauma. However, for penetrating trauma there was already a lot of data showing that immobilization was unlikely to be of any benefit. I would hope that this might be the nail in its coffin, but it is such a well entrenched tradition I think it will be hard to stop.

I don't know about tradition, but the lawyers will most likely use the fact that the pt was not in a c-collar as grounds for a suit if there is neurological injury.


Wook
 
I don't know about tradition, but the lawyers will most likely use the fact that the pt was not in a c-collar as grounds for a suit if there is neurological injury.


Wook
Medical decision making should be guided by scientific evidence and the interests of the patient. Is it really a good defense to a lawsuit to say that you did something you thought was going to harm your patient, in order to protect yourself? Why wouldn't lawyers start suing when backboarded GSW patients die? Lawsuit phobia can cut both ways.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Medical decision making should be guided by scientific evidence and the interests of the patient. Is it really a good defense to a lawsuit to say that you did something you thought was going to harm your patient, in order to protect yourself? Why wouldn't lawyers start suing when backboarded GSW patients die? Lawsuit phobia can cut both ways.

Agreed that medical decision making should be guided by science and interest of the patient. Still the lawyers use tradition to bring suit. For example, we often will state "negative Kernig or Brudzinski" when trying to indicate that the patient did not have meningitis, yet the jolt accentuation test has been found to be more sensitive.

I agree with your point and would encourage you to discuss this with your state and federal politicians. Tort reform would potentially help to reduce some of the frivilous or unwarranted lawsuits.


Wook
 
Last edited:
From the paper, patients who were immobilized were more likely to have "moderate-severe" injuries with an Injury Severity Score >15 (31.2% versus 20.4% of the non-boarded).

The records they used for analysis did not include transport time or time on-scene. They also may include people who were scooped up off the street onto a board for convenience and expedience without full immobilization, as the authors admit in the discussion. Patients who got this treatment are the sick ones!

You could argue all this paper tells us is that sicker people die more often. :rolleyes:

I do agree with you that spinal immobilization is overused. But I don't think this is the study that's going to change medical directors' minds.

Also... Odds Ratio for death with spinal immobilization vs no immobilization: 2.06. Odds ratio for IV vs. no IV: 1.95. Why didn't they mention that little tidbit in the abstract, I wonder?

Edit: One more for you: Odds ratio for intubated vs. non-intubated: 1.31. So by this logic, IV's correlate with patient death even more than intubation does, which seems odd to me.
 
Last edited:
This adds to what I've been saying for years about how stuff that isn't considered overtly defensive medicine is in actuality defensive because the "standard of care" has evolved in a defensive climate. And now we're seeing again how we will have trouble letting go of a practice that has been discreditied by EBM because of fear of lawsuits.

For example, we often will state "negative Kernig or Brudzinski" when trying to indicate that the patient did not have meningitis, yet the jolt accentuation test has been found to be more sensitive.

I don't really like the jolt test because it causes so many false positives. It is highly sensitive but it has poor specificity.
 
Agreed that medical decision making should be guided by science and interest of the patient. Still the lawyers use tradition to bring suit. For example, we often will state "negative Kernig or Brudzinski" when trying to indicate that the patient did not have meningitis, yet the jolt accentuation test has been found to be more sensitive.

I agree with your point and would encourage you to discuss this with your state and federal politicians. Tort reform would potentially help to reduce some of the frivilous or unwarranted lawsuits.


Wook

Dead with a C-collar, alive without. Tough choice.
 
Top