STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical evaluation of conventional and noninvasive halos in cadaveric C1-C2 and C5-C6 instability models. OBJECTIVE: To compare the ability of a conventional halo and noninvasive halo (NIH) to immobilize the unstable cervical spine at the C1-C2 and C5-C6 levels. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many successful outcomes have been reported in cervical spine injury treatment with the conventional halo (CH); however, complications related to pin sites have been reported. The NIH was designed to overcome these complications. To date, no investigation has compared the biomechanical efficacy of the NIH with that of the CH in restricting three-dimensional cervical spine motion. METHODS: A global instability was created at the C1-C2 level in 4 cadavers and at C5-C6 in 4 others. Relative motion was measured between the superior and inferior vertebrae during the donning process, execution of the log roll technique, and during the process of sitting up. This testing sequence was followed for all treatment conditions. RESULTS: During the application of the orthoses there was a significant increase in motion at C1-C2 instability and a trend toward increased motion at the C5-C6 instability with CH compared with NIH. In the log roll maneuver, the CH and NIH restrict motion to a similar degree at the C1-C2 instability level, except in frontal plane translation, where CH immobilizes the segment to a greater extent. For the C5-C6 instability the CH provides significantly better immobilization for lateral bending and axial translation. No significant differences were found between the NIH and CH for the sit-up maneuver at either of the levels. CONCLUSION: Donning of the NIH generates significantly less cervical spine motion than application of the CH. The CH provides superior immobilization for a C5-C6 instability during the log roll maneuver and a C1-C2 instability in the frontal plane during the log-roll maneuver. The CH and NIH immobilize the C1-C2 and C5-C6 instability to a similar degree during the sit-up maneuver.
STUDY DESIGN: Biomechanical evaluation of conventional and noninvasive halos in cadaveric C1-C2 and C5-C6 instability models. OBJECTIVE: To compare the ability of a conventional halo and noninvasive halo (NIH) to immobilize the unstable cervical spine at the C1-C2 and C5-C6 levels. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Many successful outcomes have been reported in cervical spine injury treatment with the conventional halo (CH); however, complications related to pin sites have been reported. The NIH was designed to overcome these complications. To date, no investigation has compared the biomechanical efficacy of the NIH with that of the CH in restricting three-dimensional cervical spine motion. METHODS: A global instability was created at the C1-C2 level in 4 cadavers and at C5-C6 in 4 others. Relative motion was measured between the superior and inferior vertebrae during the donning process, execution of the log roll technique, and during the process of sitting up. This testing sequence was followed for all treatment conditions. RESULTS: During the application of the orthoses there was a significant increase in motion at C1-C2 instability and a trend toward increased motion at the C5-C6 instability with CH compared with NIH. In the log roll maneuver, the CH and NIH restrict motion to a similar degree at the C1-C2 instability level, except in frontal plane translation, where CH immobilizes the segment to a greater extent. For the C5-C6 instability the CH provides significantly better immobilization for lateral bending and axial translation. No significant differences were found between the NIH and CH for the sit-up maneuver at either of the levels. CONCLUSION: Donning of the NIH generates significantly less cervical spine motion than application of the CH. The CH provides superior immobilization for a C5-C6 instability during the log roll maneuver and a C1-C2 instability in the frontal plane during the log-roll maneuver. The CH and NIH immobilize the C1-C2 and C5-C6 instability to a similar degree during the sit-up maneuver.
Authors: Bryan P Conrad; Diana L Marchese; Glenn R Rechtine; Mark Prasarn; Gianluca Del Rossi; Marybeth H Horodyski Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2013-08-16 Impact factor: 2.860