{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022325581395348838, 'fraction_numerical': 0.011162790697674419, 'mean_word_length': 5.219653179190751, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Respiratory effects of spinal immobilization.

OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effect of whole-body spinal immobilization on respiration.


METHODS
This was a randomized, crossover laboratory study with 39 human volunteer subjects (20 males; 19 females) ranging in age from 7 to 85 years. Respiratory function was measured three times: at baseline (seated or lying), immobilized with a Philadelphia collar on a hard wooden backboard, and on a Scandinavian vacuum mattress with a vacuum collar. The comfort levels of each of the two methods were assessed on a forced Likert scale.


RESULTS
Both immobilization methods restricted respiration, 15% on the average. The effects were similar under the two immobilization conditions, although the FEV1 was lower on the vacuum mattress. Respiratory restriction was more pronounced at the extremes of age. The vacuum mattress was significantly more comfortable.


CONCLUSION
This study confirmed the previously reported respiratory restriction caused by spinal immobilization. Vacuum mattresses are more comfortable than wooden backboards.