194 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19918198)
1. Reduced tissue-interface pressure and increased comfort on a newly developed soft-layered long spineboard.
Hemmes B; Poeze M; Brink PR
J Trauma; 2010 Mar; 68(3):593-8. PubMed ID: 19918198
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effects of unconsciousness during spinal immobilization on tissue-interface pressures: A randomized controlled trial comparing a standard rigid spineboard with a newly developed soft-layered long spineboard.
Hemmes B; Brink PR; Poeze M
Injury; 2014 Nov; 45(11):1741-6. PubMed ID: 24998039
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Pain and tissue-interface pressures during spine-board immobilization.
Cordell WH; Hollingsworth JC; Olinger ML; Stroman SJ; Nelson DR
Ann Emerg Med; 1995 Jul; 26(1):31-6. PubMed ID: 7793717
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Tissue-interface pressures on three different support-surfaces for trauma patients.
Keller BP; Lubbert PH; Keller E; Leenen LP
Injury; 2005 Aug; 36(8):946-8. PubMed ID: 16023909
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Cytokine IL1α and lactate as markers for tissue damage in spineboard immobilisation. A prospective, randomised open-label crossover trial.
Hemmes B; de Wert LA; Brink PRG; Oomens CWJ; Bader DL; Poeze M
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater; 2017 Nov; 75():82-88. PubMed ID: 28704681
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. A New Craniothoracic Mattress for Immobilization of the Cervical Spine in Critical Care Patients.
Holla M; Driessen M; Eggen TGE; Daanen RA; Hosman AJF; Verdonschot N; Hannink G
J Trauma Nurs; 2017; 24(4):261-269. PubMed ID: 28692625
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Comparison of tissue-interface pressure in healthy subjects lying on two trauma splinting devices: The vacuum mattress splint and long spine board.
Pernik MN; Seidel HH; Blalock RE; Burgess AR; Horodyski M; Rechtine GR; Prasarn ML
Injury; 2016 Aug; 47(8):1801-5. PubMed ID: 27324323
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Effect of spineboard and headblocks on the image quality of head CT scans.
Hemmes B; Jeukens CR; Al-Haidari A; Hofman PA; Vd Linden ES; Brink PR; Poeze M
Emerg Radiol; 2016 Jun; 23(3):263-8. PubMed ID: 27091739
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Interface pressure measurements of support surfaces with subjects in the supine and 45-degree Fowler positions.
Whittemore R; Bautista C; Smith C; Bruttomesso K
J ET Nurs; 1993; 20(3):111-5. PubMed ID: 8347757
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of a vacuum splint device to a rigid backboard for spinal immobilization.
Johnson DR; Hauswald M; Stockhoff C
Am J Emerg Med; 1996 Jul; 14(4):369-72. PubMed ID: 8768157
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Measurements of interface pressure between body sites and the surfaces of four specialised air mattresses.
Allen V; Ryan DW; Murray A
Br J Clin Pract; 1994; 48(3):125-9. PubMed ID: 8031686
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Interface pressure at different degrees of backrest elevation with various types of pressure-redistribution surfaces.
Lippoldt J; Pernicka E; Staudinger T
Am J Crit Care; 2014 Mar; 23(2):119-26. PubMed ID: 24585160
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Quantification of pressure relief using interface pressure and tissue perfusion in alternating pressure air mattresses.
Rithalia SV; Gonsalkorale M
Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 2000 Oct; 81(10):1364-9. PubMed ID: 11030502
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Interface pressure, wound healing, and satisfaction in the evaluation of a non-powered fluid mattress.
Wells JA; Karr D
Ostomy Wound Manage; 1998 Feb; 44(2):38-42, 44-6, 48 passim. PubMed ID: 9526420
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Comparison of the effectiveness of two pressure-relieving surfaces: low-air-loss versus static fluid.
Hardin JB; Cronin SN; Cahill K
Ostomy Wound Manage; 2000 Sep; 46(9):50-6. PubMed ID: 11189541
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Revolutionary advances in enhancing patient comfort on patients transported on a backboard.
Edlich RF; Mason SS; Vissers RJ; Gubler KD; Thacker JG; Pharr P; Anderson M; Long WB
Am J Emerg Med; 2011 Feb; 29(2):181-6. PubMed ID: 20825784
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Pressure relief capabilities of the Sof.Care bed and the Clinitron bed.
Maklebust J; Siggreen MY; Mondoux L
Ostomy Wound Manage; 1988; 21():32, 36-41, 44. PubMed ID: 3250579
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Interface pressure comparison of healthy premature infants with various neonatal bed surfaces.
Turnage-Carrier C; McLane KM; Gregurich MA
Adv Neonatal Care; 2008 Jun; 8(3):176-84. PubMed ID: 18535423
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. The Effect of a Liner on the Dispersion of Sacral Interface Pressures During Spinal Immobilization.
Nemunaitis G; Roach MJ; Boulet M; Nagy JA; Kaufman B; Mejia M; Hefzy MS
Assist Technol; 2015; 27(1):9-17. PubMed ID: 26132220
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Vacuum mattress or long spine board: which method of spinal stabilisation in trauma patients is more time consuming? A simulation study.
Ms R; Riffelmann M; Kunze-Szikszay N; Lier M; Schmid O; Haus H; Schneider S; Jf H
Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med; 2021 Mar; 29(1):46. PubMed ID: 33706791
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
