STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of a cervical-spine immobilization using a rigid cervical extrication collar and an Ammerman halo orthosis with and without spine boards. DESIGN: A mixed model multivariate design with one within factor (device type) and one between factor (spine board application). SETTING: Radiology suite. TYPE OF PARTICIPANTS: Twenty normal men with a mean age of 29.6. INTERVENTIONS: Unrestrained cervical motion was compared with motion in a cervical extrication collar and an Ammerman halo orthosis with and without a spine board. MEASUREMENTS: Photographic measurement of head and neck motion during maximal flexion-extension, lateral bending, and rotation. Radiologic measurement of maximal intervertebral flexion-extension. MAIN RESULTS: Both cervical extrication collar and Ammerman halo orthosis significantly reduced motion in all planes (P less than .001) with the Ammerman halo orthosis reducing these motions significantly more (P less than .001). With the use of a spine board these motions were restricted even more (P less than .001). The Ammerman halo orthosis with a spine board provided the greatest immobilization, equivalent to that provided by an halo-vest. CONCLUSION: A rigid cervical collar and a spine board provide significantly better immobilization than the collar alone. Further immobilization is provided by an Ammerman halo orthosis.
STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of a cervical-spine immobilization using a rigid cervical extrication collar and an Ammerman halo orthosis with and without spine boards. DESIGN: A mixed model multivariate design with one within factor (device type) and one between factor (spine board application). SETTING: Radiology suite. TYPE OF PARTICIPANTS: Twenty normal men with a mean age of 29.6. INTERVENTIONS: Unrestrained cervical motion was compared with motion in a cervical extrication collar and an Ammerman halo orthosis with and without a spine board. MEASUREMENTS: Photographic measurement of head and neck motion during maximal flexion-extension, lateral bending, and rotation. Radiologic measurement of maximal intervertebral flexion-extension. MAIN RESULTS: Both cervical extrication collar and Ammerman halo orthosis significantly reduced motion in all planes (P less than .001) with the Ammerman halo orthosis reducing these motions significantly more (P less than .001). With the use of a spine board these motions were restricted even more (P less than .001). The Ammerman halo orthosis with a spine board provided the greatest immobilization, equivalent to that provided by an halo-vest. CONCLUSION: A rigid cervical collar and a spine board provide significantly better immobilization than the collar alone. Further immobilization is provided by an Ammerman halo orthosis.
Authors: Douglas J Casa; Kevin M Guskiewicz; Scott A Anderson; Ronald W Courson; Jonathan F Heck; Carolyn C Jimenez; Brendon P McDermott; Michael G Miller; Rebecca L Stearns; Erik E Swartz; Katie M Walsh Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2012 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Henry Ahn; Jeffrey Singh; Avery Nathens; Russell D MacDonald; Andrew Travers; John Tallon; Michael G Fehlings; Albert Yee Journal: J Neurotrauma Date: 2010-06-16 Impact factor: 5.269