 |
 |
Mathew Dunn wrote:
>I agree that there is an issue with risk/ benefit for 'spinal
>immobilisation'. It is generally held to be a good thing. However there is
>no clear evidence for its benefit even in patients with unstable spinal
>injuries (I am prepared to be corrected on this one); it will clearly have
>no benefit in the rest (the vast majority) and it had unquantified risk.
>Scope here for further primary and secondary research and subsequent
>evidence based challenge to the orthodoxy.
The only clear evidence for immobilising an unstable cervical spine is common sense.Until you have imaging it is difficult to decide which fracture is stable, its like assessing chest pains without an ECG.
You could do a study which may come out in favour of not immobilising a cervical spine injury, but like a lot of "evidence based medicine" not many people would take any notice of it.
Duncan Peacock SPR UCH