Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cervical range of movement in relation to neck dimension

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Spine Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The authors investigated the effect of neck dimension upon cervical range of motion. Data relating to 100 healthy subjects, aged between 20 and 40 years, were recorded with respect to age, gender and range of motion in three planes. Additionally, two widely used methods of measuring neck motion, chin-sternal distance and uniplanar goniometer, were assessed against a validated measurement tool, the ‘CROM goniometer’. Using multiple linear regression analysis it was determined that sagittal flexion (P = 0.002) and lateral rotation (P < 0.0001) were most closely related to neck circumference alone whereas lateral flexion (P < 0.0001) was most closely related to a ratio of circumference and length of neck. Hence, assessing cervical range of motion as outcome variable or as a measure at posttreatment follow-up, neck circumference was shown to be one of the factors influencing total neck motion, particularly sagittal flexion and lateral tilt. Comparison of cervical range of motion assessed with a validated measurement tool, the CROM goniometer, with results of both frequently applied clinician’s instruments, the uniplanar goniometer and measurement of chin-sternal distance, showed low reliability with the latter techniques, and motion values measured with these techniques should be interpreted with caution if using them for comparison of cervical range of motion of alike groups. We demonstrated that neck dimension should be incorporated into cervical functional outcome assessment and one should be wary about recorded values for neck motion from non-validated measurement tools.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alaranta H, Hurri H, Heliovaara M, Soukks A, Harju R (1994) Flexibility of the spine: normative values of goniometric and tape measurements. Scand J Rehabil Med 24:147–154

    Google Scholar 

  2. Antonaci F, Ghirmai S, Bono G, Nappi G (2000) Current methods for cervical spine movement evaluation: a review. Clin Exp Rheumatol 18:S45–S52

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Armstrong B, McNair P, Taylor D (2008) Head and neck position sense. Sports Med 38:101–117. doi:10.2165/00007256-200838020-00002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bovim G, Schrader H, Sand T (1994) Neck pain in the general population. Spine 19:1307–1309

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Capuano-Pucci D, Rheault W, Aulai J, Bracke M, Day R, Pastrick M (1991) Intratester and intertester reliability of the cervical range of motion device. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 72:338–340

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Castro WH, Sautmann A, Schilgen M, Sautmann M (2000) Noninvasive three-dimensional analysis of cervical spine motion in normal subjects in relation to age and sex. An experimental examination. Spine 25:443–449. doi:10.1097/00007632-200002150-00009

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Chen J, Solinger A, Poncett F, Lantz C (1999) Meta-analysis of normative cervical motion. Spine 24:1571–1578. doi:10.1097/00007632-199908010-00011

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Christensen H, Nilsson N (1999) The ability to reproduce the neutral zero position of the head. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 22:26–28. doi:10.1016/S0161-4754(99)70102-8

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Cote P, Cassidy JD, Carroll L (2000) The factors associated with neck pain and its related disability in the Saskatechewan population. Spine 25:1109–1117. doi:10.1097/00007632-200005010-00012

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Demaille-Wlodyka S, Chiquet C, Lavaste J-F, Skalli W, Revel M, Poiraudaeau (2007) Cervical range of motion and cephalic kinesthesis—ultrasonographic analysis by age and sex. Spine 32:E254–E261. doi:10.1097/01.brs.0000259919.82461.57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Feipel V, Rondelet B, Le Pallec J-P, Rooze M (1999) Normal global motion of the cervical spine: an electrogoniometric study. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 14:462–470. doi:10.1016/S0268-0033(98)90098-5

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Hole DE, Cook JM, Bolton JE (1995) Reliability and concurrent validity of two instruments for measuring cervical range of motion: effects of age and gender. Man Ther 1:36–42. doi:10.1054/math.1995.0248

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Jordan K (2000) Assessment of published reliability studies for cervical spine range-of-motion measurement tools. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 23:180–195. doi:10.1016/S0161-4754(00)90248-3

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kasch H, Stengaard-Pedersen K, Arendt-Nielsen L, Staehelin Jensen T (2001) Headache, neck pain, and neck mobility after acute whiplash injury: a prospective study. Radiologic, and psychosocial findings. Spine 26(11):1246–1251

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Makela M, Heliovaara M, Sievers K, Impivaara O, Knekt P, Aromaa A (1991) Prevalence, determinants, and consequences of chronic neck pain in Finland. Am J Epidemiol 134:1356–1367

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Nilsson N (1995) Measuring passive cervical motion: a study of reliability. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 18:293–297

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Nilsson N, Christinse HW, Hartvigsen J (1996) The interexaminer reliability of measuring passive cervical range of motion, revisited. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 19:302–305

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Platzer P, Thalhammer G, Ostermann R, Wieland R, Vecsei V, Gaebler C (2007) Anterior screw fixation of odontoid fractures comparing younger and elderly patients. Spine 32:1714–1720. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3180dc9758

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Radonov BP, Dvorak J (1996) Impaired cognitive functioning after whiplash injury of the cervical spine. Spine 21:392–397. doi:10.1097/00007632-199602010-00029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Spitzer WO, Skovron ML, Salmi LR, Cassidy JD, Duranceau J, Suissa S, Zeiss E (1995) Scientific monograph of the Quebec task force on whiplash-associated disorders: redefining “whiplash” and its management. Spine 20:S1–S73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Squires B, Gargan MF, Bannister GC (1996) Soft tissue injuries of the cervical spine 15 year follow up. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78-B:955–957. doi:10.1302/0301-620X78B6.1267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tousignant M, de Bellefeuille L, O’Donoughue S, Grahovac S (2000) Criterion validity of the cervical range of motion (CROM) goniometer for cervical flexion and extension. Spine 25:324–330. doi:10.1097/00007632-200002010-00011

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Trott P, Pearcy M, Ruston S, Fulton I, Brien C (1996) Three-dimensional analysis of active cervical: the effect of age and gender. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 11:201–206. doi:10.1016/0268-0033(95)00072-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Webb R, Brammah T, Lunt M, urwin M, Allison T, Symmons D (2003) Prevalence and predictors of intense, chronic, and disabling neck and back pain in the UK general population. Spine 28:1195–1202. doi:10.1097/00007632-200306010-00021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Youdas J, Garrett T, Suman V, Bogard C, Hallman H, Carey J (1992) Normal range of motion of the cervical spine: an initial goniometric study. Phys Ther 72:770–779

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

Dr Peter Williams, Department of Mathematics, Surrey University, Guildford.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Windmill Rd, Headington, Oxford, Oxfordshire, OX3 7LD, UK

    Jeremy Reynolds

  2. Mount Vernon Hospital, London, UK

    D. Marsh

  3. Department for Trauma and Sports Injuries, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria

    Heiko Koller & Juliane Zenenr

  4. North Bristol NHS Trust, Bristol, UK

    G. Bannister

Authors
  1. Jeremy Reynolds
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Marsh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Heiko Koller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Juliane Zenenr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. G. Bannister
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeremy Reynolds.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reynolds, J., Marsh, D., Koller, H. et al. Cervical range of movement in relation to neck dimension. Eur Spine J 18, 863–868 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-0894-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-0894-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation