Patient experience of spinal immobilisation after trauma.

BACKGROUND: Spinal immobilisation of blunt trauma victims with potential spinal cord injury is considered standard of care. The traditional management has, however, been increasingly questioned and concerns about harm have been raised. Few studies have described the perspective of the trauma patient regarding the spinal immobilisation. The objective of this study was therefore to evaluate the patient experience of immobilisation after trauma. METHODS: We prospectively screened adult trauma patients admitted to a level 1 trauma centre for eligibility. We included adult trauma patients who had been, and remembered being, immobilised for spinal protection with a cervical collar and a spine board prehospitally or upon arrival at the trauma centre. A semi-structured interview was conducted 2 to 72 h after admission either in person or by telephone. RESULTS: One hundred and fourteen patients were eligible for inclusion based on the patient charts. Out of 98 patients assessed for participation, 48 (49%) had no memory of being immobilised. We thus included 50 patients with a median age of 37 years (IQR: 26-60) of whom 38 (76%) were men. The median injury severity score was 9 (IQR: 3-15) and the median time with a cervical collar from initial application to in-hospital removal or until the interview was given was 91 min (IQR: 72-136). Nineteen patients (38%) reported discomfort and 12 patients (24%) experienced pain related to the immobilisation. Forty patients (80%) reported a sense of protection related to the immobilisation. CONCLUSION: Discomfort related to spinal immobilisation was reported in 38% of trauma patients. However, a sense of protection was a recurring theme in 80% of the trauma patients, who recalled being immobilised. Nearly half of the awake trauma patients had no memory of being immobilised.

Restrictive vs liberal oxygen for trauma patients-the TRAUMOX1 pilot randomised clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Hyperoxaemia is commonly observed in trauma patients but has been associated with pulmonary complications and mortality in some patient populations. The objectives of this study were to evaluate whether maintenance of normoxia is feasible using a restrictive oxygen strategy in the initial phase after trauma and to evaluate the incidence of 30-day mortality and/or major pulmonary complications. METHODS: Forty-one adult trauma patients admitted to our trauma centre were randomised to 24 hours of restrictive oxygen therapy (no supplemental oxygen if the arterial oxyhaemoglobin saturation (SpO2 ) was at least 94%, n = 21) or liberal oxygen therapy (intubated patients: FiO2 1.0 in the trauma bay, 0.8-1.0 elsewhere; spontaneously breathing patients: 15 L/min via a non-rebreather mask, n = 20). Two blinded anaesthesiologists evaluated major in-hospital pulmonary complications within 30 days. RESULTS: Protocol compliance was high, as the median arterial oxygen tension was significantly lower in the restrictive group (10.8 kPa [9.7-12.0] vs 30.4 kPa [23.7-39.0], P < 0.0001). There were seven episodes of SpO2 below 90% in the restrictive group and one episode in the liberal group. Thirty-day mortality and/or major in-hospital pulmonary complications occurred in 4/20 (20%) in the restrictive group and in 6/18 (33%) in the liberal group: two patients in each group died within 30 days and the incidence of major in-hospital pulmonary complications was 2/20 (10%) in the restrictive group and 4/18 (22%) in the liberal group. CONCLUSION: Maintenance of normoxia using a restrictive oxygen strategy following trauma is feasible. This pilot study serves as the basis for a larger clinical trial.