A 3D motion analysis study comparing the effectiveness of cervical spine orthoses at restricting spinal motion through physiological ranges

European Spine Journal

Volumn 22, Issue SUPPL.1, 2013, Pages

  Evans, Nicholas Rhys ^a,b   Hooper, Georgina ^c   Edwards, Rachel ^d   Whatling, Gemma ^a   Sparkes, Valerie ^a   Holt, Cathy ^a   Ahuja, Sashin ^d  

^a CARDIFF UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b SOUTHAMPTON GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^c LLANDOUGH HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^d UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF WALES   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

3D motion analysis; Cervical orthoses; Cervical spine; Kinematics

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BODY MASS; BODY POSITION; CERVICAL COLLAR; CERVICAL SPINE; CERVICAL SPINE EXTENSION; CERVICAL SPINE FLEXION; CERVICAL SPINE LATERAL BENDING; CERVICAL SPINE ORTHOSIS; CERVICAL SPINE ROTATION; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; KINEMATICS; MALE; MOTION ANALYSIS SYSTEM; MOVEMENT (PHYSIOLOGY); MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM PARAMETERS; NORMAL HUMAN; ORTHOSIS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANGE OF MOTION; SPINE MOBILITY; SPINE STABILIZATION; ADOLESCENT; BIOMECHANICS; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; JOINT CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTIONS; PHYSIOLOGY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BIOMECHANICS; CERVICAL VERTEBRAE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; ORTHOTIC DEVICES; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84882954840     PISSN: 09406719     EISSN: 14320932     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s00586-012-2641-0     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Quinlan JF, Mullett H, Stapleton R, FitzPatrick D, McCormack D (2006) The use of the Zebris motion analysis system for measuring cervical spine movements in vivo. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 220: 889-896
2. Schneider AM, Hipp JA, Nguyen L, Reitman CA (2007) Reduction in head and intervertebral motion provided by 7 contemporary cervical orthoses in 45 individuals. Spine 32:1-6. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000251019.24917.44
3. Ordway NR, Seymour R, Donelson RG, Hojnowski L, Lee E, Edwards WT (1997) Cervical sagittal range-of-motion analysis using three methods. Cervical range-of-motion device, 3space, and radiography. Spine 22: 501-508
4. Askins V, Eismont FJ (1997) Efficacy of five cervical orthoses in restricting cervical motion: a comparison study. Spine 22: 1193-1198
5. Gavin TM, Carandang G, Havey R, Flanagan P, Ghanayem A, Patwardhan AG (2003) Biomechanical analysis of cervical orthoses in flexion and extension: a comparison of cervical collars and cervical thoracic orthoses. J Rehabil Res Dev 40: 527-537
6. Zhang S, Wortley M, Clowers K, Krusenklaus JH (2005) Evaluation of efficacy and 3D kinematic characteristics of cervical orthoses. Clin Biomech 20:264-269. doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech. 2004.09.015
7. Johnson RM, Hart DL, Simmons EF, Ramsby GR, Southwick WO (1977) Cervical orthoses. A study comparing their effectiveness in restricting cervical motion in normal subjects. J Bone Joint Surg Am 59: 332-339
8. Dvorak J, Panjabi MM, Grob D, Novotny JE, Antinnes JA (1993) Clinical validation of functional flexion/extension radiographs of the cervical spine. Spine 18: 120-127
9. Hartman JT, Palumbo F, Hill BJ (1975) Cineradiography of the braced normal cervical spine. A comparative study of five commonly used cervical orthoses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 109: 97-102
10. Hino H, Abumi K, Kanayama M, Kaneda K (1999) Dynamic motion analysis of normal and unstable cervical spines using cineradiography: an in vivo study. Spine 24: 163-168
11. Hsu WH, Chen YL, Lui TN, Chen TY, Hsu YH, Lin CL, Ming- Lun T (2011) Comparison of the kinematic features between the in vivo active and passive flexion-extension of the subaxial cervical spine and their biomechanical implications. Spine 36:630-638. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181da79af
12. Lim TH, Eck JC, An HS, McGrady LM, Harris GF, Haughton VM (1997) A noninvasive, three-dimensional spinal motion analysis method. Spine 22: 1996-2000
13. Karhu JO, Parkkola RK, Komu ME, Kormano MJ, Koskinen SK (1999) Kinematic magnetic resonance imaging of the upper cervical spine using a novel positioning device. Spine 24: 2046-2056
14. Manix T, Gunderson MR, Garth GC (1995) Comparison of prehospital cervical immobilization devices using video and electromyography. Prehosp Disaster Med 10:232-237 discussion 237-238
15. Mayer T, Brady S, Bovasso E, Pope P, Gatchel RJ (1993) Noninvasive measurement of cervical tri-planar motion in normal subjects. Spine 18: 2191-2195
16. Panjabi MM, Crisco JJ, Vasavada A, Oda T, Cholewicki J, Nibu K, Shin E (2001) Mechanical properties of the human cervical spine as shown by three-dimensional load-displacement curves. Spine 26: 2692-2700
17. Feipel V, Rondelet B, Le Pallec J, Rooze M (1999) Normal global motion of the cervical spine: an electrogoniometric study. Clin Biomech 14: 462-470
18. Syed FI, Oza AL, Vanderby R, Heiderscheit B, Anderson PA (2007) A method to measure cervical spine motion over extended periods of time. Spine 32:2092-2098. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e 318145a93a
19. Horodyski M, DiPaola CP, Conrad BP, Rechtine GR 2nd (2011) Cervical collars are insufficient for immobilizing an unstable cervical spine injury. J Emerg Med 41:513-519. doi:10.1016/j. jemermed.2011.02.001
20. Gracovetsky S, Newman N, Pawlowsky M, Lanzo V, Davey B, Robinson L (1995) A database for estimating normal spinal motion derived from noninvasive measurements. Spine 20: 1036-1046
21. Dvorak J, Antinnes JA, Panjabi M, Loustalot D, Bonomo M (1992) Age and gender related normal motion of the cervical spine. Spine 17: 393-398
22. Castro WH, Sautmann A, Schilgen M, Sautmann M (2000) Noninvasive three-dimensional analysis of cervical spine motion in normal subjects in relation to age and sex: an experimental examination. Spine 25: 443-449