STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical evaluation of cervical orthoses. OBJECTIVE: To provide data to help clinicians select an orthosis for immobilization of the adult cervical spine. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There are limited data on the effectiveness of cervical orthoses at restricting intervertebral motion, and many of the commonly used, contemporary braces have not been evaluated. Additionally, no data exist comparing the effectiveness of braces in the supine versus the upright position. New technology is available to measure intervertebral motion with greater accuracy. METHODS: Overall range of motion of the head in 3 planes as well as intervertebral motion in the sagittal plane were measured in 45 healthy adult volunteers while wearing 7 cervical orthoses. Subject-reported comfort of each brace was also recorded. RESULTS: All braces significantly reduced intervertebral motion. Effectiveness and comfort varied between braces. In general, orthoses could be grouped as cervical braces or cervicothoracic braces. The latter was consistently better at limiting motion, with some differences within these groups as well. CONCLUSION: These data will help to guide the clinician in selecting the appropriate cervical orthosis for their adult patient based on comfort, morphologic considerations, and degree of immobilization required.
STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical evaluation of cervical orthoses. OBJECTIVE: To provide data to help clinicians select an orthosis for immobilization of the adult cervical spine. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: There are limited data on the effectiveness of cervical orthoses at restricting intervertebral motion, and many of the commonly used, contemporary braces have not been evaluated. Additionally, no data exist comparing the effectiveness of braces in the supine versus the upright position. New technology is available to measure intervertebral motion with greater accuracy. METHODS: Overall range of motion of the head in 3 planes as well as intervertebral motion in the sagittal plane were measured in 45 healthy adult volunteers while wearing 7 cervical orthoses. Subject-reported comfort of each brace was also recorded. RESULTS: All braces significantly reduced intervertebral motion. Effectiveness and comfort varied between braces. In general, orthoses could be grouped as cervical braces or cervicothoracic braces. The latter was consistently better at limiting motion, with some differences within these groups as well. CONCLUSION: These data will help to guide the clinician in selecting the appropriate cervical orthosis for their adult patient based on comfort, morphologic considerations, and degree of immobilization required.
Authors: Heiko Koller; Rene Schmidt; Michael Mayer; Wolfgang Hitzl; Juliane Zenner; Stefan Midderhoff; Stefan Middendorf; Nicolaus Graf; Nicolaus Gräf; H Resch; Hans-Joachim Wilke; Hans-Joachim Willke Journal: Eur Spine J Date: 2010-06-30 Impact factor: 3.134
Authors: Brian T Peters; Ajitkumar P Mulavara; Helen S Cohen; Haleh Sangi-Haghpeykar; Jacob J Bloomberg Journal: J Vestib Res Date: 2012-01-01 Impact factor: 2.435
Authors: Ian F Caplan; Saurabh Sinha; Benjamin Osiemo; Scott D McClintock; James M Schuster; Harvey Smith; Gregory Glauser; Nikhil Sharma; Ali K Ozturk; Zarina S Ali; Neil R Malhotra Journal: Int J Spine Surg Date: 2020-04-30