Background Cervical collar treatment is widespread amongst a broad range of ages and conditions. However, these devices are associated with a known correlation between collar usage and adverse effects such as pressure ulcers, infections, exacerbated spinal injury, and higher morbidity. The objective of this study was to determine if the ability of a newly developed DJO Procare XTEND 174 collar to restrict cervical spine motion was similar to that of the previously studied Össur Miami J collar and to determine if this was done while producing similar tissue interface pressures. Methods Three-dimensional kinematic data were obtained for twelve healthy volunteer participants (6 female, 6 male) using a 10-camera infrared motion capture system. Cervical range of motion in each plane was calculated using angles between head and thorax rigid-body axes. Tissue interface pressure was measured between the head and the collar with three flexible pressure sensor pads over the anterior mandibles and occiput. The distribution of interface pressures was obtained in both the seated and supine positions. Findings Both collars significantly restricted range of motion in all movement directions (p < 0.001) compared to no collar. There were no significant differences in restrictiveness nor in tissue interface pressures between the collars. Both collars exhibited similar range of motion restriction and similar interface pressures. Interpretation Our data indicate that the newly developed Procare XTEND 174 collar is not statistically different from the scientifically recognized Miami J benchmark collar regarding cervical range of motion restriction in all three planes and tissue interface pressure.
Keywords: Cervical collar; Cervical range of motion; Tissue interface pressure.
Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.