Dragging Instead of Lifting: A New Spine Stretcher Concept
|Bufalini Hospital Trauma Center, AUSL Romagna, Cesena (FC), Italy|
|Corresponding Author :||Enrico Farabegoli
Bufalini Hospital Trauma Center
AUSL Romagna, Cesena (FC), Italy
Fax: 393 3861554
E-mail: [email protected]
|Received June 19, 2014; Accepted September 16, 2014; Published September 18, 2014|
|Citation: Farabegoli E (2014) Dragging Instead of Lifting: A New Spine Stretcher Concept. J Spine 3:183. doi:10.4172/2165-7939.1000183|
|Copyright: © 2014 Farabegoli E, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.|
Introduction: The goal of immobilization is to transform the entire body of the patient into a single mass so it can withstand the stress of the rescue without further damage. The traumatized patients must be immobilized on spine stretchers to ensure complete immobilization of their spine. The world’s best selling stretcher of this type is the Ferno Scoop Exl65. The Northwall Innovation’s Skidboard is a stretcher that does not require the collar and can be dragged on the ground.
Material and Methods: We compared the stress to the spine during the loading and transport steps with both the Skidboard and the Exl65 stretchers. We collected data from electronic devices placed on the patient’s suit and helmet. Each sensor inside the suit and helmet showed values on the three Cartesian axes during all manoeuvers. We repeatedly simulated the rescue of a fallen rider and performed rescue operations both by lifting and transporting the patient on the Exl65 stretcher and by loading the patient on the Skidboard and dragging it on the ground, in a variety of scenarios.
Results: In general, the Skidboard creates less energy than the Exl65. The Skidboard ensures correct immobilization of the cervical spine during the entire rescue process, unlike the Exl65 that does not immobilize the cervical spine when the patient is wearing a helmet. The rest of the spine, even if tied on the Exl65, is more subject to pitching and especially rolling on the Exl65 as opposed to the Skidboard. The stresses dragging Skidboard are physically more noisy and we were expecting the body to absorb the vibrations and turn it into injury, but it is not so. Probably because the fastening system of the Skidboard makes the body an integral block with the stretcher, and the energy developed by skidding is dissipated in other forms, without injury to the spine. The Exl65 seems to vibrate slightly during the transport, however the operators perform instinctive ergonomic and compensatory acts that generate energy on the patient, although tied to the stretcher. The Skidboard does not only discharge less energy on patient than the Exl65, but also greatly reduces the severity of the fall of the patient from the stretcher because only a portion of the body is elevated a few centimeters above the ground.
Conclusion: Data show that the stress to the patient using Skidboard is not greater than with another stretcher during the transport on flat ground. The system of dragging a stretcher seems to be a valid system to rescue traumatized and non-traumatized patients. In fact, it does not deliver greater energy than lifting and transporting on other stretchers. The author declares no conflicts of interests.