• Songning Zhang, Michael Wortley, Kurt Clowers, and John H Krusenklaus.
• Biomechanics/Sports Medicine Laboratory, Department of Exercise, Sport and Leisure Studies, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA. szhang@utk.edu
• Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon). 2005 Mar 1;20(3):264-9.

BackgroundCervical orthoses are often prescribed for both extrication stabilization of trauma patients and a treatment option of injuries to the cervical spine. The objective of this study was to compare effectiveness of two new and two established cervical orthoses in restricting 3D range of motion in the cervical spine.MethodsTwenty healthy males and females (ten each) participated in the study. Two new cervical collars, C-Breeze and XTW and two established collars, Miami J and Aspen, were examined. A 3-camera Vicon system was used to collect 3D kinematic data. Subjects performed three trials in each of the 15 test conditions wearing no collar and the four cervical collars and performing three different head movements: flexion-extension, left-right lateral flexion, and left-right axial rotation.FindingsThe results comparing with the unbraced movements indicated that the Miami J and C-Breeze collars had significantly greater percent reduction on range of motion in flexion than the XTW collar. For both extension and lateral bending, all three collars showed greater percent reduction than the Miami J. The XTW also showed greater reduction than the C-Breeze and Aspen in extension. Finally, the C-Breeze collar showed a significantly more reduction in axial rotation than the Miami J collar.InterpretationThe results suggested that C-Breeze and XTW along with the Miami J and Aspen collars are effective in restricting range of motion in the cervical spine. The two new cervical orthoses also performed either comparably as or better than the two established cervical orthoses.

22 keywords...

hide…