Analysis of a customized cervical collar to improve neck posture during smartphone usage: a comparative study in healthy subjects
- 44 Downloads
A slouching posture during smartphone usage increases gravitational loadings on the cervical spine, which may lead to neck pain and degeneration. The objective of the present study was to investigate the head, neck and trunk angles in different smartphone-usage postures, as well as the posture-correction effects and comfort scores of three neck collars.
This was a prospective cohort study in which 41 healthy young subjects aged 18–25 were recruited. The head, neck and trunk angles were measured in all participants during a neutral position and three smartphone-using postures, including sitting with and without back support and standing. The postural correction and comfort scores of three collars (Aspen Vista, Sport-aid and our customized 3D printed collars) were compared.
Smartphone use increased the head and neck flexion angles in all postures, and sitting without back support showed the greatest head and neck flexion angles. The posture-correcting effect of the customized collar was better than the Aspen Vista and Sport-aid collars. In addition, the customized collar was more comfortable to wear than the other two collars in most contact areas.
Smartphone use increased both the head and neck flexion in different postures, and the proposed customized 3D-printed cervical collar significantly reduced the head and neck angles.
KeywordsCustomized 3D printing Cervical orthosis Postures Smartphone use
The authors would like to acknowledge the funding support from Taiwan Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST 105-2218-E-006-006, MOST 106-3114-E-006-010, MOST 106-2314-B-039 -038).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- 3.Hansraj KK (2014) Assessment of stresses in the cervical spine caused by posture and position of the head. Surg Technol Int 25:277–279Google Scholar
- 11.Administration OSaH (1995) Draft: instructions for completing the risk factor checklistsGoogle Scholar
- 12.Inc. H (1993) Applied ergonomic training manualGoogle Scholar
- 18.Evans NR, Hooper G, Edwards R, Whatling G, Sparkes V, Holt C, Ahuja S (2013) A 3D motion analysis study comparing the effectiveness of cervical spine orthoses at restricting spinal motion through physiological ranges. Eur Spine J 22:10–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2641-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Lusskin R, Berger N (1975) Prescription principles. In: Atlas of orthotics: biomechanical principles and application. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons-St Louis, Mosby Co., pp 370–372Google Scholar
- 22.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 (Phila Pa 1976). https://doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000251019.24917.44 Google Scholar
- 28.Straker L, Burgess-Limerick R, Pollock C, Murray K, Netto K, Coleman J, Skoss R (2008) The impact of computer display height and desk design on 3D posture during information technology work by young adults. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 18:336–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2006.10.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Karason S, Reynisson K, Sigvaldason K, Sigurdsson GH (2014) Evaluation of clinical efficacy and safety of cervical trauma collars: differences in immobilization, effect on jugular venous pressure and patient comfort. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 22:37. https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-22-37 CrossRefGoogle Scholar