European Spine Journal

, Volume 22, Supplement 1, pp 10–15 | Cite as

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

  • Nicholas Rhys Evans
  • Georgina Hooper
  • Rachel Edwards
  • Gemma Whatling
  • Valerie Sparkes
  • Cathy Holt
  • Sashin Ahuja
Original Article



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.


3D motion analysis Cervical spine Kinematics Cervical orthoses 


Conflict of interest

I confirm that no funding or grants were received to support this research.


  1. 1.
    Quinlan JF, Mullett H, Stapleton R, FitzPatrick D, McCormack D (2006) The use of the Zebris motion analysis system for measuring cervical spine movements in vivo. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 220:889–896PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Schneider AM, Hipp JA, Nguyen L, Reitman CA (2007) Reduction in head and intervertebral motion provided by 7 contemporary cervical orthoses in 45 individuals. Spine 32:1–6. doi: 10.1097/01.brs.0000251019.24917.44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ordway NR, Seymour R, Donelson RG, Hojnowski L, Lee E, Edwards WT (1997) Cervical sagittal range-of-motion analysis using three methods. Cervical range-of-motion device, 3space, and radiography. Spine 22:501–508PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Askins V, Eismont FJ (1997) Efficacy of five cervical orthoses in restricting cervical motion: a comparison study. Spine 22:1193–1198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gavin TM, Carandang G, Havey R, Flanagan P, Ghanayem A, Patwardhan AG (2003) Biomechanical analysis of cervical orthoses in flexion and extension: a comparison of cervical collars and cervical thoracic orthoses. J Rehabil Res Dev 40:527–537PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhang S, Wortley M, Clowers K, Krusenklaus JH (2005) Evaluation of efficacy and 3D kinematic characteristics of cervical orthoses. Clin Biomech 20:264–269. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2004.09.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Johnson RM, Hart DL, Simmons EF, Ramsby GR, Southwick WO (1977) Cervical orthoses. A study comparing their effectiveness in restricting cervical motion in normal subjects. J Bone Joint Surg Am 59:332–339PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dvorak J, Panjabi MM, Grob D, Novotny JE, Antinnes JA (1993) Clinical validation of functional flexion/extension radiographs of the cervical spine. Spine 18:120–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hartman JT, Palumbo F, Hill BJ (1975) Cineradiography of the braced normal cervical spine. A comparative study of five commonly used cervical orthoses. Clin Orthop Relat Res 109:97–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hino H, Abumi K, Kanayama M, Kaneda K (1999) Dynamic motion analysis of normal and unstable cervical spines using cineradiography: an in vivo study. Spine 24:163–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. 12.
    Lim TH, Eck JC, An HS, McGrady LM, Harris GF, Haughton VM (1997) A noninvasive, three-dimensional spinal motion analysis method. Spine 22:1996–2000PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Karhu JO, Parkkola RK, Komu ME, Kormano MJ, Koskinen SK (1999) Kinematic magnetic resonance imaging of the upper cervical spine using a novel positioning device. Spine 24:2046–2056PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Manix T, Gunderson MR, Garth GC (1995) Comparison of prehospital cervical immobilization devices using video and electromyography. Prehosp Disaster Med 10:232–237 discussion 237-238PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mayer T, Brady S, Bovasso E, Pope P, Gatchel RJ (1993) Noninvasive measurement of cervical tri-planar motion in normal subjects. Spine 18:2191–2195PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Panjabi MM, Crisco JJ, Vasavada A, Oda T, Cholewicki J, Nibu K, Shin E (2001) Mechanical properties of the human cervical spine as shown by three-dimensional load–displacement curves. Spine 26:2692–2700PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Feipel V, Rondelet B, Le Pallec J, Rooze M (1999) Normal global motion of the cervical spine: an electrogoniometric study. Clin Biomech 14:462–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Syed FI, Oza AL, Vanderby R, Heiderscheit B, Anderson PA (2007) A method to measure cervical spine motion over extended periods of time. Spine 32:2092–2098. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318145a93a PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Horodyski M, DiPaola CP, Conrad BP, Rechtine GR 2nd (2011) Cervical collars are insufficient for immobilizing an unstable cervical spine injury. J Emerg Med 41:513–519. doi: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2011.02.001 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gracovetsky S, Newman N, Pawlowsky M, Lanzo V, Davey B, Robinson L (1995) A database for estimating normal spinal motion derived from noninvasive measurements. Spine 20:1036–1046PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Dvorak J, Antinnes JA, Panjabi M, Loustalot D, Bonomo M (1992) Age and gender related normal motion of the cervical spine. Spine 17:393–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    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 25:443–449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas Rhys Evans
    • 1
    • 2
  • Georgina Hooper
    • 3
  • Rachel Edwards
    • 4
  • Gemma Whatling
    • 5
  • Valerie Sparkes
    • 5
  • Cathy Holt
    • 5
  • Sashin Ahuja
    • 4
  1. 1.Cardiff School of EngineeringCardiff UniversityCardiffUK
  2. 2.Trauma and Orthopaedic Department, Level F, Southampton University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustSouthampton General HospitalSouthamptonUK
  3. 3.Physiotherapy DepartmentUniversity Hospital LlandoughCardiffUK
  4. 4.Cardiff Spinal UnitUniversity Hospital of WalesCardiffUK
  5. 5.Cardiff School of Healthcare Studies, Cardiff School of EngineeringCardiff UniversityCardiffUK

Personalised recommendations