A bioengineering investigation of cervical collar design and fit: Implications on skin health

Russell, Laurence J.; Dodd, Tamara; Kendall, Daniel; Lazenbury, Amber; Leggett, Abigail; Payton-Haines, Sophie; Jiang, Liudi; Filingeri, Davide; Worsley, Peter R.

doi:10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2024.106178

Cited by 1 publication

(6 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…7 The Stifneck and Philadelphia collars both had significantly higher humidity at the device-skin interface, which corresponded to the closed-cell foam padding of these designs. 7 Both occipital pressure 7,44 and skin humidity 7 were associated with higher collar discomfort and risk of pressure ulcer formation, especially for Stifneck R extrication collars. 7 Lined open-cell foams may provide a potential for reducing this risk 7 in SCI patients using cervical collars.…”

Section: Pain With Collar Usementioning

confidence: 92%

“…Inappropriate use of cervical collars can lead to pressure ulcers and muscle atrophy in the neck leading to more instability and psychological dependence for the patient. 7,8 There is a remaining need for a standardized protocol to better identify and manage patients with a clear benefit from cervical collars.…”

Section: Cervical Collar Usesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…11,12 Future studies may focus on finding or engineering better materials to use in cervical collars to avoid humidity and temperature-related damage to the skin while also balancing the need for structural support and comfort to protect the stability of the spine while avoiding pressure ulcers. 7…”

Section: New Improvementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The occiput was mainly implicated in pressure ulcer formation due to a significantly higher device-skin interface pressure, especially for the Stifneck extrication collar. 7 The Stifneck collar was implicated in higher movement restriction overall. 7 The Stifneck and Philadelphia collars both had significantly higher humidity at the device-skin interface, which corresponded to the closed-cell foam padding of these designs.…”

Section: Pain With Collar Usementioning

confidence: 99%

“…7 The Stifneck collar was implicated in higher movement restriction overall. 7 The Stifneck and Philadelphia collars both had significantly higher humidity at the device-skin interface, which corresponded to the closed-cell foam padding of these designs. 7 Both occipital pressure 7,44 and skin humidity 7 were associated with higher collar discomfort and risk of pressure ulcer formation, especially for Stifneck R extrication collars.…”

Section: Pain With Collar Usementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Cervical collar use in spinal cord injury management

Kolli,

Medina,

DeYoung

et al. 2024

Clinical and Translational Dis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe use of cervical collars in the management of acute cervical spine injuries has been part of standard practice in the trauma setting for decades, aimed at preventing secondary injuries.ObjectivesTo review the recent evidence challenging the routine use of cervical collars, addressing the limited scientific support, associated risks, and guidelines for their use.MethodsA comprehensive literature review was conducted, analyzing recent studies and guidelines from authoritative bodies such as the American Association for Neurological Surgeons and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. The review focused on the efficacy, risks, and recommendations regarding cervical collar use in acute cervical spine injuries.ResultsRecent evidence questions the routine use of cervical collars, highlighting limited scientific support and several associated risks, including pressure ulcers and decreased venous return. Cervical collars may also be contraindicated in individuals with abnormal spinal structures, such as those with Ankylosing Spondylitis. The efficacy of cervical collars is debated, particularly concerning undiagnosed spinal fractures, where delayed diagnosis can result in permanent injuries. Despite these risks, cervical collars may be beneficial in low‐resource areas and when used effectively with early clearance post‐injury. Current guidelines recommend immobilizing patients suspected of cervical spine injury but stress the importance of proper evaluation of the need for immobilization. Recent guidelines advocate for spinal motion restriction over traditional immobilization, emphasizing the need for better risk assessment and implementation strategies.Conclusions/Clinical ImportanceRe‐evaluating the routine use of cervical collars is crucial due to potential risks and limited supporting evidence, with a focus on individualized assessment and adherence to updated guidelines favoring spinal motion restriction.

show abstract