Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences & Research

Evaluation of the efficiency of Minerva collar on cervical spine motions

Document Type : Original Articles

Authors

Pegah Saddat Hosseini 1
Mohammad Taghi Karimi 2
Fatemeh Abnavi 1
Marzieh Golabbakhsh 3

1 Department of Speech therapy, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

2 Department of Orthotics and Prosthetics, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

3 Medical Image and Signal Processing Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

https://doi.org/10.30476/jrsr.2017.41118
Abstract
Background:  Various types of cervical collars have being used to immobilize the cervical spine. There was no information regarding the effectiveness of Cervicothoracic collars (Minerva) on restriction of motions in cervical spine. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the immobilization achieved follow the use of Minerva collar in cervical and Cervicothoracic spine. Methods: Twenty healthy subjects (10 females and 10 males) were recruited in the study with no history of pain, deformity and surgery in spine. A motion analysis system was used to record the motions of cervical, upper thoracic and cervicothoracic in flexion, extension, lateral bending and rotation with and without Minerva collar.Results: The motion restriction of the upper cervical spine obtained with Minerva collar varied between 86.32 and 90%. The range of flexion/extension of cervical and cervicothoracic parts decreased by 27.35 and 56.32%, respectively follow the use of Minerva collar. The flexion/ extension range of motion of this segment decreased by 77.85 and 63.25%, respectively between occiput and T12.Conclusion: The maximum restriction of motion with Minerva collar was achieved in cervical spine. Due to the efficiency of Minerva collar to restrict the motions of cervical, especially in the upper part.

Keywords

Minerva collar
Motion restriction
Cervical and Cervicothoracic spine
  1. Johnson, R.M., et al., Cervical orthoses. A study comparing their
  2. effectiveness in restricting cervical motion in normal subjects. J
  3. Bone Joint Surg Am, 1977. 59(3): p. 332-339.
  4. White, A.A. and M.M. Panjabi, The problem of clinical instability
  5. in the human spine: a systematic approach. Clinical biomechanics
  6. of the spine, 1990. 2: p. 277-378.
  7. Askins, V. and F.J. Eismont, Efficacy of five cervical orthoses
  8. in restricting cervical motion: a comparison study. Spine, 1997.
  9. (11): p. 1193-1198.
  10. Richter, D., et al., The stabilizing effects of different orthoses in the
  11. intact and unstable upper cervical spine: a cadaver study. Journal
  12. of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 2001. 50(5): p. 848-854.
  13. Barati K, A.M., Vameghi R, Abdoli A, Farmani F., The Effect of
  14. Soft and Rigid Cervical Collars on Head and Neck Immobilization
  15. in Healthy Subjects.11(3):390-395. doi:10.4184/asj.2017.11.3.390.
  16. Asian Spine Journal.11 (3):390-395. doi:10.4184/asj.2017.11.3.390.,
  17. Carter, V.M., et al., The effect of a soft collar, used as normally
  18. recommended or reversed, on three planes of cervical range of
  19. motion. . Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy,
  20. (3): p. 209-215., 1996. .
  21. Chan, R.C., J.F. Schweigel, and G.B. Thompson, Halo-thoracic
  22. brace immobilization in 188 patients with acute cervical spine
  23. injuries. Journal of neurosurgery, 58(4): p. 508-515. , 1983.
  24. Hughes, S.J., How effective is the Newport/Aspen collar? A
  25. prospective radiographic evaluation in healthy adult volunteers.
  26. Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery, 45(2): p. 374-378.,
  27. Kaufman, W.A., et al.,, Comparison of three prefabricated
  28. cervical collars. Orthotics and Prosthetics, 39(4): p. 21-28., 1986.
  29. Sandler, A.J., et al., , The effectiveness of various cervical
  30. orthoses: an in vivo comparison of the mechanical stability
  31. provided by several widely used models. . Spine, 21(14): p. 1624-
  32. , 1996. .
  33. Sawers, A., C.P. DiPaola, and G.R. Rechtine, , Suitability of the
  34. noninvasive halo for cervical spine injuries: a retrospective
  35. analysis of outcomes. . The Spine Journal, 9(3): p. 216-220., 2009.
  36. Whitcroft KL, M.L., Amirfeyz R, Bannister GC. , A Comparison
  37. of Neck Movement in the Soft Cervical Collar and Rigid Cervical
  38. Brace in Healthy Subjects. . Journal of Manipulative and
  39. Physiological Therapeutics. 34(2):119-22., 2011;.
  40. Askins, V.a.F.J.E., Efficacy of five cervical orthoses in restricting
  41. cervical motion: a comparison study. . Spine. 22(11): p. 1193-
  42. , , 1997.
  43. James CY, R.B., Munkasy BA, Joyner AB. , Comparison of
  44. Cervical Spine Motion During Application Among 4 Rigid
  45. Immobilization Collars. . Journal of Athletic Training.39 (2):138-
  46. , 2004;.
  47. Chan, R.C., J.F. Schweigel, and G.B. Thompson, Halo-thoracic
  48. brace immobilization in 188 patients with acute cervical spine
  49. injuries. Journal of neurosurgery, 1983. 58(4): p. 508-515.
  50. Kirshblum, S., et al., Predictors of dysphagia after spinal cord
  51. injury. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 1999.
  52. (9): p. 1101-1105.
  53. Lind, B., H. Sihlbom, and A. Nordwall, Halo-vest treatment of
  54. unstable traumatic cervical spine injuries. Spine, 1988. 13(4):
  55. p. 425-432.
  56. Morishima, N., K. Ohota, and Y. Miura, The influences of Halovest
  57. fixation and cervical hyperextension on swallowing in healthy
  58. volunteers. Spine, 2005. 30(7): p. E179-E182.
  59. Sawers, A., C.P. DiPaola, and G.R. Rechtine, Suitability of the
  60. noninvasive halo for cervical spine injuries: a retrospective
  61. analysis of outcomes. The Spine Journal, 2009. 9(3): p. 216-220.
  62. Stambolis, V., et al., The effects of cervical bracing upon
  63. swallowing in young, normal, healthy volunteers. Dysphagia,
  64. 18(1): p. 39-45.
  65. Goldberg, B. and J.D. Hsu, Atlas of orthoses and assistive devices.
  66. : Mosby Incorporated.
  67. Hashimoto, Y., et al., Intracerebral pneumocephalus and
  68. hemiparesis as a complication of a halo vest in a patient with
  69. multiple myeloma: case report. Journal of Neurosurgery: Spine,
  70. 100(4): p. 367-371.
  71. Park, P., et al., Pin-site myiasis: a rare complication of halo
  72. orthosis. Spinal cord, 2005. 43(11): p. 684-686.
  73. Carter, V.M., et al., The effect of a soft collar, used as normally
  74. recommended or reversed, on three planes of cervical range
  75. of motion. Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy,
  76. 23(3): p. 209-215.
  77. Kaufman, W.A., et al., Comparison of three prefabricated cervical
  78. collars. Orthotics and Prosthetics, 1986. 39(4): p. 21-28.
  79. Sandler, A.J., et al., The effectiveness of various cervical orthoses:
  80. an in vivo comparison of the mechanical stability provided by
  81. several widely used models. Spine, 1996. 21(14): p. 1624-1629.
  82. Whitcroft, K.L., et al., A comparison of neck movement in the
  83. soft cervical collar and rigid cervical brace in healthy subjects.
  84. Journal of manipulative and physiological therapeutics. 34(2):
  85. p. 119-122.
  86. Lauweryns, P., Role of conservative treatment of cervical spine
  87. injuries. European Spine Journal. 19(1): p. 23-26.
Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences & Research
Volume 4, Issue 2 - Serial Number 2
22
Spring 2017
Pages 47-52

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Guide for Reviewers

Contact Us