Unparalleled commitment to research driving innovation.
Upper Spine Research
Aspen has innovated several different products focused on treating ailments in the cervical spine. Historically, the flagship Aspen and Vista Collars have provided motion restriction for traumatic injuries and have been shown to effectively minimize the likelihood of skin ulcers. When evaluating motion restriction of a cervical collar, it is not only important to evaluate the degree of gross motion restriction offered by the orthosis, a clinician should also consider the impact on an individual intervertebral level. When evaluating a collar’s impact on skin integrity, evaluation of pressure generated is important, however, ultimately, review and outcome in a clinical setting is most telling due to the complex nature of wound prevention.
Aspen Upper Spine braces have been clinically tested to provide optimal motion restriction while minimizing the likelihood of causing skin breakdown.
- How Effective is the Newport/Aspen Collar? A Prospective Radiographic Evaluation in Health Adult Volunteers. Hughes SJ. Journal of Trauma. 1998 Aug; 45(2): 374-8.
- Do Cervical Collars and Cervicothoracic Orthosis Effectively Stabilize the Injured Cervical Spine? A Biomechanical Investigation Paul C. Ivancic, PhD Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Mar 12.
- Biomechanical Analysis of Cervical Orthoses in Flexion and Extension: A Comparison of Cervical Collars and Cervical Thoracic Orthoses. J Rehabil Res Dev. 2003 Nov-Dec; 40(6): 527-37.
- The Incidence of Skin Breakdown Associated with Use of Cervical Collars. Powers J, Daniels D, McGuire C, Hilbish C. Journal of Trauma Nursing. 2006; 13(4): 198-200.
- A Multidisciplinary Approach to Occipital Pressure Ulcers Related to Cervical Collars. Powers J. Journal of Nursing Care Quality. 1997 Oct;12(1):46-52.
- Solving the Problem of Pressure Ulcers Resulting from Cervical Collars: A Step-By-Step Approach. Blaylock B. Ostomy Wound Management. 1996 May;42(4):26-33.
- Assessing Range of Motion to Evaluate the Adverse Effects of Ill-Fitting Cervical Orthoses. Bell K, Frazier E, Shively C, Hartman R, Ulibarri J, Lee J, Kang J, Donaldson III W. The Spine Journal, 9 (2009), 225-231.
- Prospective Evaluation of Craniofacial Pressure in Four Different Cervical Orthoses. Plaisier B, Gabram S, Schwartz R, Jacobs L. Journal of Trauma. 1994 Nov;37(5):714-20.
- Complication of Hard Cervical Collars in Multi-trauma Patients. Liew SC, Hill DA. Aust N Z J Surg. 1994 Feb; 64(2): 139-40.
- Evaluation of the Vista MuliPost Therapy Collar as a Symptom Relief Orthosis.
- Absorption and Transfer Characteristics of Cervical Collar Padding.
- Evaluation of the Cushioning Characteristics of Padding in Cervical Orthoses.
- Comparative Evaluation of Two Cervical Orthoses in Flexion and Extension: A Comparison of the Sierra Universal Collar and the Philadelphia Cervical Collar.
- Cervical Collar Motion Restriction Study.
- Deflection Under Load: A Comparison of the Aspen Vista TX and the Optec ProGlide 174.
- Pressure Distribution: A Comparison of the Aspen Vista TX and the Optec ProGlide 174.