In recent years, mechanical devices for cardiopulmonary resuscitation have gained increasing relevance in the out-of-hospital management of cardiac arrest, especially in situations where consistent high-quality manual compressions cannot be ensured. Their use during patient transport, however, still raises some doubts, particularly regarding device stability and the ability to maintain the correct compression point throughout movement. This experimental study aimed to compare the stability of the LUCAS device during stair transport using two different supports: a traditional spinal board and a scoop stretcher. The project was carried out in collaboration with volunteer responders operating within an emergency service in the province of Padua. A Resusci-Anne (Laerdal) manikin, weighted to approximately 70 kg, was used and transported on stairs by eight rescue teams, for a total of 64 trials (32 for each support used with the LUCAS device). During each transport, displacement of the compression point along the cranio-caudal and lateral axes was measured, together with angular variations of the board and total transport time. The analysis revealed a significant difference along the cranio-caudal axis, with greater longitudinal shifts observed when the scoop stretcher was used. No statistically relevant differences emerged for lateral displacement or board-angle variations. Overall, the recorded movements remained limited and likely within acceptable thresholds for maintaining effective compressions. These findings indicate that, although both systems provide reasonable stability, the scoop stretcher may be associated with slightly greater longitudinal motion of the LUCAS device, whereas the spinal board appears to offer a more stable base for the posterior support plate. The study has several limitations, including the use of a manikin and the simulated nature of the scenario. Nonetheless, the results offer practical insights for clinical practice and for the training of rescuers. Further research in real-world settings, involving actual patients, may help clarify whether these differences influence compression quality or resuscitation outcomes.
Negli ultimi anni i dispositivi meccanici per la rianimazione cardiopolmonare hanno assunto un ruolo sempre più rilevante nella gestione dell’arresto cardiaco extraospedaliero, soprattutto in situazioni in cui la qualità delle compressioni manuali non può essere garantita. Tuttavia, l’impiego di tali strumenti durante il trasporto del paziente presenta delle incertezze, tra cui la stabilità del dispositivo e il mantenimento del corretto punto di compressione. Il presente studio sperimentale ha avuto l’obiettivo di confrontare la stabilità del dispositivo LUCAS durante il trasporto su due differenti supporti: la barella spinale tradizionale e la barella a cucchiaio. L’indagine è stata condotta in collaborazione con i volontari soccorritori di un ente deputato al soccorso all’interno della provincia di Padova. È stato utilizzato un manichino Resusci-Anne (Laerdal) zavorrato fino a 70 kg, sottoposto a trasporto su scale da otto squadre di soccorritori, per un totale di 64 prove (32 per ciascun dispositivo associato al LUCAS). Durante ogni trasporto sono stati registrati gli spostamenti del punto di compressione toracica del LUCAS lungo gli assi cranio-caudale e laterale, nonché le variazioni angolari della tavola e la durata del tragitto. I risultati hanno evidenziato una differenza significativa lungo l’asse cranio-caudale, con uno spostamento medio maggiore sulla barella a cucchiaio. Gli scostamenti laterali e le variazioni angolari, invece, non hanno mostrato differenze statisticamente rilevanti tra i due supporti. In termini operativi, lo spostamento osservato resta comunque contenuto e presumibilmente entro limiti compatibili con un’efficace continuità delle compressioni. Questi dati suggeriscono che, pur garantendo una discreta stabilità, l’utilizzo della barella a cucchiaio potrebbe essere correlato a maggiori spostamenti longitudinali del LUCAS. Al contrario, la tavola spinale, sembrerebbe fornire un appoggio più stabile alla base posteriore del dispositivo. Lo studio presenta alcuni limiti, legati all’uso di un manichino e alla natura simulata del contesto sperimentale. Tuttavia, i risultati offrono spunti utili per la pratica clinica e per la formazione dei soccorritori. Ulteriori ricerche, condotte in scenari reali e con pazienti, potrebbero contribuire a chiarire l’impatto clinico di tali differenze in termini di qualità delle compressioni e outcome rianimatori.
Confronto tra tavola spinale e barella a cucchiaio nella prevenzione degli spostamenti accidentali durante il trasporto del paziente con dispositivo LUCAS: uno studio sperimentale
DELFITTO, LUCA
2024/2025
Abstract
In recent years, mechanical devices for cardiopulmonary resuscitation have gained increasing relevance in the out-of-hospital management of cardiac arrest, especially in situations where consistent high-quality manual compressions cannot be ensured. Their use during patient transport, however, still raises some doubts, particularly regarding device stability and the ability to maintain the correct compression point throughout movement. This experimental study aimed to compare the stability of the LUCAS device during stair transport using two different supports: a traditional spinal board and a scoop stretcher. The project was carried out in collaboration with volunteer responders operating within an emergency service in the province of Padua. A Resusci-Anne (Laerdal) manikin, weighted to approximately 70 kg, was used and transported on stairs by eight rescue teams, for a total of 64 trials (32 for each support used with the LUCAS device). During each transport, displacement of the compression point along the cranio-caudal and lateral axes was measured, together with angular variations of the board and total transport time. The analysis revealed a significant difference along the cranio-caudal axis, with greater longitudinal shifts observed when the scoop stretcher was used. No statistically relevant differences emerged for lateral displacement or board-angle variations. Overall, the recorded movements remained limited and likely within acceptable thresholds for maintaining effective compressions. These findings indicate that, although both systems provide reasonable stability, the scoop stretcher may be associated with slightly greater longitudinal motion of the LUCAS device, whereas the spinal board appears to offer a more stable base for the posterior support plate. The study has several limitations, including the use of a manikin and the simulated nature of the scenario. Nonetheless, the results offer practical insights for clinical practice and for the training of rescuers. Further research in real-world settings, involving actual patients, may help clarify whether these differences influence compression quality or resuscitation outcomes.| File | Dimensione | Formato | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
LUCA.DELFITTO.2083500.pdf_A.pdf
Accesso riservato
Dimensione
999.93 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
999.93 kB | Adobe PDF |
The text of this website © Università degli studi di Padova. Full Text are published under a non-exclusive license. Metadata are under a CC0 License
https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12608/102721