A 3D motion analysis study comparing the effectiveness of cervical spine orthoses at restricting spinal motion through physiological ranges
- 619 Downloads
To compare the effectiveness of the Aspen, Aspen Vista, Philadelphia, Miami-J and Miami-J Advanced collars at restricting cervical spine movement in the sagittal, coronal and axial planes.
Nineteen healthy volunteers (12 female, 7 male) were recruited to the study. Collars were fitted by an approved physiotherapist. Eight ProReflex (Qualisys, Sweden) infrared cameras were used to track the movement of retro-reflective marker clusters placed in predetermined positions on the head and trunk. 3D kinematic data were collected during forward flexion, extension, lateral bending and axial rotation from uncollared to collared subjects. The physiological range of motion in the three planes was analysed using the Qualisys Track Manager System.
The Aspen and Philadelphia were significantly more effective at restricting flexion/extension than the Vista (p < 0.001), Miami-J (p < 0.001 and p < 0.01) and Miami-J Advanced (p < 0.01 and p < 0.05). The Aspen was significantly more effective at restricting rotation than the Vista (p < 0.001) and the Miami-J (p < 0.05). The Vista was significantly the least effective collar at restricting lateral bending (p < 0.001).
Our motion analysis study found the Aspen collar to be superior to the other collars when measuring restriction of movement of the cervical spine in all planes, particularly the sagittal and transverse planes, while the Aspen Vista was the least effective collar.
Keywords3D motion analysis Cervical spine Kinematics Cervical orthoses
Conflict of interest
I confirm that no funding or grants were received to support this research.
- 11.Hsu WH, Chen YL, Lui TN, Chen TY, Hsu YH, Lin CL, Ming-Lun T (2011) Comparison of the kinematic features between the in vivo active and passive flexion–extension of the subaxial cervical spine and their biomechanical implications. Spine 36:630–638. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181da79af PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar