Henrik C Bäcker1,2,3, Patrick Elias4, Karl F Braun5,6, Michael A Johnson7, Peter Turner4,7, John Cunningham4,7. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal Melbourne Hospital, 300 Grattan Street, Parkville, VIC, 3050, USA. Henrik.baecker@sports-med.org. 2. Epworth Hospital Richmond, 89 Bridge Road, Richmond, VIC, 3121, USA. Henrik.baecker@sports-med.org. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Charité Berlin, University Hospital Berlin, Berlin, Germany. Henrik.baecker@sports-med.org. 4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Royal Melbourne Hospital, 300 Grattan Street, Parkville, VIC, 3050, USA. 5. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Charité Berlin, University Hospital Berlin, Berlin, Germany. 6. Department of Trauma Surgery, Technical University Munich, Klinikum Rechts Der Isar, Munich, Germany. 7. Epworth Hospital Richmond, 89 Bridge Road, Richmond, VIC, 3121, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Rigid cervical spine following trauma immobilization is recommended to reduce neurological disability and provide spinal stability. Soft collars have been proposed as a good alternative because of the complications related to rigid collars. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review on soft and rigid collars in the prehospital management of cervical trauma. METHOD: A systematic review was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. Search terms were (immobilization) AND (collar) AND ((neck) OR (cervical)) to evaluate the range of motion (ROM) and evidence of clinical outcome for soft and rigid collars. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies met eligibility criteria including 2 clinical studies and 16 articles investigating the range of motion (ROM). Four hundred and ninety-six patients at a mean age of 32.5 years (SD 16.8) were included. Measurements were performed in a seated position in twelve studies. Eight articles reported the ROM without a collar, 7 with a soft collar, and 15 with a rigid collar. There was no significant difference in flexion/extension, bending and rotation following immobilization with soft collars compared to no collar. Rigid collars provided significantly higher stability compared to no collar (p < 0.005) and to soft collars in flexion/extension and rotation movements (p < 0.05). The retrospective clinical studies showed no significant differences in secondary spinal cord injuries for soft collar (0.5%) and for rigid collar (1.1%). One study, comparing immobilization without a collar compared to that with a rigid collar, found a significant difference in neurologic deficiency and supraclavicular nerve lesion. CONCLUSION: Although rigid collars provide significant higher stability to no collar and to soft collars in flexion/ extension and rotation movements, clinical studies could not confirm a difference in neurological outcome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, Systematic Review.
INTRODUCTION: Rigid cervical spine following trauma immobilization is recommended to reduce neurological disability and provide spinal stability. Soft collars have been proposed as a good alternative because of the complications related to rigid collars. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review on soft and rigid collars in the prehospital management of cervical trauma. METHOD: A systematic review was performed following the PRISMA guidelines. Search terms were (immobilization) AND (collar) AND ((neck) OR (cervical)) to evaluate the range of motion (ROM) and evidence of clinical outcome for soft and rigid collars. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies met eligibility criteria including 2 clinical studies and 16 articles investigating the range of motion (ROM). Four hundred and ninety-six patients at a mean age of 32.5 years (SD 16.8) were included. Measurements were performed in a seated position in twelve studies. Eight articles reported the ROM without a collar, 7 with a soft collar, and 15 with a rigid collar. There was no significant difference in flexion/extension, bending and rotation following immobilization with soft collars compared to no collar. Rigid collars provided significantly higher stability compared to no collar (p < 0.005) and to soft collars in flexion/extension and rotation movements (p < 0.05). The retrospective clinical studies showed no significant differences in secondary spinal cord injuries for soft collar (0.5%) and for rigid collar (1.1%). One study, comparing immobilization without a collar compared to that with a rigid collar, found a significant difference in neurologic deficiency and supraclavicular nerve lesion. CONCLUSION: Although rigid collars provide significant higher stability to no collar and to soft collars in flexion/ extension and rotation movements, clinical studies could not confirm a difference in neurological outcome. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, Systematic Review.
Authors: I G Stiell; G A Wells; K L Vandemheen; C M Clement; H Lesiuk; V J De Maio; A Laupacis; M Schull; R D McKnight; R Verbeek; R Brison; D Cass; J Dreyer; M A Eisenhauer; G H Greenberg; I MacPhail; L Morrison; M Reardon; J Worthington Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-10-17 Impact factor: 56.272