Establishing reference values for cervical spine range of motion in pre-pubescent children

Lynch-Caris, Terri; Majeske, Karl D.; Brelin-Fornari, Janet; Nashi, Shrishail

doi:10.1016/j.jbiomech.2008.06.021

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results for cardinal plane ROM data found in this study are comparable to previous reports by Lynch-Caris et al 6 who measured ROM in children of a similar age. In contrast, ROM data were quite different to that published by Arbogast et al 5 who observed consistently less ROM across all measures, with up to 12u less flexion/extension, 8u less rotation, and 5u less side flexion.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…In our study and consistent with previous studies, we found no significant difference between females and males for any ROM measure. 5,6 Cervical ROM in children appears to be consistently greater in range for all cardinal planes when compared to previous reports for adults. 9,21 For example, rotation to the right in adults is reported as 64.9u (Ref.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 51%

“…The cervical spine of children differs to that of adults in many ways, 4 which is reflected by larger ROM values in children. 5,6 However, these studies did not report intra-individual variation in side-to-side cervical spine mobility. This is an important question when determining the presence of unidirectional movement impairment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A normative study of cervical range of motion measures including the flexion–rotation test in asymptomatic children: side-to-side variability and pain provocation

Budelmann¹,

Piekartz²,

Hall

2016

Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Cervical movement impairment has been identified as a core component of cervicogenic headache evaluation. However, normal range of motion values in children has been investigated rarely and no study has reported such values for the flexion-rotation test (FRT). The purpose of this study was to identify normal values and side-to-side variation for cervical spine range of motion (ROM) and the FRT, in asymptomatic children aged 6-12 years. Another important purpose was to identify the presence of pain during the FRT. Methods: Thirty-four asymptomatic children without history of neck pain or headache (26 females and 8 males, mean age 125.38 months [SD 13.14]) were evaluated. Cervical spine cardinal plane ROM and the FRT were evaluated by a single examiner using a cervical ROM device. Results: Values for cardinal plane ROM measures are presented. No significant gender difference was found for any ROM measure. Mean difference in ROM for rotation, side flexion, and the FRT were less than one degree. However, intra-individual variation was greater, with lower bound scores of 9.32u for rotation, 5.30u for side flexion, and 10.89u for the FRT. Multiple linear regression analysis indicates that movement in the cardinal planes only explains 19% of the variance in the FRT. Pain scores reported following the FRT were less than 2/10. Discussion: Children have consistently greater cervical spine ROM than adults. In children, side-to-side variation in rotation and side flexion ROM and range recorded during the FRT indicates that the clinician should be cautious when using range in one direction to determine impairment in another. Range recorded during the FRT is independent of cardinal movement variables, which further adds to the importance of the FRT, as a test that mainly evaluates range of movement of the upper cervical spine.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 51%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A normative study of cervical range of motion measures including the flexion–rotation test in asymptomatic children: side-to-side variability and pain provocation

Budelmann¹,

Piekartz²,

Hall

2016

Journal of Manual & Manipulative Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To obtain a rough measure of neck extension, we compared infants’ trunk angle to the complement of their head pitch angle. While crawling, infants craned their necks at about the maximum extension (60–90 degrees) reported in the literature for children and adults in a stationary standing or sitting position (Klinich & Reed, 2013; Lewandowski & Szulc, 2003; Lynch-Caris et al, 2008; Ohman & Beckung, 2008; Youdas et al, 1992): average extension for the four infants ranged from 49.19 to 81.65 degrees. This indicates that infants failed to point their heads up while crawling because they had reached their physical limits.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Thus, with the neck in a neutral position, walkers’ faces are pointed straight ahead, but crawlers’ faces are pointed toward the ground. The total range of up-down motion of the neck is approximately 150 degrees, comprising about 70 degrees of flexion to rotate the head downward and 80 degrees of extension to rotate the head upward (Klinich & Reed, 2013; Lewandowski & Szulc, 2003; Lynch-Caris, Majeske, Brelin-Fornari, & Nashi, 2008; Ohman & Beckung, 2008; Youdas et al, 1992). To point their faces straight ahead (that is, to bring the absolute pitch angle of the head to parallel), crawlers would need to extend their necks to the outer reaches of the range of motion.…”

Section: Vision Is a Whole Body Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Crawling and Walking Infants See the World Differently

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does visual experience change over development? To investigate changes in visual input over the developmental transition from crawling to walking, thirty 13-month-olds crawled or walked down a straight path wearing a head-mounted eye-tracker that recorded gaze direction and head-centered field of view. Thirteen additional infants wore a motion-tracker that recorded head orientation. Compared with walkers, crawlers’ field of view contained less walls and more floor. Walkers directed gaze straight ahead at caregivers, whereas crawlers looked down at the floor. Crawlers obtained visual information about targets at higher elevations—caregivers and toys—by craning their heads upward and sitting up to bring the room into view. Findings indicate that visual experiences are intimately tied to infants’ posture.

show abstract