The Effects of Cervical Orthoses on Head and Intervertebral Range of Motion

Abstract

Study Design. Prospective Cohort. Objective. Quantify and compare the effectiveness of cervical orthoses in restricting intervertebral kinematics during multiplanar motions. Summary of Background Data. Previous studies evaluating the efficacy of cervical orthoses measured global head motion and did not evaluate individual cervical motion segment mobility. Prior studies focused only on the flexion/extension motion. Methods. Twenty adults without neck pain participated. Vertebral motion from the occiput through T1 was imaged using dynamic biplane radiography. Intervertebral motion was measured using an automated registration process with validated accuracy better than 1 degree. Participants performed independent trials of maximal flexion/extension, axial rotation, and lateral bending in a randomized order of unbraced, soft collar (foam), hard collar (Aspen), and cervical thoracic orthosis (CTO) (Aspen) conditions. Repeated-measures ANOVA was used to identify differences in the range of motion (ROM) among brace conditions for each motion. Results. Compared with no collar, the soft collar reduced flexion/extension ROM from occiput/C1 through C4/C5, and reduced axial rotation ROM at C1/C2 and from C3/C4 through C5/C6. The soft collar did not reduce motion at any motion segment during lateral bending. Compared with the soft collar, the hard collar reduced intervertebral motion at every motion segment during all motions, except for occiput/C1 during axial rotation and C1/C2 during lateral bending. The CTO reduced motion compared with the hard collar only at C6/C7 during flexion/extension and lateral bending. Conclusions. The soft collar was ineffective as a restraint to intervertebral motion during lateral bending, but it did reduce intervertebral motion during flexion/extension and axial rotation. The hard collar reduced intervertebral motion compared with the soft collar across all motion directions. The CTO provided a minimal reduction in intervertebral motion compared with the hard collar. The utility in using a CTO rather than a hard collar is questionable, given the cost and little or no additional motion restriction.