Comparison of the efficacy of three cervical collars in restricting cervical range of motion: A randomized study

Abstract

Background: The cervical collar has been used as a common device for the initial stabilization of the cervical spine. Although many cervical collars are commercially available, there is no consensus on which offers the greatest protection, with studies showing considerable variations in their ability to restrict cervical range of motion. The use of the XCollar (Emegear, Carpinteria, CA) has been known to decrease the risk of spinal cord injury by minimizing potential cervical spinal distraction. We compared XCollar with two other cervical collars commonly used for adult patients with cervical spine injury to evaluate the difference in effectiveness between the three cervical collars to restrict cervical range of motion. Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the difference between the three cervical collars in their ability to restrict cervical range of motion. Method: A total of 30 healthy university students aged 21–25 years participated in this study. Participants with any cervical disease and symptoms were excluded. Three cervical collars were tested: Philadelphia® Collar, Stifneck® Select™ Collar, and XCollar. A digital camera and an image-analysis technique were used to evaluate cervical range of motion during flexion, extension, bilateral bending and bilateral axial rotation. Cervical range of motion was evaluated in both the unbraced and braced condition. Results: XCollar permitted less than a mean of 10° of movement during flexion, extension, bilateral bending and bilateral axial rotation. This was less than the movement permitted by the other two cervical collars. Conclusion: XCollar presented superior cervical immobilization compared to the other two commonly used cervical collars in this study. Thus, when cervical collar is considered for an adult patient with cervical spine injury, XCollar might be one of the considerate options as a cervical immobilization device.