Evaluation of efficacy and 3D kinematic characteristics of cervical orthoses

Clinical Biomechanics

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 264-269

  Zhang, Songning ^a   Wortley, Michael ^a   Clowers, Kurt ^a   Krusenklaus, John H ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

^b Tennessee Sports Medicine Group   (United States)

Author keywords

3D kinematics; Cervical collar; Orthotic devices; Range of motion; Spine

Indexed keywords

BENDING (DEFORMATION); DISEASE CONTROL; KINEMATICS; PATIENT TREATMENT; PROSTHETICS;

CERVICAL ORTHOSES; CERVICAL SPINES; THREE DIMENSIONAL (3D) KINEMATICS; TRAUMA PATIENTS;

BONE;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CAMERA; CERVICAL SPINE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEAD MOVEMENT; HUMAN; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; JOINT FUNCTION; KINEMATICS; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; ORTHOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; ROTATION; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING;

ADULT; BRACES; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; EQUIPMENT FAILURE ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMANS; IMAGE INTERPRETATION, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MALE; MOVEMENT; NECK MUSCLES; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR;

EID: 13844296511     PISSN: 02680033     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2004.09.015     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. M. Areblad, B.M. Nigg, J. Ekstrand, K.O. Olsson, and H. Ekstrom Three dimensional measurement of rearfoot motion during running J. Biomech. 23 1990 933 940
2. V. Askins, and F.J. Eismont Efficacy of five cervical orthoses in restricting cervical motion. A comparison study Spine 22 1997 1193 1198
3. N. Bogduk, and S. Mercer Biomechanics of the cervical spine. I. Normal kinematics Clin. Biomech. 15 2000 633 648
4. Ducker, T.B., 1990. Restriction of cervical spine motion by cervical collars. In: 58th Annual Meeting of American Association of Neurological Surgeons, Nashville, TN, 1990
5. J. Dvorak, J.A. Antinnes, M. Panjabi, D. Loustalot, and M. Bonomo Age and gender related normal motion of the cervical spine Spine 17 1992 S393 S398
6. Ehara, Y., 2002. Comparison of different motion analysis systems. In: Ehara, Y. (Ed.), Comparison Meeting of Motion Analysis Systems. The Clinical Gait Analysis Forum of Japan, Nishikamata, Tokyo, Japan, 2002
7. A.F. Graziano, E.A. Scheidel, J.R. Cline, and L.J. Baer A radiographic comparison of prehospital cervical immobilization methods Ann. Emerg. Med. 16 1987 1127 1131
8. J.T. Hartman, F. Palumbo, and B.J. Hill Cineradiography of the braced normal cervical spine. A comparative study of five commonly used cervical orthoses Clin. Orthop. 109 1975 97 102
9. R.M. Johnson, D.L. Hart, E.F. Simmons, G.R. Ramsby, and W.O. Southwick Cervical orthoses. A study comparing their effectiveness in restricting cervical motion in normal subjects J. Bone Joint Surg. Am. 59 1977 332 339
10. T.R. Lunsford, M. Davidson, and B.R. Lunsford The effectiveness of four contemporary cervical orthoses in restricting cervical motion J. Prosthet. Orthot. 6 1994 93 99
11. Mosenkis, R., 2001. Comparison of three cervical collars in restricting cervical spine motion. CITECH Test Report. CITECH (Center for Information on Technology for Health Care), Philadelphia, PA, Feburary 28, 2001
12. D. Richter, L.L. Latta, E.L. Milne, G.M. Varkarakis, and L. Biedermann The stabilizing effects of different orthoses in the intact and unstable upper cervical spine: a cadaver study J. Trauma 50 2001 848 854
13. A.J. Sandler, J. Dvorak, T. Humke, D. Grob, and W. Daniels The effectiveness of various cervical orthoses. An in vivo comparison of the mechanical stability provided by several widely used models Spine 21 1996 1624 1629
14. A.A. White, and M.M. Panjabi Spinal braces: functional analysis and clinical applications A.A. White M.M. Panjabi Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine 1990 J.B. Lippincott Company Philadelphia 475 511
15. H.J. Woltring A fortran package for generalized, cross-validatory spline smoothing and differentiation Adv. Eng. Software 8 1986 104 113