![]() ![]() This stretcher is a straightforward, quick-use device that can slide under the patient with minimal movement. In the majority of medical response situations the outdated extrication board h as been replaced by t he Ferno scoop stretcher. The extrication board should be removed as soon as the patient is placed on a stretcher unless the patient requires full spinal immobilization. on a rescue operation with out- o f-dat e equipment or where other patient s are using available scoop stretcher s). In BC, paramedics only use extrication boards in situations that call specifically for extrication or if scoop stretchers are unavailable (i.e. The cocooning effect of this board makes the extrication process easier, but this board is rigid and uncomfortable for the patient, with spider straps that are effective but take some time to secure. immobilizing a patient to extricate them from a narrow space. It’s a p roven, effective piece o f equipment, but in recent years the terminology and guidelines for these devices has changed and these days the extrication board is primarily used specifically for extrication – i.e. The extrication board, or spineboard, has been around for many years and been used by all types of res pond ers – fire crews, search and rescue, ambulances, life guards, industrial rescue services, etc. D etermining whether to use the traditional extrication board ( previous ly known as the spineboard ) or the Ferno 65EXL scoop stretcher in a given situation depend s on the specific challenges of the situation along with an understanding of acceptable standa rds, as well as some personal preference on the part of the first respon der. When conducting rescues and tra nsporting patients it’s important to choose the right equipment for the job. Decreased movement using the FSS may reduce the risk of further spinal cord injury.Comparing the Ferno 65 EXL Scoop Stretcher to Traditional Extrication Boards ![]() ![]() The FSS caused significantly less movement on application andincreased comfort levels. The FSS demonstrated superior comfort andperceived security. The FSS induced more sagittal flexion during the lift than the LBB (p < 0.001). No difference was found during a secured logroll maneuver. There was approximately 6–8 degrees greater motion in the sagittal, lateral, andaxial planes during the application of the LBB compared with the FSS (both p < 0.001). Comfort andperceived security also were assessed on a visual analog scale. The sagittal flexion, lateral flexion, andaxial rotation were recorded during each of four phases: 1) baseline, 2) application (logroll onto the LBB or placement of the FSS around the patient), 3) secured logroll, and4) lifting. Subjects were tested on both the FSS andthe LBB. Thirty-one adult subjects had electromagnetic sensors secured over the nasion (forehead) andthe C3 andT12 spinous processes andwere placed in a rigid cervical collar, with movement recorded by a goniometer (a motion analysis system). They hypothesized no difference in movement during application andimmobilization between the FSS andthe LBB. The authors compared the traditional long backboard (LBB) with the Ferno Scoop Stretcher (FSS) (Model 65-EXL). Spinal immobilization is essential in reducing risk of further spinal injuries in trauma patients. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |