Whitcroft Katherine L, Massouh Laura, Amirfeyz Rouin, Bannister Gordon C
University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2011 Feb;34(2):119-22. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2010.12.007.
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.
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.
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.
Based on the data of the 50 subjects presented in this study, the soft cervical collar did not adequately immobilize the cervical spine.
软质颈托已被用于治疗挥鞭伤，但临床研究表明其并无效果。鉴于一些作者报告称使用颈托治疗挥鞭伤效果更佳，我们对比较软质颈托与硬质颈托的力学效果很感兴趣。因此，本研究旨在测量在不使用矫形器的情况下，佩戴软质颈托和硬质颈托的无颈部疼痛受试者的活动范围。
本研究招募了50名年龄在22至67岁之间、无颈部或肩部疼痛的健康受试者。使用颈椎活动度角度计测量颈部活动。在三种情况下评估每位受试者的主动前屈、后伸、左右侧屈以及左右旋转：不佩戴颈托、佩戴软质颈托和佩戴硬质颈托。
与不佩戴颈托或矫形器相比，软质颈托和硬质颈托均减少了颈部活动，但硬质颈托在减少活动方面更有效。软质颈托平均减少活动17.4%；硬质颈托则减少62.9%。尽管老年受试者的颈部更僵硬，但矫形器的效果不受年龄影响。
基于本研究中50名受试者的数据，软质颈托不能充分固定颈椎。
