Gavin, T; Carandang, G; Havey, R; Flanagan, P; Ghanayem, A; Patwardhan, A
Musculosketal Biomechanics Laboratory, Edward Hines Jr., Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital, Maywood, Illinois
Published in J of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 2003 Nov./Dec., Vol. 40, No. 6, 527-538
The analysis of current cervical collars (Aspen and Miami J collars) and cervical thoracic orthoses (Aspen 2-post and Aspen 4-post) in reducing cervical intervertebral and gross range of motion in flexion and extension was performed using 20 normal volunteer subjects.
“It is important that the prescribing physician recognizes the differences between the function of cervical orthoses, so they may make informed decisions as to which orthosis is most appropriate for a specific condition.”
(Pg. 527)
Gross Head Motion Restriction
“Flexion motion allowed in the Miami J collar was significantly greater than that allowed in the Aspen collar. No significant difference was found between the two collars in extension.”(Pg. 531)
Neck (CO to C7) Motion Restriction
“When measuring angular motion of CO relative to C7 using VF images, we found no statistically significant differences in angular motion allowed between the Miami J and Aspen collars in either flexion or extension.”(Pg. 531)
Intervertebral Angular Motion Restriction
“No significant differences in flexion were allowed at any intervertebral segment between the Aspen or Miami J collars except at C5-6, where the Miami J allowed more motion.”(Pg. 532)
“In restricting angular motion in flexion, the CTO’s were significantly better than the collars at C3-4, C5-6 and C6-7 segments.”
(Pg. 532)
Discussion
“The capability of the 4-post CTO to effectively restrict extension motion seems to contradict the current thinking that the halo may be the only effective orthosis for reducing motion in extension.”(Pg. 536)
Conclusion
“Our findings suggest that either of the two collars could be used to treat similar cervical pathologies or injuries except those involving the C5-6 segment, where the Aspen collar may provide better motion restriction.”(Pg. 537)