Soft and rigid collars provide similar restriction in cervical range of motion during fifteen activities of daily living

Spine

Volumn 35, Issue 13, 2010, Pages 1271-1278

  Miller, Christopher P ^a   Bible, Jesse E ^a   Jegede, Kola A ^a   Whang, Peter G ^a   Grauer, Jonathan N ^a  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cervical collar; Cervical spine; Neck; Orthosis; Range of motion

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CERVICAL SPINE; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; EQUIPMENT DESIGN; FEMALE; GONIOMETRY; HUMAN; IMMOBILIZATION; MALE; ORTHOSIS; OSTEOSYNTHESIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RANGE OF MOTION; RIGID CERVICAL COLLAR; SOFT CERVICAL COLLAR; SPINE MOBILITY; TASK PERFORMANCE; BIOMECHANICS; CLASSIFICATION; JOINT CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTIONS; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); PHYSIOLOGY; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; STANDARDS; YOUNG ADULT;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; BIOMECHANICAL PHENOMENA; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MOVEMENT; ORTHOTIC DEVICES; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77953141161     PISSN: 03622436     EISSN: 15281159     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c0ddad     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Connolly PJ, Grob D. Bracing of patients after fusion for degenerative problems of the lumbar spine-yes or no? Spine 1998;23:1426-8.
2. Graham AW, Swank ML, Kinard RE, et al. Posterior cervical arthrodesis and stabilization with a lateral mass plate. Clinical and computed tomographic evaluation of lateral mass screw placement and associated complications. Spine 1996;21:323-8; discussion 329.
3. Samartzis D, Shen FH, Lyon C, et al. Does rigid instrumentation increase the fusion rate in one-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion? Spine J 2004;4:636-43.
4. Wada E, Suzuki S, Kanazawa A, et al. Subtotal corpectomy versus laminoplasty for multilevel cervical spondylotic myelopathy: a long-term follow-up study over 10 years. Spine 2001;26:1443-7; discussion 1448.
5. Askins V, Eismont FJ. Efficacy of five cervical orthoses in restricting cervical motion. A comparison study. Spine 1997;22:1193-8.
6. Schneider AM, Hipp JA, Nguyen L, et al. Reduction in head and intervertebral motion provided by 7 contemporary cervical orthoses in 45 individuals. Spine 2007;32:E1-6.
7. Colachis SC Jr, Strohm BR. Radiographic studies of cervical spine motion in normal subjects: flexion and hyperextension. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1965;46:753-60.
8. James CY, Riemann BL, Munkasy BA, et al. Comparison of cervical spine motion during application among 4 rigid immobilization collars. J Athl Train 2004;39:138-45.
9. Johnson RM, Hart DL, Simmons EF, et al. Cervical orthoses. A study comparing their effectiveness in restricting cervical motion in normal subjects. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1977;59:332-9.
10. Kaufman WA, Lunsford TR, Lunsford BR, et al. Comparison of three prefabricated cervical collars. Orthot Prosthet 1986;39:8.
11. Lunsford T, Davidson M, Lunsford B. The effectiveness of four contemporary cervical orthoses in restricting cervical motion. J Prosthet Orthot 1994;6:93-9.
12. Maiman D, Millington P, Novak S, et al. The effect of the thermoplastic Minerva body jacket on cervical spine motion. Neurosurgery 1989;25:363-7; discussion 367-8.
13. Hewitt S. Skin necrosis caused by a semi-rigid cervical collar in a ventilated patient with multiple injuries. Injury 1994;25:323-4.
14. Stambolis V, Brady S, Klos D, et al. The effects of cervical bracing upon swallowing in young, normal, healthy volunteers. Dysphagia 2003;18:39-45.
15. Totten VY, Sugarman DB. Respiratory effects of spinal immobilization. Prehosp Emerg Care 1999;3:347-52.
16. Webber-Jones JE, Thomas CA, Bordeaux RE Jr. The management and prevention of rigid cervical collar complications. Orthop Nurs 2002;21:19-25; quiz 27.
17. Bell KM, Frazier EC, Shively CM, et al. Assessing range of motion to evaluate the adverse effects of ill-fitting cervical orthoses. Spine J 2009;9:225-31.
18. Carter VM, Fasen JA, Roman JM Jr, et al. 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 1996;23:209-15.
19. Hartman JT, Palumbo F, Hill BJ. Cineradiography of the braced normal cervical spine. A comparative study of five commonly used cervical orthoses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1975;109:97-102.
20. Sandler AJ, Dvorak J, Humke T, et al. The effectiveness of various cervical orthoses. An in vivo comparison of the mechanical stability provided by several widely used models. Spine 1996;21:1624-9.
21. Bible JE, Biswas D, Whang PG, et al. Postoperative bracing after spine surgery for degenerative conditions-a questionnaire study. Spine J 2009;9:309-16.
22. Bennett SE, Schenk RJ, Simmons ED. Active range of motion utilized in the cervical spine to perform daily functional tasks. J Spinal Disord Tech 2002;15:307-11.
23. Bible J, Biswas D, Miller C, et al. Normal functional cervical spinal range of motion during fifteen activities of daily living. J Spinal Disord Tech In press.
24. Boocock MG, Jackson JA, Burton AK, et al. Continuous measurement of lumbar posture using flexible electrogoniometers. Ergonomics 1994;37:175-85.
25. Occupational therapy practice framework: domain and process. Am J Occup Ther 2002;56:609-39.
26. Cook CE, Richardson JK, Pietrobon R, et al. Validation of the NHANES ADL scale in a sample of patients with report of cervical pain: factor analysis, item response theory analysis, and line item validity. Disabil Rehabil 2006;28:929-35.
27. Nelson DL. Critiquing the logic of the domain section of the occupational therapy practice framework: domain and process. Am J Occup Ther 2006;60:511-23.
28. Johnson RM, Hart DL, Owen JR, et al. 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 1978;58:865-71.