A COMPARISON OF THE SPINAL BOARD AND THE VACUUM STRETCHER, SPINAL STABILITY AND INTERFACE PRESSURE

The interface pressures were measured between the sacrum, mid-lumbar s pine and various support surfaces. Thirty healthy male volunteers were recruited. ne spinal board, padded spinal board and vacuum stretcher were the support surfaces evaluated. We found high and potentially isc haemic pressures between the sacrum and the spinal board interface (me an 147.3 mmHg). This was reduced in the padded board (115.5 mmHg) but dramatically reduced with the vacuum stretcher (36.7 mmHg). It was als o noted that no support was given to the normal lumbar lordosis by the spinal board (padded and unpadded), but support was given by the vacu um stretcher. This raises the question of how stable is an unstable sp inal injury on a flat supporting surface.