Assessing range of motion to evaluate the adverse effects of ill-fitting cervical orthoses

Spine Journal

Volumn 9, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 225-231

  Bell, Kevin M ^a   Frazier, Erik C ^b   Shively, Charise M ^a   Hartman, Robert A ^a   Ulibarri, James C ^c   Lee, Joon Y ^a   Kang, James D ^a   Donaldson III, William F ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b INOVA FAIRFAX HOSPITAL   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cervical spine; Electromagnetic tracking; Ill fitting; Orthoses; Range of motion; Virtual reality

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BRACE; CERVICAL SPINE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ELECTRONIC SENSOR; HEAD MOVEMENT; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; METHODOLOGY; NORMAL HUMAN; ORTHOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANGE OF MOTION; SPINE MOBILITY; VIRTUAL REALITY;

ADULT; BRACES; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; HUMANS; MALE; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; RESTRAINT, PHYSICAL; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 63649143149     PISSN: 15299430     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2008.03.010     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Alberts L.R., Mahoney C.R., and Neff J.R. Comparison of the Nebraska collar, a new prototype cervical immobilization collar, with three standard models. J Orthop Trauma 12 (1998) 425-430
2. Askins V., and Eismont F.J. Efficacy of five cervical orthoses in restricting cervical motion. A comparison study. Spine 22 (1997) 1193-1198
3. Bearden B.G., Conrad B.P., Horodyski M., and Rechtine G.R. Motion in the unstable cervical spine: comparison of manual turning and use of the Jackson table in prone positioning. J Neurosurg Spine 7 (2007) 161-164
4. Bruns W., Von Salis-Soglio G., and Plitz W. Cervical collars: a clinical and biomechanical study. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 142 (2004) 421-427
5. Carter V.M., Fasen J.A., Roman Jr. J.M., Hayes K.W., and Petersen C.M. The effect of a soft collar, used as normally recommended or reversed, on three planes of cervical range of motion. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 23 (1996) 209-215
6. Garth G.C. Efficacy of five cervical orthoses in restricting cervical motion: a comparison study. Spine 23 (1998) 961-962
7. Gavin T.M., Carandang G., Havey R., Flanagan P., Ghanayem A., and Patwardhan A.G. Biomechanical analysis of cervical orthoses in flexion and extension: a comparison of cervical collars and cervical thoracic orthoses. J Rehabil Res Dev 40 (2003) 527-537
8. Hart D.L., Johnson R.M., Simmons E.F., and Owen J. Review of cervical orthoses. Phys Ther 58 (1978) 857-860
9. Schneider A.M., Hipp J.A., Nguyen L., and Reitman C.A. Reduction in head and intervertebral motion provided by 7 contemporary cervical orthoses in 45 individuals. Spine 32 (2007) E1-E6
10. Stuber K. Cervical collars and braces in athletic brachial plexus injury and excessive cervical motion prevention: a review of the literature. JCCA J Can Chiropr Assoc 49 (2005) 216-222
11. LoPresti E., Brienza D.M., Angelo J., Gilbertson L., and Sakai J. Neck range of motion and use of computer head controls. Fourth International ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies (2000), Virginia, United States, Arlington
12. Manix T., Gunderson M.R., and Garth G.C. Comparison of prehospital cervical immobilization devices using video and electromyography. Prehospital Disaster Med 10 (1995) 232-237 discussion 237, 238
13. Hartman J.T., Palumbo F., and Hill B.J. Cineradiography of the braced normal cervical spine. A comparative study of five commonly used cervical orthoses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 109 (1975) 97-102
14. Hughes S.J. How effective is the Newport/Aspen collar? A prospective radiographic evaluation in healthy adult volunteers. J Trauma 45 (1998) 374-378
15. Johnson R.M., Hart D.L., Owen J.R., Lerner E., Chapin W., and Zeleznik R. The yale cervical orthosis: an evaluation of its effectiveness in restricting cervical motion in normal subjects and a comparison with other cervical orthoses. Phys Ther 58 (1978) 865-871
16. Sandler A.J., Dvorak J., Humke T., Grob D., and Daniels W. 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
17. Duhem R., Tonnelle V., Vinchon M., Assaker R., and Dhellemmes P. Unstable upper pediatric cervical spine injuries: report of 28 cases and review of the literature. Childs Nerv Syst 24 (2007) 343-348
18. Powers J., Daniels D., McGuire C., and Hilbish C. The incidence of skin breakdown associated with use of cervical collars. J Trauma Nurs 13 (2006) 198-200
19. Zhang S., Wortley M., Clowers K., and Krusenklaus J.H. Evaluation of efficacy and 3D kinematic characteristics of cervical orthoses. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 20 (2005) 264-269
20. Richter D., Latta L.L., Milne E.L., et al. The stabilizing effects of different orthoses in the intact and unstable upper cervical spine: a cadaver study. J Trauma 50 (2001) 848-854