Literature DB >> 849944

Cervical orthoses. A study comparing their effectiveness in restricting cervical motion in normal subjects.

R M Johnson, D L Hart, E F Simmons, G R Ramsby, W O Southwick.   

Abstract

The effectiveness of five cervical orthoses in restricting cervical motion was evaluated quantitatively in normal subjects using roentgenograms and overhead photographs made at the extremes of three planes of motion, while the effectiveness of the halo with a plastic body-vest was studied in seven patients with cervical fractures or local fusions. Flexion and extension were measured at each cervical intervertebral joint and combined cervical motion was measured for rotation and lateral bending. The best conventional braces restricted only 45 per cent of flexion-extension at the atlanto-axial joint; the halo restricted 75 per cent. The conventional braces were more effective in the middle and lower portions of the cervical spine. The results may prove to be useful guidelines for the selection of an appropriate orthosis to control motion in different planes and at different levels of the spine.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1977        PMID: 849944

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  30 in total

1.  The efficacy of the rapid form cervical vacuum immobilizer in cervical spine immobilization of the equipped football player.

Authors:  J Ransone; R Kersey; K Walsh
Journal:  J Athl Train       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 2.860

2.  Evaluation of morbidity, mortality and outcome following cervical spine injuries in elderly patients.

Authors:  S A Malik; M Murphy; P Connolly; J O'Byrne
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2008-01-15       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 3.  Role of conservative treatment of cervical spine injuries.

Authors:  Philippe Lauweryns
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2009-08-08       Impact factor: 3.134

4.  Pitfalls in the surgical management of cervical spine injuries.

Authors:  S Rao; K M Badani; K Jamieson; T Schildhauer
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 3.134

Review 5.  [Orthoses and assistive devices in rheumatology : Prevention of disability, support of residual function].

Authors:  T Fikentscher; H R Springorum; J Grifka; J Götz
Journal:  Z Rheumatol       Date:  2017-04       Impact factor: 1.372

6.  A 3D motion analysis study comparing the effectiveness of cervical spine orthoses at restricting spinal motion through physiological ranges.

Authors:  Nicholas Rhys Evans; Georgina Hooper; Rachel Edwards; Gemma Whatling; Valerie Sparkes; Cathy Holt; Sashin Ahuja
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-01-04       Impact factor: 3.134

7.  A biomechanical rationale for C1-ring osteosynthesis as treatment for displaced Jefferson burst fractures with incompetency of the transverse atlantal ligament.

Authors:  Heiko Koller; Herbert Resch; Mark Tauber; Juliane Zenner; Peter Augat; Rainer Penzkofer; Frank Acosta; Klaus Kolb; Anton Kathrein; Wolfgang Hitzl
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2010-04-13       Impact factor: 3.134

8.  Effects of orthoses on three-dimensional load-displacement properties of the cervical spine.

Authors:  Paul C Ivancic
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2012-10-23       Impact factor: 3.134

9.  Occipito-cervical fusion in post-traumatic instability of the upper cervical spine and cranio-cervical junction.

Authors:  Michele Cappuccio; Federico De Iure; Luca Amendola; Stefania Paderni; Giuseppe Bosco
Journal:  Eur Spine J       Date:  2013-09-17       Impact factor: 3.134

10.  When should a cervical collar be used to treat neck pain?

Authors:  Stefan Muzin; Zacharia Isaac; Joseph Walker; Omar El Abd; Jennifer Baima
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2008-06
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.