Patient outcomes before and after implementation of a selective pre-hospital spinal immobilization protocol: A comparative cohort pilot study in a level 2 trauma center.

• Prevalence of non-immobilized spinal fractures decreased under selective protocol. • Due to no differences in adverse patient outcomes, a larger study is discouraged. • >85% of immobilized trauma patients do not have a spinal fracture. A new selective preventive spinal immobilization (PSI) protocol was introduced in the Netherlands. This may have led to an increase in non-immobilized spinal fractures (NISFs) and consequently adverse patient outcomes. A pilot study was conducted to describe the adverse patient outcomes in NISF of the PSI protocol change and assess the feasibility of a larger effect study. Retrospective comparative cohort pilot study including records of trauma patients with a presumed spinal injury who were presented at the emergency department of a level 2 trauma center by the emergency medical service (EMS). The pre-period 2013–2014 (strict PSI protocol), was compared to the post-period 2017–2018 (selective PSI protocol). Primary outcomes were the percentage of records with a NISF who had an adverse patient outcome such as neurological injuries and mortality before and after the protocol change. Secondary outcomes were the sample size calculation for a larger study and the feasibility of data collection. 1,147 records were included; 442 pre-period, and 705 post-period. The NISF-prevalence was 10% (95% CI 7–16, n = 19) and 8% (95% CI 6–11, n = 33), respectively. In both periods, no neurological injuries or mortality due to NISF were found, by which calculating a sample size is impossible. Data collection showed to be feasible. No neurological injuries or mortality due to NISF were found in a strict and a selective PSI protocol. Therefore, a larger study is discouraged. Future studies should focus on which patients really profit from PSI and which patients do not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]