Sandler A J, Dvorak J, Humke T, Grob D, Daniels W
Schulthess Clinic Spine Unit, Zürich, Switzerland.
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996 Jul 15;21(14):1624-9. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199607150-00002.
The amount of motion allowed by various cervical orthoses was compared with the amount of unrestricted neck motion in vivo.
To determine how much mechanical stability commonly used cervical orthoses provide to the wearer.
Few studies have compared quantitatively the restriction of motion from cervical orthoses that are commonly prescribed for patients. No studies have used methods allowing measurement of all three rotations throughout the range of motion in passive and active tests. Previous studies may have overstated the amount of restriction provided resulting from the methods used.
Five subjects were tested for cervical range of motion in flexion-extension, axial, rotation, and lateral bending. Each was tested with no collar, with soft collar, with Philadelphia collar, with Philadelphia collar with thoracic extension, and with sterno-occipital mandibular immobilizer brace. Each test was conducted passively and actively. Measurements were taken with the CA-6000 Spine Motion Analyzer, a highly accurate and precise computerized linkage system that simultaneously records all three rotations in real time.
All orthoses restricted motion to some extent. Generally, the collars ranked (from least restrictive to most restrictive): soft, Philadelphia, Philadelphia with extension, and sterno-occipital mandibular immobilizer brace. However, the differences were not usually large, and the collars did not restrict motion as much as previously reported. No collar restricted the motion of any of the subjects to less than 19 degrees of flexion-extension, 46 degrees of axial rotation, or 45 degrees of lateral bending, and most subjects demonstrated significantly more motion.
Although cervical orthoses can be helpful for other reasons, they do not provide a high level of mechanical restriction of motion. Additionally, the restriction they do provide can vary widely between people. Prescribing physicians should consider the relative merits of the various orthoses before deciding whether they will meet a patient's needs. The differences between the collars tested may not be enough to justify one of the more expensive or less comfortable collars.
将各种颈椎矫形器允许的活动量与体内无限制颈部活动量进行比较。
确定常用颈椎矫形器为佩戴者提供的机械稳定性程度。
很少有研究对通常为患者开具的颈椎矫形器的活动限制进行定量比较。没有研究使用能在被动和主动测试的整个活动范围内测量所有三种旋转的方法。以前的研究可能因所使用的方法而夸大了所提供的限制量。
对5名受试者进行颈椎屈伸、轴向、旋转和侧屈活动范围测试。每个受试者分别在不戴颈托、戴软颈托、戴费城颈托、戴带胸部延伸的费城颈托以及戴胸锁枕下颌固定支具的情况下进行测试。每项测试均进行被动和主动测试。使用CA - 6000脊柱运动分析仪进行测量,这是一种高度精确的计算机化联动系统,可实时同时记录所有三种旋转。
所有矫形器在一定程度上都限制了活动。一般来说,颈托的限制程度排序(从限制最小到最大)为:软颈托、费城颈托、带延伸的费城颈托、胸锁枕下颌固定支具。然而,差异通常不大,而且颈托对活动的限制没有先前报道的那么大。没有一种颈托能将任何受试者的活动限制到屈伸小于19度、轴向旋转小于46度或侧屈小于45度,而且大多数受试者的活动明显更多。
尽管颈椎矫形器可能因其他原因而有帮助,但它们并不能提供高水平的机械活动限制。此外,它们所提供的限制在个体之间可能有很大差异。开处方的医生在决定某种矫形器是否能满足患者需求之前,应考虑各种矫形器的相对优点。所测试的颈托之间的差异可能不足以证明选择更昂贵或不太舒适的颈托是合理的。