Comparison of Cervical Motion Restriction and Interface Pressure Between Two Cervical Collars

The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a newly developed DJO Global cervical collar with the previously studied Össur Americas Miami J collar in restricting cervical spine movement and reducing tissue interface pressure. 3D kinematic data were obtained for twelve healthy participants volunteers (6 female, 6 male) using a 10 camera infrared motion capture system (Motion Analysis Corp.). Cervical range of motion (CROM) in each plane was calculated as the angle between the head and thorax rigid-body axes. CROM was calculated using custom-written Matlab (MathWorks, Natick, MA) scripts. Tissue interface pressure (TIP) was measured between the head and the collar with three flexible pressure sensor pads over the anterior mandibles and occiput. The distribution of interface pressures was obtained in both the seated and supine positions. Both collars significantly restricted range of motion in all movement directions (p < 0.001) compared to no collar. There were no statistically significant differences in restrictiveness nor tissue interface pressures between the collars. Both collars exhibited similar CROM restriction in all planes and similar interface pressures in both positions. The newly developed DJO collar properly functioned as it markedly restricted spinal movement and produced low contact pressures. The Miami J collar has long been scientifically recognized as an effective collar; however, our data shows that the latest DJO collar was able to exhibit comparable contact pressures and decreases in cervical motion. As manufacturers produce improved collar designs, continued scientific testing should be executed in search of a collar capable of enhanced CROM restriction and the diminution of TIP.