» Articles » PMID: 27032640

The Ability of External Immobilizers to Restrict Movement of the Cervical Spine: a Systematic Review

Overview
Journal Eur Spine J
Specialty Orthopedics
Date 2016 Apr 2
PMID 27032640
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: To review the ability of various types of external immobilizers to restrict cervical spine movement.

Methods: With a systematical review of original scientific articles, data on range of motion, type of used external immobilization device and risk of bias were extracted. The described external immobilization devices were grouped and the mean restriction percentage and standard deviation were calculated. Finally, each device was classified based on its ability to restrict movement of the cervical spine, according to five levels of immobilization: poor (MIL <20 %), fair (MIL 20-40 %), moderate (MIL 40-60 %), substantial (MIL 60-80 %), and nearly complete (MIL ≥80 %).

Results: The ability to reduce the range of motion by soft collars was poor in all directions. The ability of cervico-high thoracic devices was moderate for flexion/extension but poor for lateral bending and rotation. The ability of cervico-low thoracic devices to restrict flexion/extension and rotation was moderate, while their ability to restrict lateral bending was poor. All cranio-thoracic devices for non-ambulatory patients restricted cervical spine movement substantial in all directions. The ability of vests with non-invasive skull fixation was substantial in all directions. No studies with healthy adults were identified with respect to cranial traction and halo vests with skull pins and their ability to restrict cervical movement.

Conclusions: Soft collars have a poor ability to reduce mobility of the cervical spine. Cervico-high thoracic devices primarily reduce flexion and extension, but they reduce lateral bending and rotation to a lesser degree. Cervico-low thoracic devices restrict lateral bending to the same extent as cervico-high thoracic devices, but are considerably more effective at restricting flexion, extension, and rotation. Finally, cranio-thoracic devices nearly fully restrict movement of the cervical spine.

Citing Articles

Validity of Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU Sensor) for Measurement of Cervical Spine Motion, Compared with Eight Optoelectronic 3D Cameras Under Spinal Immobilization Devices.

Liengswangwong W, Lertviboonluk N, Yuksen C, Jamkrajang P, Limroongreungrat W, Mongkolpichayaruk A Med Devices (Auckl). 2024; 17:261-269.

PMID: 39050910 PMC: 11268762. DOI: 10.2147/MDER.S475166.


Traditional Spinal Immobilization versus Spinal Motion Restriction in Cervical Spine Movement; a Randomized Crossover Trial.

Nuanprom P, Yuksen C, Tienpratarn W, Jamkrajang P Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2024; 12(1):e36.

PMID: 38737134 PMC: 11088786. DOI: 10.22037/aaem.v12i1.2263.


Understanding the quality-of-life experiences of older or frail adults following a new dens fracture: Nonsurgical management in a hard collar versus early removal of collar.

Closs M, Brennan P, Niven A, Shenkin S, Eborall H, Lawton J Health Expect. 2024; 27(2):e14017.

PMID: 38488427 PMC: 10941537. DOI: 10.1111/hex.14017.


The Utility of Postoperative Bracing on Radiographic and Clinical Outcomes Following Cervical Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Hasan S, Babrowicz J, Waheed M, Piche J, Patel R, Aleem I Global Spine J. 2022; 13(2):512-522.

PMID: 35499300 PMC: 9972282. DOI: 10.1177/21925682221098361.


The Michel Benoist and Robert Mulholland yearly European Spine Journal Review: a survey of the "medical" articles in the European Spine Journal, 2016.

Benoist M Eur Spine J. 2016; 26(1):1-10.

PMID: 27900554 DOI: 10.1007/s00586-016-4886-5.

References
1.
Evans N, Hooper G, Edwards R, Whatling G, Sparkes V, Holt C . A 3D motion analysis study comparing the effectiveness of cervical spine orthoses at restricting spinal motion through physiological ranges. Eur Spine J. 2013; 22 Suppl 1:S10-5. PMC: 3578513. DOI: 10.1007/s00586-012-2641-0. View

2.
Johnson R, Hart D, Simmons E, Ramsby G, Southwick W . Cervical orthoses. A study comparing their effectiveness in restricting cervical motion in normal subjects. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1977; 59(3):332-9. View

3.
Williams M, McCarthy C, Chorti A, Cooke M, Gates S . A systematic review of reliability and validity studies of methods for measuring active and passive cervical range of motion. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2010; 33(2):138-55. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2009.12.009. View

4.
Holla M . Value of a rigid collar in addition to head blocks: a proof of principle study. Emerg Med J. 2011; 29(2):104-7. DOI: 10.1136/emj.2010.092973. View

5.
Holla M, Huisman J, Hosman A . A validated classification for external immobilization of the cervical spine. Evid Based Spine Care J. 2014; 4(2):72-7. PMC: 3836954. DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1357353. View