Comparison of the immobilizing effect of soft, semi-rigid and rigid neck orthoses
- PMID: 40234294
- DOI: 10.1007/s00586-025-08854-5
Comparison of the immobilizing effect of soft, semi-rigid and rigid neck orthoses
Abstract
Purpose: Cervical orthoses are widely used in the management of cervical spine (c-spine) injuries, serving to limit motion, alleviate pain, and enhance patient security. While extensive research has examined soft and rigid cervical braces, data on semi-rigid braces, such as the PDC collar, remain scarce. This study aims to compare the immobilizing effects of a semi-rigid cervical orthosis to those of a soft and a rigid orthosis on c-spine mobility in healthy individuals.
Methods: In a prospective study, 20 healthy participants (mean age 28.0 ± 6.0 years) underwent motion analysis using a 3D camera system under four conditions: without an orthosis and while wearing a soft, semi-rigid, and rigid orthosis. Maximum cervical range of motion (ROM) was measured during flexion/extension, lateral flexion, and axial rotation. The maximum active ROM was determined for each orthosis. After testing for normal distribution (Shapiro-Wilk test), repeated measures ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni-corrected t-tests was used for pairwise comparison of absolute ROM across orthoses.
Results: All orthoses significantly restricted ROM compared to the unrestricted state (p < 0.01). Flexion/extension was the most restricted movement across all orthoses. The rigid orthosis provided the greatest restriction in all three movement directions, significantly reducing flexion/extension to 27.5° from an unrestricted ROM of 107.3° (p < 0.01). It also restricted rotation and lateral flexion significantly more than the semi-rigid and soft orthoses (p < 0.01). The semi-rigid orthosis significantly reduced flexion/extension compared to the soft collar (39.1° vs. 48.1°, p < 0.01), while no significant differences were observed between the two in rotation or lateral flexion.
Conclusion: The semi-rigid orthosis effectively limits c-spine mobility, particularly in flexion/extension, offering an intermediate option between soft and rigid braces. Its use may balance immobilization needs and patient comfort in cases requiring moderate motion restriction without increased complication risks.
Keywords: Cervical collar; Cervical orthosis; Cervical spine; Immobilization; Range of motion.
© 2025. The Author(s).
Conflict of interest statement
Declarations. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.
Similar articles
-
[Transport of severely injured trauma patients in an ambulance with and without a rigid neck orthosis: comparative biomechanical measurements].Anaesthesiologie. 2024 Oct;73(10):668-675. doi: 10.1007/s00101-024-01462-w. Epub 2024 Sep 24. Anaesthesiologie. 2024. PMID: 39317820 Free PMC article. German.
-
Do cervical collars and cervicothoracic orthoses effectively stabilize the injured cervical spine? A biomechanical investigation.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013 Jun 1;38(13):E767-74. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e318290fb0f. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013. PMID: 23486409
-
Soft and rigid collars provide similar restriction in cervical range of motion during fifteen activities of daily living.Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010 Jun 1;35(13):1271-8. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3181c0ddad. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2010. PMID: 20512025 Clinical Trial.
-
Effects of orthoses on three-dimensional load-displacement properties of the cervical spine.Eur Spine J. 2013 Jan;22(1):169-77. doi: 10.1007/s00586-012-2552-0. Epub 2012 Oct 23. Eur Spine J. 2013. PMID: 23090094 Free PMC article.
-
Pediatric cervical kyphosis in the MRI era (1984-2008) with long-term follow up: literature review.Childs Nerv Syst. 2022 Feb;38(2):361-377. doi: 10.1007/s00381-021-05409-z. Epub 2021 Nov 22. Childs Nerv Syst. 2022. PMID: 34806157 Review.
Cited by
-
Letter to the Editor concerning "Comparison of the immobilizing effect of soft, semi-rigid and rigid neck orthoses" by M. Schulz et al. (Eur Spine J [2025]: doi: 10.1007/s00586-025-08854-5).Eur Spine J. 2025 Jun 10. doi: 10.1007/s00586-025-09034-1. Online ahead of print. Eur Spine J. 2025. PMID: 40494968 Review. No abstract available.
References
-
- Bruns W, von Salis-Soglio G, Plitz W (2004) Cervical collars: a clinical and Biomechanical study (Zervikalstützen: eine klinische und Biomechanische Studie). Z fur Orthopaedie Und Ihre Grenzgebiete 142(4):421–427. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2004-822836 - DOI
-
- Lauweryns P (2010) Role of Conservative treatment of cervical spine injuries. Eur Spine J 19(Suppl 1):23–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00586-009-1116-4 - DOI
-
- Totten VY, Sugarman DB (1999) Respiratory effects of spinal immobilization. Prehospital Emerg Care 3(4):347–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/10903129908958967 - DOI
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources