• Faezeh Ghorbani, Mojtaba Kamyab, Fatemeh Azadinia, and Behnam Hajiaghaei.
• From the Department of Orthotics and Prosthetics, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
• Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2016 Apr 1; 95 (4): 291-9.

ObjectiveThe current study aimed to compare the Philadelphia collar and an open-design cervical collar with regard to user satisfaction and cervical range of motion in asymptomatic adults.DesignSeventy-two healthy subjects (36 women, 36 men) aged 18 to 29 yrs were recruited for this study. Neck movements, including active flexion, extension, right/left lateral flexion, and right/left axial rotation, were assessed in each subject under three conditions--without wearing a collar and while wearing two different cervical collars--using a dual digital inclinometer. Subject satisfaction was assessed using a five-item self-administered questionnaire.ResultsBoth Philadelphia and open-design collars significantly reduced cervical motions (P < 0.05). Compared with the Philadelphia collar, the open-design collar more greatly reduced cervical motions in three planes and the differences were statistically significant except for limiting flexion. Satisfaction scores for Philadelphia and open-design collars were 15.89 (3.87) and 19.94 (3.11), respectively.ConclusionBased on the data of the 72 subjects presented in this study, the open-design collar adequately immobilized the cervical spine as a semirigid collar and was considered cosmetically acceptable, at least for subjects aged younger than 30 yrs.

15 keywords...

hide…