Page 79 - Journal of Special Operations Medicine - Fall 2016

tool, but the patient should be transferred off the back- 14. Mazolewski P, Manix T. The effectiveness of strapping tech-
board as soon as feasible. The patient with suspected niques in spinal immobilization. Ann Emerg Med. 1994;23:
1290–1295.
spinal injury must be recognized, and careful steps taken 15. Engsberg JR, Standeven JW, Shurtleff TL, et al. Cervical spine
and judgment made during their handling and transport motion during extrication. J Emerg Med. 2013;44:122–127.
to maximize benefits from interventions performed, but
also minimize risks from those same actions.

Disclaimers Sgt Banting is a physician assistant with CANSOFCOM.
The views and medical opinion herein represent those of Major Meriano is a practicing emergency physician. He has
the authors. They do not reflect the operation practice served in various capacities with the Canadian Forces and Re-
or views of the Canadian Forces or other organizations. serves since 2003. Comment and suggestions can be sent to
The cases are provided to be educational and thought sofclinicalcorner@gmail.com.
provoking; at no time does the author suggest that the
tactical clinicians exceed the scope of their practice or
act against the direction of their medical protocols or
recommendations of their medical leadership.

Disclosures
The authors have nothing to disclose.

References
1. Geisler WO, Wynne-Jones M, Jousse AT. Early management of
patients with trauma to the spinal cord. Med Serv J Can. 1966;
4:512–523.
2. Farrington DJ. Extrication of victims. J Trauma. 1968;8:
493–512.
3. Cordell WH, Hollingsworth JC, Olinger ML, et al. Pain and
tissue-interface pressures during spine-board immobilization.
Ann Emerg Med. 1995;26:31–36.
4. Berg G, Nyberg S, Harrison P, et al. Near-infrared spec-
troscopy measurement of sacral tissue oxygen saturation in
healthy volunteers immobilized on rigid spine boards. Pre-
hosp Emerg Care. 2010;14:419–424.
5. Barney RN, Cordell WH, Miller E. Pain associated with im-
mobilization on rigid spine boards. Ann Emerg Med. 1989;18:
918.
6. Lerner EB, Billittier AJ, Moscati RM. The effects of neutral po-
sitioning with and without padding on spinal immobilization
of healthy subjects. Prehosp Emerg Care. 1998;2:112–116.
7. Bauer D, Kowalski R. Effect of spinal immobilization devices
on pulmonary function in the healthy, nonsmoking man. Ann
Emerg Med. 1988;17:915–918.
8. Hauswald M, Ong G, Tandberg D, et al. Out-of-hospital
spinal immobilization: its effect on neurologic injury. Acad
Emerg Med. 1998;5:214–219.
9. Haut E, Kalish B, Efron D, et al. Spine immobilization in
penetrating trauma: more harm than good? J Trauma. 2010;
68:115–20; discussion 120–121.
10. Stiell IG, Wells GA, Vandemheen KL, et al. The Canadian C-
spine rule for radiography in alert and stable trauma patients.
JAMA. 2001;286:1841–1848.
11. Hoffman JR, Schriger DL, Mower W, et al. Low-risk criteria
for cervical-spine radiography in blunt trauma: a prospective
study. Ann Emerg Med. 1992;21:1454–1460.
12. Vaillancourt C, Stiell IG, Beaudoin T, et al. The out-of-
hospital validation of the Canadian C-spine rule by paramed-
ics. Ann Emerg Med. 2009;54:663–671.
13. Chan D, Goldberg R, Tascone A, et al. Backboard versus mat-
tress splint immobilization: a comparison of symptoms gener-
ated. Ann Emerg Med. 1994;23:48–51.

Clinical Corner: Spinal Immobilization 61