Abstract
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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Article number | 7 |
| Journal | Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine |
| Volume | 30 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 15 Jan 2022 |
Bibliographical note
© The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, whichpermits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativeco
mmons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Funder
Research funded by a charitable grant from the Road Safety Trust. The Road Safety Trust had no role in the design, data collection, analysis or writing of this manuscript.
Funding Information:
This work is kindly supported by the National Fire Chiefs Council, Avon Fire and Rescue Service and Severn Park Fire and Rescue Centre
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s).
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Emergency Medicine
- Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine