Comparison of cervical motion restriction and interface pressure between two cervical collars

      Highlights

      • Analysis of three-dimensional kinematic data for 6 neck movements with 2 collars.
      • Procare XTEND 174 and Miami J collars significantly restricted cervical motion.
      • Procare XTEND 174 and Miami J collars allowed comparable cervical motion.
      • Procare XTEND 174 and Miami J collars generated similar pressures.

      Abstract

      Background
      Cervical collar treatment is widespread amongst a broad range of ages and conditions. However, these devices are associated with a known correlation between collar usage and adverse effects such as pressure ulcers, infections, exacerbated spinal injury, and higher morbidity. The objective of this study was to determine if the ability of a newly developed DJO Procare XTEND 174 collar to restrict cervical spine motion was similar to that of the previously studied Össur Miami J collar and to determine if this was done while producing similar tissue interface pressures.
      Methods
      Three-dimensional kinematic data were obtained for twelve healthy volunteer participants (6 female, 6 male) using a 10-camera infrared motion capture system. Cervical range of motion in each plane was calculated using angles between head and thorax rigid-body axes. Tissue interface pressure was measured between the head and the collar with three flexible pressure sensor pads over the anterior mandibles and occiput. The distribution of interface pressures was obtained in both the seated and supine positions.
      Findings
      Both collars significantly restricted range of motion in all movement directions (p < 0.001) compared to no collar. There were no significant differences in restrictiveness nor in tissue interface pressures between the collars. Both collars exhibited similar range of motion restriction and similar interface pressures.
      Interpretation
      Our data indicate that the newly developed Procare XTEND 174 collar is not statistically different from the scientifically recognized Miami J benchmark collar regarding cervical range of motion restriction in all three planes and tissue interface pressure.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
      Subscribe to Clinical Biomechanics
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Black J.M.
        • Cuddigan J.E.
        • Walko M.A.
        • Didier L.A.
        • Lander M.J.
        • Kelpe M.R.
        Medical device related pressure ulcers in hospitalized patients.
        Int. Wound J. 2010; 7: 358-365https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-481X.2010.00699.x
        • Chan M.
        • Al-Buali W.
        • Charyk Stewart T.
        • Singh R.N.
        • Kornecki A.
        • Seabrook J.A.
        • Fraser D.D.
        Cervical spine injuries and collar complications in severely injured paediatric trauma patients.
        Spinal Cord. 2013; 51: 360-364https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2013.6
        • Chendrasekhar A.
        • Moorman D.W.
        • Timberlake G.A.
        An evaluation of the effects of semirigid cervical collars in patients with severe closed head injury.
        Am. Surg. 1998; 64: 604-606
        • Evans N.R.
        • Hooper G.
        • Edwards R.
        • Whatling G.
        • Sparkes V.
        • Holt C.
        • Ahuja S.
        A 3D motion analysis study comparing the effectiveness of cervical spine orthoses at restricting spinal motion through physiological ranges.
        Eur. Spine J. 2013; 22: 10-15https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-012-2641-0
        • Frohna W.J.
        Emergency department evaluation and treatment of the neck and cervical spine injuries.
        Emerg. Med. Clin. North Am. 1999; 17: 739-791https://doi.org/10.1016/S0733-8627(05)70097-3
        • Ham W.
        • Schoonhoven L.
        • Schuurmans M.J.
        • Leenen L.P.H.
        Pressure ulcers from spinal immobilization in trauma patients.
        J. Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2014; 76: 1131-1141https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0000000000000153
        • Holla M.
        • Huisman J.M.R.
        • Verdonschot N.
        • Goosen J.
        • Hosman A.J.F.
        • Hannink G.
        The ability of external immobilizers to restrict movement of the cervical spine: a systematic review.
        Eur. Spine J. 2016; 25: 2023-2036https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-016-4379-6
        • Jacobson T.M.
        • Tescher A.N.
        • Miers A.G.
        • Downer L.
        Improving practice efforts to reduce occipital pressure ulcers.
        J. Nurs. Care Qual. 2008; 23: 283-288https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NCQ.0000324595.29956.90
        • Lunsford T.R.
        • Davidson M.
        • Lunsford B.R.
        The effectiveness of four contemporary cervical orthoses in restricting cervical motion.
        J. Prosthetics Orthot. 1994; 6: 93-99https://doi.org/10.1097/00008526-199406040-00002
        • Lyder C.H.
        • Wang Y.
        • Metersky M.
        • Curry M.
        • Kliman R.
        • Verzier N.R.
        • Hunt D.R.
        Hospital-acquired pressure ulcers: results from the national medicare patient safety monitoring system study.
        J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2012; 60: 1603-1608https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2012.04106.x
        • National Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel, Pan Pacific Pressure Injury Alliance
        Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers: Quick Reference Guide.
        Cambridge Media, Perth, Australia2014
        • Tescher A.N.
        • Rindflesch A.B.
        • Youdas J.W.
        • Jacobson T.M.
        • Downer L.L.
        • Miers A.G.
        • Basford J.R.
        • Cullinane D.C.
        • Stevens S.R.
        • Pankratz V.S.
        • Decker P.A.
        Range-of-motion restriction and craniofacial tissue interface pressure from four cervical collars.
        J. Trauma - Inj. Infect. Crit. Care. 2007; 63: 1120-1126https://doi.org/10.1097/TA.0b013e3180487d0f
        • Tescher A.N.
        • Rindflesch A.B.
        • Youdas J.W.
        • Terman R.W.
        • Jacobson T.M.
        • Douglas L.L.
        • Miers A.G.
        • Austin C.M.
        • Delgado A.M.
        • Zins S.M.
        • Lahr B.D.
        • Pichelmann M.A.
        • Heller S.F.
        • Huddleston P.M.
        Comparison of cervical range-of-motion restriction and craniofacial tissue interface pressure with 2 adjustable and 2 standard cervical collars.
        Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2016; 41: E304-E312https://doi.org/10.1097/BRS.0000000000001252
        • Theodore N.
        • Hadley M.N.
        • Aarabi B.
        • Dhall S.S.
        • Gelb D.E.
        • Hurlbert R.J.
        • Rozzelle C.J.
        • Ryken T.C.
        • Walters B.C.
        Prehospital cervical spinal immobilization after trauma.
        Neurosurgery. 2013; 72: 22-34https://doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e318276edb1
        • Worsley P.R.
        • Stanger N.D.
        • Horrell A.K.
        • Bader D.L.
        Investigating the effects of cervical collar design and fit on the biomechanical and biomarker reaction at the skin.
        Med. Devices Evid. Res. 2018; 11: 87-94https://doi.org/10.2147/MDER.S149419
        • Zhang S.
        • Wortley M.
        • Clowers K.
        • Krusenklaus J.H.
        Evaluation of efficacy and 3D kinematic characteristics of cervical orthoses.
        Clin. Biomech. 2005; 20: 264-269https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2004.09.015