Gordon O. Matheson

Publication Details

  • Effectiveness of Cervical Spine Stabilization Techniques CLINICAL JOURNAL OF SPORT MEDICINE Boissy, P., Shrier, I., Briere, S., Mellete, J., Fecteau, L., Matheson, G. O., Garza, D., Meeuwisse, W. H., Segal, E., Boulay, J., Steele, R. J. 2011; 21 (2): 80-88


    To compare head motions that occur when trained professionals perform the head squeeze (HS) and trap squeeze (TS) C-spine stabilization techniques.Cross-over design.Twelve experienced lead rescuers.Peak head motion with respect to initial conditions using inertial measurement units attached to the forehead and trunk of the simulated patient. We compared both HS and TS during lift-and-slide (L&S) and log-roll (LR) placement on spinal board, and agitated patient trying to sit up (AGIT-Sit) or rotate his head (AGIT-Rot). The a priori minimal important difference (MID) was 5 degrees for flexion or extension and 3 degrees for rotation or lateral flexion.The L&S technique was statistically superior to the LR technique. The only differences to exceed the MID were extension and rotation during LR (HS > TS). In the AGIT-Sit test scenario, differences in motion exceeded MID (HS > TS) for flexion, rotation, and lateral flexion. In the AGIT-Rot scenario, differences in motion exceeded MID for rotation only (HS >TS). There was similar intertrial variability of motion for HS and TS during L&S and LR but significantly more variability with HS compared with TS in the agitated patient.The L&S is preferable to the LR when possible for minimizing unwanted C-spine motion. There is little overall difference between HS and TS in a cooperative patient. When a patient is confused, the HS is much worse than the TS at minimizing C-spine motion.

    View details for DOI 10.1097/JSM.0b013e31820f8ad5

    View details for Web of Science ID 000287844100002

    View details for PubMedID 21358496

Stanford Medicine Resources:

Footer Links: