Assessing spinal movement during four extrication methods: a biomechanical study using healthy volunteers

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorNutbeam, Tim
dc.contributor.authorFenwick, Rob
dc.contributor.authorMay, Barbara
dc.contributor.authorStassen, Willem
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Jason E
dc.contributor.authorBowdler, Jono
dc.contributor.authorWallis, Lee
dc.contributor.authorShippen, James
dc.date.accessioned2022-04-06T08:56:29Z
dc.date.available2022-04-06T08:56:29Z
dc.date.issued2022-01-15
dc.date.updated2022-01-16T05:06:12Z
dc.description.abstractBackground Motor vehicle collisions are a common cause of death and serious injury. Many casualties will remain in their vehicle following a collision. Trapped patients have more injuries and are more likely to die than their untrapped counterparts. Current extrication methods are time consuming and have a focus on movement minimisation and mitigation. The optimal extrication strategy and the effect this extrication method has on spinal movement is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the movement at the cervical and lumbar spine for four commonly utilised extrication techniques. Methods Biomechanical data was collected using inertial Measurement Units on 6 healthy volunteers. The extrication types examined were: roof removal, b-post rip, rapid removal and self-extrication. Measurements were recorded at the cervical and lumbar spine, and in the anteroposterior (AP) and lateral (LAT) planes. Total movement (travel), maximal movement, mean, standard deviation and confidence intervals are reported for each extrication type. Results Data from a total of 230 extrications were collected for analysis. The smallest maximal and total movement (travel) were seen when the volunteer self-extricated (AP max = 2.6 mm, travel 4.9 mm). The largest maximal movement and travel were seen in rapid extrication extricated (AP max = 6.21 mm, travel 20.51 mm). The differences between self-extrication and all other methods were significant (p < 0.001), small non-significant differences existed between roof removal, b-post rip and rapid removal. Self-extrication was significantly quicker than the other extrication methods (mean 6.4 s). Conclusions In healthy volunteers, self-extrication is associated with the smallest spinal movement and the fastest time to complete extrication. Rapid, B-post rip and roof off extrication types are all associated with similar movements and time to extrication in prepared vehicles.en_US
dc.identifier.apacitationNutbeam, T., Fenwick, R., May, B., Stassen, W., Smith, J. E., Bowdler, J., ... Shippen, J. (2022). Assessing spinal movement during four extrication methods: a biomechanical study using healthy volunteers. <i>Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine</i>, 30(1), 7. http://hdl.handle.net/11427/36281en_ZA
dc.identifier.chicagocitationNutbeam, Tim, Rob Fenwick, Barbara May, Willem Stassen, Jason E Smith, Jono Bowdler, Lee Wallis, and James Shippen "Assessing spinal movement during four extrication methods: a biomechanical study using healthy volunteers." <i>Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine</i> 30, 1. (2022): 7. http://hdl.handle.net/11427/36281en_ZA
dc.identifier.citationNutbeam, T., Fenwick, R., May, B., Stassen, W., Smith, J.E., Bowdler, J., Wallis, L. & Shippen, J. et al. 2022. Assessing spinal movement during four extrication methods: a biomechanical study using healthy volunteers. <i>Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine.</i> 30(1):7. http://hdl.handle.net/11427/36281en_ZA
dc.identifier.ris TY - Journal Article AU - Nutbeam, Tim AU - Fenwick, Rob AU - May, Barbara AU - Stassen, Willem AU - Smith, Jason E AU - Bowdler, Jono AU - Wallis, Lee AU - Shippen, James AB - Background Motor vehicle collisions are a common cause of death and serious injury. Many casualties will remain in their vehicle following a collision. Trapped patients have more injuries and are more likely to die than their untrapped counterparts. Current extrication methods are time consuming and have a focus on movement minimisation and mitigation. The optimal extrication strategy and the effect this extrication method has on spinal movement is unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the movement at the cervical and lumbar spine for four commonly utilised extrication techniques. Methods Biomechanical data was collected using inertial Measurement Units on 6 healthy volunteers. The extrication types examined were: roof removal, b-post rip, rapid removal and self-extrication. Measurements were recorded at the cervical and lumbar spine, and in the anteroposterior (AP) and lateral (LAT) planes. Total movement (travel), maximal movement, mean, standard deviation and confidence intervals are reported for each extrication type. Results Data from a total of 230 extrications were collected for analysis. The smallest maximal and total movement (travel) were seen when the volunteer self-extricated (AP max = 2.6 mm, travel 4.9 mm). The largest maximal movement and travel were seen in rapid extrication extricated (AP max = 6.21 mm, travel 20.51 mm). The differences between self-extrication and all other methods were significant (p < 0.001), small non-significant differences existed between roof removal, b-post rip and rapid removal. Self-extrication was significantly quicker than the other extrication methods (mean 6.4 s). Conclusions In healthy volunteers, self-extrication is associated with the smallest spinal movement and the fastest time to complete extrication. Rapid, B-post rip and roof off extrication types are all associated with similar movements and time to extrication in prepared vehicles. DA - 2022-01-15 DB - OpenUCT DP - University of Cape Town IS - 1 J1 - Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine LK - https://open.uct.ac.za PY - 2022 T1 - Assessing spinal movement during four extrication methods: a biomechanical study using healthy volunteers TI - Assessing spinal movement during four extrication methods: a biomechanical study using healthy volunteers UR - http://hdl.handle.net/11427/36281 ER - en_ZA
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-022-00996-5
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11427/36281
dc.identifier.vancouvercitationNutbeam T, Fenwick R, May B, Stassen W, Smith JE, Bowdler J, et al. Assessing spinal movement during four extrication methods: a biomechanical study using healthy volunteers. Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine. 2022;30(1):7. http://hdl.handle.net/11427/36281.en_ZA
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.language.rfc3066en
dc.publisher.departmentDivision of Emergency Medicineen_US
dc.publisher.facultyFaculty of Health Sciencesen_US
dc.rights.holderThe Author(s)
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_US
dc.sourceScandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicineen_US
dc.source.journalissue1en_US
dc.source.journalvolume30en_US
dc.source.pagination7en_US
dc.source.urihttps://sjtrem.biomedcentral.com/
dc.titleAssessing spinal movement during four extrication methods: a biomechanical study using healthy volunteersen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
13049_2022_Article_996.pdf
Size:
1.13 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
0 B
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Journal Articles