Spine Protection in the Austere Environment

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the excellent Wilderness Medical Society practice guidelines for spine immobilization in the austere environment.1Quinn R. Williams J. Bennett B. Stiller G. Islas A. McCord S. Wilderness Medical Society practice guidelines for spine immobilization in the austere environment.Wilderness Environ Med. 2013; 24: 241-252Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar We commend the authors for their presentation of the evidence, and we generally agree with their well-considered recommendations. However, we have some concerns, mainly about the proposed algorithm, “Recommendations for spine clearance and immobilization in the austere environment” (Figure 2 of the article). The authors correctly point out that spinal “immobilization” falsely implies that the spine can be immobilized using current techniques. We believe that the newer terms “spinal protection” and “spinal motion restriction” are more accurate. We agree that a vacuum mattress should be used rather than a backboard for spinal protection. We are surprised that the authors recommend cervical traction during extrication. They mention the dangers of traction with the use of cervical collars. We also would have liked to see the authors address the issue of comfort in patient packaging. For example, is there evidence that patients should be transported in the supine position for spinal protection? Practical experience suggests that transporting patients in the lateral decubitus position can be more comfortable and poses no additional risk. The authors emphasize the lack of evidence that spinal immobilization confers benefit, and they highlight the known risks. If one concludes that spinal immobilization has no benefit, no patient should be “immobilized.” There would then be no need for the proposed algorithm. We agree with the authors that many injured patients are immobilized unnecessarily, causing significant harm, but we do not believe that spinal motion restriction is useless. For nonambulatory patients, there is no reasonable alternative to stretcher transport with spinal protection. Ambulatory patients seldom, if ever, require special measures to protect the spine. In practice, they may be subjected to unnecessary stretcher transport with associated risks in many austere settings. The authors present convincing evidence that “appropriately trained personnel can safely use the NEXUS criteria2Hoffman J.R. Mower W.R. Wolfson A.B. Todd K.H. Zucker M.I. Validity of a set of clinical criteria to rule out injury to the cervical spine in patients with blunt trauma. National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study Group.N Engl J Med. 2000; 343: 94-99Crossref PubMed Scopus (969) Google Scholar or Canadian C-spine Rule”3Stiell I.G. Wells G.A. Vandemheen K.L. et al.The Canadian C-spine rule for radiography in alert and stable trauma patients.JAMA. 2001; 286: 1841-1848Crossref PubMed Scopus (870) Google Scholar in the prehospital setting to guide selective immobilization of the cervical spine. If the guidelines had been limited to the cervical spine and had stopped with the 1A recommendation to use the NEXUS criteria or the Canadian C-spine Rule, we would have no objection. Our main objection to the untested algorithm developed and presented by the authors is to the specific additional criteria they propose as requirements for spinal protection. We are concerned that there might be patients who would benefit from spinal protection to whom it would be denied using these criteria. Because the algorithm has not been validated, there is no way of knowing how it would perform in practice, unlike NEXUS and the Canadian C-Spine Rule. The criteria for spinal range of motion seem to apply only to the cervical spine. Traditionally, for conscious patients, the decision to protect the thoracolumbar spine has been based on the physical examination, specifically on the presence of neurologic findings or tenderness to palpation. We are not aware of evidence concerning the benefits or harms of this practice. We wonder if the authors have evidence to support their proposed algorithm other than “careful and meticulous review of the literature…in combination with the collective expertise of the authors…” We are especially interested in the basis for the 2 new binary decision points, “significant spine pain or tenderness (≥7/10)” and “voluntarily able to flex, extend and rotate spine (cervical or thoracolumbar) 45° in each plane, regardless of pain.” These decision points seem quite subjective and would be difficult to apply in the field. We believe that most field providers would be very reluctant to apply flexion and extension in the field, even if there were evidence that it would be helpful. The risk of unnecessary immobilization could be decreased by including all or parts of a validated instrument, the Canadian C-spine Rule. The Canadian C-spine Rule includes “sitting position,” “ambulatory at any time,” and “delayed onset of neck pain” as criteria for low-risk patients who need only be “able to actively rotate neck 45° left and right” to avoid radiography.3Stiell I.G. Wells G.A. Vandemheen K.L. et al.The Canadian C-spine rule for radiography in alert and stable trauma patients.JAMA. 2001; 286: 1841-1848Crossref PubMed Scopus (870) Google Scholar Patients who will not need radiography certainly do not need stretcher transport for spinal protection. We call on the authors to revise the algorithm by using validated criteria rather than untested novel decision points to prevent ambulatory patients from being placed on stretchers. Drs Zafren, Smith, and Kovacs declare no conflict of interest. Dr Johnson owns a company that provides instruction in wilderness medicine. Wilderness Medical Society Practice Guidelines for Spine Immobilization in the Austere EnvironmentWilderness & Environmental MedicineVol. 24Issue 3PreviewIn an effort to produce best-practice guidelines for spine immobilization in the austere environment, the Wilderness Medical Society convened an expert panel charged with the development of evidence-based guidelines for management of the injured or potentially injured spine in an austere (dangerous or compromised) environment. Recommendations are made regarding several factors related to spinal immobilization. These recommendations are graded based on the quality of supporting evidence and balance between the benefits and risks or burdens for each factor according to the methodology stipulated by the American College of Chest Physicians. Full-Text PDF

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.