A comparison of neck movement in the soft cervical collar and rigid cervical brace in healthy subjects.

OBJECTIVE: The soft cervical collar has been prescribed for whiplash injury but has been shown to be clinically ineffective. As some authors report superior results for managing whiplash injury with a cervical brace, we were interested in comparing the mechanical effectiveness of the soft collar with a rigid cervical brace. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to measure ranges of motion in subjects without neck pain using a soft cervical collar and a rigid brace compared with no orthosis. METHODS: Fifty healthy subjects (no neck or shoulder pain) aged 22 to 67 years were recruited for this study. Neck movement was measured using a cervical range of motion goniometer. Active flexion, extension, right and left lateral flexion, and right and left rotation were assessed in each subject under 3 conditions: no collar, a soft collar, and a rigid cervical brace. RESULTS: The soft collar and rigid brace reduced neck movement compared with no brace or collar, but the cervical brace was more effective at reducing motion. The soft collar reduced movement on average by 17.4%; and the cervical brace, by 62.9%. The effect of the orthoses was not affected by age, although older subjects had stiffer necks. CONCLUSION: Based on the data of the 50 subjects presented in this study, the soft cervical collar did not adequately immobilize the cervical spine.

Comparison of methods of measuring active cervical range of motion.

STUDY DESIGN: Experimental study. Cervical range of motion (CROM) was measured using different clinical methods. OBJECTIVE: To compare the reliability and accuracy of visual estimation, tape measurement, and the universal goniometer (UG) with that of the CROM goniometer in measuring active CROM in healthy volunteers. The secondary objective was to identify the single neck movement that best represents overall range of motion. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Neck movement is affected by pathology in the spine and shoulder. A reliable and accurate measurement of neck movement is required to quantify injury, recovery, and disability. Various methods of measuring neck movement have been described of which radiography remains the accepted reference standard. However, radiography is impractical for routine clinical assessment. Visual estimation, tape measurement, and the UG are convenient alternatives. To date, the accuracy and reliability of these methods have not been compared in healthy subjects, and the single neck movement that best reflects overall range has not yet been identified. METHODS: Active cervical flexion, extension, right and left lateral flexion and rotation were measured in 100 healthy volunteers. Visual estimation, tape measurement between fixed landmarks, and the UG aligned on fixed and anatomic landmarks were compared with the CROM goniometer, which was used as the reference standard. RESULTS: Compared with the CROM goniometer, the UG aligned on fixed landmarks was the most accurate method, followed by the UG on anatomic landmarks. The reliability of the UG was between substantial and perfect. Visual estimation was reproducible but measured range of movement inaccurately. Tape measurement was inaccurate. Extension best reflected overall range. CONCLUSION: The UG aligned on a fixed landmark is most reliable method of measuring neck movement clinically. Where range must be quickly assessed, extension should be measured.