Spinal motion restriction is indicated for which of the following scenarios?

Spinal motion restriction is indicated for scenarios involving a distracting injury combined with neck pain. This concept is grounded in the understanding that a patient with significant injury elsewhere in the body (the distracting injury) may be less aware of or unable to communicate the severity of potential spinal injuries. In such cases, the presence of neck pain alongside another serious injury implies a risk that the spinal cord could be compromised or damaged. Therefore, implementing spinal motion restriction helps stabilize the spine and prevents exacerbation of any possible injuries until a comprehensive assessment can be performed in a controlled medical environment.

In contrast, a history of stroke does not inherently indicate a need for spinal motion restriction, as it may not present with acute spinal injury risk. Low back pain without any accompanying symptoms, particularly a distracting injury, typically doesn't warrant spinal motion restriction, as the underlying causes of the pain are not necessarily related to spinal trauma. Similarly, a head injury without other symptoms may not suggest a risk of spinal cord injury, and spinal motion restriction is not routinely applied unless there are additional indicators of spinal involvement.

Thus, the presence of a distracting injury paired with neck pain highlights a critical situation where spinal motion restriction is vital in safeguarding the patient's neurological function.