• Spine · Jul 1996

    Comparative Study

    The effectiveness of various cervical orthoses. An in vivo comparison of the mechanical stability provided by several widely used models.

    • A J Sandler, J Dvorak, T Humke, D Grob, and W Daniels.
    • Schulthess Clinic Spine Unit, Zürich, Switzerland.
    • Spine. 1996 Jul 15;21(14):1624-9.

    Study DesignThe amount of motion allowed by various cervical orthoses was compared with the amount of unrestricted neck motion in vivo.ObjectivesTo determine how much mechanical stability commonly used cervical orthoses provide to the wearer.Summary Of Background DataFew studies have compared quantitatively the restriction of motion from cervical orthoses that are commonly prescribed for patients. No studies have used methods allowing measurement of all three rotations throughout the range of motion in passive and active tests. Previous studies may have overstated the amount of restriction provided resulting from the methods used.MethodsFive subjects were tested for cervical range of motion in flexion-extension, axial, rotation, and lateral bending. Each was tested with no collar, with soft collar, with Philadelphia collar, with Philadelphia collar with thoracic extension, and with sterno-occipital mandibular immobilizer brace. Each test was conducted passively and actively. Measurements were taken with the CA-6000 Spine Motion Analyzer, a highly accurate and precise computerized linkage system that simultaneously records all three rotations in real time.ResultsAll orthoses restricted motion to some extent. Generally, the collars ranked (from least restrictive to most restrictive): soft, Philadelphia, Philadelphia with extension, and sterno-occipital mandibular immobilizer brace. However, the differences were not usually large, and the collars did not restrict motion as much as previously reported. No collar restricted the motion of any of the subjects to less than 19 degrees of flexion-extension, 46 degrees of axial rotation, or 45 degrees of lateral bending, and most subjects demonstrated significantly more motion.ConclusionsAlthough cervical orthoses can be helpful for other reasons, they do not provide a high level of mechanical restriction of motion. Additionally, the restriction they do provide can vary widely between people. Prescribing physicians should consider the relative merits of the various orthoses before deciding whether they will meet a patient's needs. The differences between the collars tested may not be enough to justify one of the more expensive or less comfortable collars.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

Want more great medical articles?

Keep up to date with a free trial of metajournal, personalized for your practice.
1,694,794 articles already indexed!

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.