Vac Mat vs LSB study

[MonkeyArrow]

So I was looking up vacuum mattresses and the literature of them being used with c-collars, head blocks, other extremity splints, etc. when I came across this study. I know the general consensus on new research is VacMat=, LSB=:sad:
I wonder, is the sample size too small? In the (few) statistical evals that they post, they said application time is faster, which is to be expected for the long spine board. However, they also claimed that LSB was more comfortable to the patients and the immobilization was better in all facets. All results were statistically significant.

My theory to start with is that the sample size is too small. Also, there really is no baseline for a pain threshold and therefore, since pts. only got one of the treatments (during an actual emergency), they have no comparative form to respectively rank at. Maybe the VacMat group had a lower pain threshold/more fragile population. Lastly, it states "various measures of immobilization were better by LBB". What the crap does that mean? What aspects are they? How quantitative was the actual aspect? Was is a crapshoot to see personal flexion/extension bests?

The study looks pretty shoddily done from the info that I have available here. What do you guys think? This study worth considering or is it trash?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23746392

 

[LondonMedic]

I think it's telling that they want to compare two forms of immobilisation and then don't actually measure immobilisation.

 

[Tigger]

I'm still waiting for something to show that vacuum mattresses do something more than the cot mattress does. Are they more comfortable than a spineboard? Sure, but so is everything else.

 

[JPINFV]

Unfortunately, I don't have access to Prehosp Disaster Med. The fact that the only numbers the abstract include is application time is telling.

 

[Bullets]

Why waste time with the vac-mat? STOP BACKBOARDING PEOPLE

 

[MonkeyArrow]

Why waste time with the vac-mat? STOP BACKBOARDING PEOPLE

I am thoroughly confused. I'm pretty sure the study was citing the stats of using a vacuum mattress as opposed to a long spine board. I'm not quite sure anyone is advocating the backboard. The question here was whether the study has any credibility, which I'm fairly sure we've collectedly denounced [the credibility of the study].

 

[Summit]

Unfortunately, I don't have access to Prehosp Disaster Med. The fact that the only numbers the abstract include is application time is telling.

This was my thought too.

 

[Meursault]

On top of what everyone else said:

In this survey, LBB was faster to apply: 211.66 (SD = 28.53) seconds vs 654.00 (SD = 16.61) seconds

Is that a clinically meaningful difference? How much of that is hands-off time (deflating the vac mat? How much of that is inexperience with the vac mat?

I'm still waiting for something to show that vacuum mattresses do something more than the cot mattress does. Are they more comfortable than a spineboard? Sure, but so is everything else.

If nothing else, we need to look carefully at extricating patients from places where the cot can't go. My guess is that a good study will find either that a scoop stretcher works well enough for everyone or that a MegaMover/Reeves is adequate because it doesn't matter. This abstract mentions "less slippage on a gradual lateral tilt" with the vac mat: the cot would perform poorly on that test, and I've had to apply rather a lot of "lateral tilt" on some staircases.