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

Area of Science:

• Biomechanical Engineering
• Orthopedics
• Medical Device Design

Background:

• Cervical collars are widely used but linked to adverse effects like pressure ulcers and infections.
• Evaluating new cervical collar designs for safety and efficacy is crucial.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the cervical spine motion restriction of the DJO Procare XTEND 174 collar against the Össur Miami J collar.
• To assess if the new collar produces similar tissue interface pressures compared to the benchmark collar.

Main Methods:

• Utilized a 10-camera infrared motion capture system to record 3D kinematic data from 12 healthy volunteers.
• Measured cervical range of motion in all planes and tissue interface pressures on the anterior mandibles and occiput.
• Acquired pressure distribution data in both seated and supine positions.

Main Results:

• Both the Procare XTEND 174 and Miami J collars significantly restricted cervical range of motion in all directions (p < 0.001).
• No statistically significant differences were found between the two collars in terms of motion restriction or tissue interface pressures.
• Both devices demonstrated comparable performance in limiting cervical spine mobility and pressure distribution.

Conclusions:

• The DJO Procare XTEND 174 collar is biomechanically comparable to the Össur Miami J collar.
• The new collar offers similar cervical motion restriction and tissue interface pressures, suggesting a viable alternative for patient care.