OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of the Aspen, Aspen Vista, Philadelphia, Miami-J and Miami-J Advanced collars at restricting cervical spine movement in the sagittal, coronal and axial planes. METHODS: Nineteen healthy volunteers (12 female, 7 male) were recruited to the study. Collars were fitted by an approved physiotherapist. Eight ProReflex (Qualisys, Sweden) infrared cameras were used to track the movement of retro-reflective marker clusters placed in predetermined positions on the head and trunk. 3D kinematic data were collected during forward flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation from uncollared to collared subjects. The physiological range of motion in the three planes was analysed using the Qualisys Track Manager System. RESULTS: The Aspen and Philadelphia were significantly more effective at restricting flexion/extension than the Vista (p < 0.001), Miami-J (p < 0.001 and p < 0.01) and Miami-J Advanced (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05). The Aspen was significantly more effective at restricting rotation than the Vista (p < 0.001) and the Miami-J (p < 0.05). The Vista was significantly the least effective collar at restricting lateral bending (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our motion analysis study found the Aspen collar to be superior to the other collars when measuring restriction of movement of the cervical spine in all planes, particularly the sagittal and transverse planes, while the Aspen Vista was the least effective collar.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of the Aspen, Aspen Vista, Philadelphia, Miami-J and Miami-J Advanced collars at restricting cervical spine movement in the sagittal, coronal and axial planes. METHODS: Nineteen healthy volunteers (12 female, 7 male) were recruited to the study. Collars were fitted by an approved physiotherapist. Eight ProReflex (Qualisys, Sweden) infrared cameras were used to track the movement of retro-reflective marker clusters placed in predetermined positions on the head and trunk. 3D kinematic data were collected during forward flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation from uncollared to collared subjects. The physiological range of motion in the three planes was analysed using the Qualisys Track Manager System. RESULTS: The Aspen and Philadelphia were significantly more effective at restricting flexion/extension than the Vista (p < 0.001), Miami-J (p < 0.001 and p < 0.01) and Miami-J Advanced (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05). The Aspen was significantly more effective at restricting rotation than the Vista (p < 0.001) and the Miami-J (p < 0.05). The Vista was significantly the least effective collar at restricting lateral bending (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Our motion analysis study found the Aspen collar to be superior to the other collars when measuring restriction of movement of the cervical spine in all planes, particularly the sagittal and transverse planes, while the Aspen Vista was the least effective collar.