Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 26, 2025
Assessment of the Efficacy of An Osteopathic Treatment in Infants with Biomechanical Impairments to Suckling
Published on: February 5, 2019
The Effects of Cervical Orthoses on Head and Intervertebral Range of Motion
Anthony A Oyekan1, Clarissa M LeVasseur, Stephen R Chen
1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
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.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
01:28Articulations of the Vertebral Column
01:19Muscles that Move the Head
The bilateral sternocleidomastoid, or SCM, and the suprahyoid and infrahyoid muscles are significant head flexors. The SCM muscles originate at the sternum and clavicle and attach to the mastoid process of the temporal bone. The SCM contracts bilaterally to bend the head forward, whereas...
01:16Vertebral Column: Regions and Curvature
Regions of the Vertebral Column
In an adult, the spine is subdivided into five regions: the cervical, the thoracic, the lumbar, the sacral, and the coccygeal region. The spine initially develops as a series of 33 vertebrae; after 20 years of age, the nine bones in the sacral region, five sacral, and four coccygeal bones fuse to form...
01:17Structural Joints: Cartilaginous Joints
There are two types of cartilaginous joints:
Synchondrosis
A synchondrosis ("joined by cartilage") is a cartilaginous joint where bones are connected by hyaline cartilage. Synchondrosis may be temporary...
00:51Anatomical Movements
Here are some common anatomical movements:
Flexion and extension motions are in the sagittal (anterior–posterior) plane of motion. These movements take place at the shoulder, hip, elbow, knee, wrist,...