Review of Cervical Orthoses

Hart, Dennis L.; Johnson, Rollin M.; Simmons, Edwin F.; Owen, Jim

doi:10.1093/ptj/58.7.857

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…in their review that if the appropriate size was chosen, the soft collar afforded some vertical support of the cervical spine by reducing the amount of weight borne directly by the spine (9). In light of potential sensorimotor-skeletal interaction, Johnson et al suggested that the soft collar is comfortable and may serve as a useful reminder to the patient to restrict his or her own motion (14).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of a Soft Collar, Used as Normally Recommended or Reversed, on Three Planes of Cervical Range of Motion

Carter¹,

Fasen²,

Roman³

et al. 1996

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of a Soft Collar, Used as Normally Recommended or Reversed, on Three Planes of Cervical Range of Motion

Carter¹,

Fasen²,

Roman³

et al. 1996

J Orthop Sports Phys Ther

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Head motion restriction associated with cervical orthoses has been reported by many previous studies 12–32 . Hard collars have been shown to reduce head motion from 50% to 70% 25 or from 30% to 80%, 33 depending on the plane of motion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Most studies assessing the efficacy of cervical orthoses have only measured global head motion; individual cervical motion segment mobility has not been evaluated 12–32 . Studies that address segmental mobility have lacked attention to in-vivo biomechanics during lateral bending and axial rotation 33–37 .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effects of Cervical Orthoses on Head and Intervertebral Range of Motion

Oyekan,

LeVasseur,

Chen

et al. 2023

Spine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Study Design. Prospective Cohort. Objective. Quantify and compare the effectiveness of cervical orthoses in restricting intervertebral kinematics during multiplanar motions. Summary of Background Data. Previous studies evaluating the efficacy of cervical orthoses measured global head motion and did not evaluate individual cervical motion segment mobility. Prior studies focused only on the flexion/extension motion. Methods. Twenty adults without neck pain participated. Vertebral motion from the occiput through T1 was imaged using dynamic biplane radiography. Intervertebral motion was measured using an automated registration process with validated accuracy better than 1 degree. Participants performed independent trials of maximal flexion/extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending in a randomized order of unbraced, soft collar (foam), hard collar (Aspen), and cervical thoracic orthosis (CTO) (Aspen) conditions. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used to identify differences in the range of motion (ROM) among brace conditions for each motion. Results. Compared with no collar, the soft collar reduced flexion/extension ROM from occiput/C1 through C4/C5, and reduced axial rotation ROM at C1/C2 and from C3/C4 through C5/C6. The soft collar did not reduce motion at any motion segment during lateral bending. Compared with the soft collar, the hard collar reduced intervertebral motion at every motion segment during all motions, except for occiput/C1 during axial rotation and C1/C2 during lateral bending. The CTO reduced motion compared with the hard collar only at C6/C7 during flexion/extension and lateral bending. Conclusions. The soft collar was ineffective as a restraint to intervertebral motion during lateral bending, but it did reduce intervertebral motion during flexion/extension and axial rotation. The hard collar reduced intervertebral motion compared with the soft collar across all motion directions. The CTO provided a minimal reduction in intervertebral motion compared with the hard collar. The utility in using a CTO rather than a hard collar is questionable, given the cost and little or no additional motion restriction.

show abstract

“…The halo body jacket and plaster Minerva body jacket have been used when maximal stabilization is required. [1][2][3][4] These devices allow early participation in an active rehabilitation program while maintaining adequate cervical stabilization. Disadvantages inherent in the methods and materials used in fabricating these body jackets, however, have been described in the literature.…”

Section: Many Types Of Orthoses Are Prescribed For Stabilization Of Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thermoplastic Minerva Body Jacket—A Practical Alternative to Current Methods of Cervical Spine Stabilization

Millington¹,

Ellingsen²,

Hauswirth³

et al. 1987

Physical Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The halo body jacket and plaster Minerva body jacket have been the preferred orthoses when maximal stabilization of the cervical spine is required. This report identifies some disadvantages of these orthoses, introduces the thermoplastic Minerva body jacket (TMBJ), and discusses its advantages in the rehabilitation of patients with cervical spine instability. A preliminary roentgenographic study was conducted to evaluate the cervical spine motion of five male subjects wearing the TMBJ. The TMBJ, in addition to providing comparable cervical spine stability, offers several advantages over current methods of stabilization.

show abstract

Review of Cervical Orthoses

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

The Effect of a Soft Collar, Used as Normally Recommended or Reversed, on Three Planes of Cervical Range of Motion

The Effect of a Soft Collar, Used as Normally Recommended or Reversed, on Three Planes of Cervical Range of Motion

The Effects of Cervical Orthoses on Head and Intervertebral Range of Motion

Thermoplastic Minerva Body Jacket—A Practical Alternative to Current Methods of Cervical Spine Stabilization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About