Login
Site Search
Trauma-List Subscription
Modify Your Subscription
Home >
List Archives
Spinal Immobilization question and evidence based medicine
Amado Baez trauma-list@trauma.orgTue, 05 Feb 2002 14:02:30 +0000
- Previous message: Replacing Sux
- Next message: trauma-list digest, Vol 1 #1264 - 14 msgs
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Dear friends; Great discussion regarding spinal immobilization. In terms of spinal immobilization and evidence based medicine in truly think it's a difficult are to study as I don't know of any service that will submit their patients to a randomized controlled trail assessing the benefits of spinal immobilization versus none. Thus the RCT gold standard in evidence based medicine has limited applicability in this setting and makes it very difficult to assess therapeutic classes and benefits. We could probably look into retrospective studies and obtain assumptions based on these, please find a 1989 study published in J trauma by a group of military researchers. I think it will be of your interest. Amado A. Baez MD MSc Chicago, IL --------------------------------------------- Arishita GI, Vayer JS, Bellamy RF.Cervical spine immobilization of penetrating neck wounds in a hostile environment.J Trauma 1989 Mar;29(3):332-7 Department of Military Medicine, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD 20814-4799. Current guidelines concerning trauma suggest that cervical spine immobilization be performed on all patients with penetrating wounds of the neck. This study was undertaken to examine the risks and benefits likely to be found when such care is provided in a hazardous environment, such as the battlefield, or the scene of a terrorist attack or domestic criminal action. Data for casualties from the Vietnam conflict were reviewed to determine the potential benefit of cervical spine immobilization on the battlefield. In this population, penetrating cervical cord injury was always fatal and usually immediately so. Only 1.4% of all casualties who were candidates for immobilization might have benefitted from the care. However, the risk of performing immobilization in a hazardous environment is substantial since about 10% of casualties are incurred while helping other casualties. Mandatory immobilization of all casualties with penetrating neck wounds sustained in an environment hazardous to first aid providers has an unfavorable risk/benefit ratio. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
- Previous message: Replacing Sux
- Next message: trauma-list digest, Vol 1 #1264 - 14 msgs
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
