06/10/2026
25 π²πππ«π¬ π¨π ππ―π’πππ§ππ. ππ'π¬ ππ’π¦π ππ¨ π«πππ‘π’π§π€ π¬π©π’π§ππ₯ π’π¦π¦π¨ππ’π₯π’π³πππ’π¨π§ π’π§ πππ.
Since Hauswald's pivotal 1998 Malaysian study, we've had a quarter century of data pointing in the same direction. The evidence against routine spinal immobilization is substantial:
β No demonstrable benefit in any study
β Consistent evidence of harm: respiratory compromise, pressure ulcers, increased pain
β Zero cases where withholding immobilization led to legal liability
β Multiple cases where applying immobilization caused legal problems
The Wilderness Medical Society's 2024 guidelines, developed by a multidisciplinary team including orthopedic surgeons and EMS physicians, recommend against routine immobilization for suspected spinal injury.
So where does that leave us practically?
Personally, I'm not advocating for removing collars entirely. I'm advocating for using them selectively, based on clinical judgment. A stepwise approach, where paramedics can clinically clear the c-spine in the field, can eliminate the collar in roughly 80% of cases that would have received one under a reflexive protocol. The collar remains available for patients where clearing isn't possible.
The honest reality: the medicolegal concern keeping many of us from changing practice is, per the authors, a shibboleth grounded more in culture than evidence.
EMS culture adds interventions easily. Removing them, even with overwhelming evidence, is far harder.
The authors ask: "How many patients need to be harmed?"
What does your service's spinal management protocol look like today? This is a conversation all of us will benefit from, including our patients.
-PA
Read the full study:https://media.handtevy.com/website/Out-of-Hospital-Management-of-Suspected-Spinal-Cord-Injuries-How-Much-Evidence-Does-it-Take-to-Change-Practice-.pdf