Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the remaining motion of an immobilized cervical spine using an innovative cervical collar as well as two traditional cervical collars. The study was performed on eight fresh human cadavers. The cervical spine was immobilized with one innovative (Lubo Airway Collar) and two traditional cervical collars (Stifneck and Perfit ACE). The flexion and lateral bending of the cervical spine were measured using a wireless motion tracker (Xsens). With the Weinman Lubo Airway Collar attached, the mean remaining flexion was 20.0 ± 9.0°. The mean remaining flexion was lowest with the Laerdal Stifneck (13.1 ± 6.6°) or Ambu Perfit ACE (10.8 ± 5.8°) applied. Compared to that of the innovative Weinmann Lubo Airway Collar, the remaining cervical spine flexion was significantly decreased with the Ambu Perfit ACE. There was no significant difference in lateral bending between the three examined collars. The most effective immobilization of the cervical spine was achieved when traditional cervical collars were implemented. However, all tested cervical collars showed remaining motion of the cervical spine. Thus, alternative immobilization techniques should be considered.
Highlights
The aim of this study was to compare the remaining motion of an immobilized cervical spine using an innovative cervical collar as well as two traditional cervical collars
There was no significant difference in lateral bending between the three examined collars (Weinmann Lubo Airway Collar vs. Ambu Perfit ACE: p = 0.2600; Weinmann Lubo Airway Collar vs. Laerdal Stifneck: p = 0.2458; Laerdal Stifneck vs. Ambu Perfit ACE: p = 0.9993; Fig. 3C)
The present study showed that the attached innovative and traditional cervical collars resulted in significantly different remaining flexion of the immobilized cervical spine
Summary
The aim of this study was to compare the remaining motion of an immobilized cervical spine using an innovative cervical collar as well as two traditional cervical collars. The cervical spine was immobilized with one innovative (Lubo Airway Collar) and two traditional cervical collars (Stifneck and Perfit ACE). Compared to that of the innovative Weinmann Lubo Airway Collar, the remaining cervical spine flexion was significantly decreased with the Ambu Perfit ACE. An innovative cervical collar has been developed that should combine cervical spine immobilization and airway protection This innovative cervical collar is equipped with a flexible belt for the m andible[19]. The aim of this study was to compare the remaining motion of the cervical spine using an innovative cervical collar as well as two traditional cervical collars on fresh human cadavers
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
