Emergency cervical-spine immobilization.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the effectiveness of a cervical-spine immobilization using a rigid cervical extrication collar and an Ammerman halo orthosis with and without spine boards.


METHODS
A mixed model multivariate design with one within factor (device type) and one between factor (spine board application).


METHODS
Radiology suite.


METHODS
Twenty normal men with a mean age of 29.6.


METHODS
Unrestrained cervical motion was compared with motion in a cervical extrication collar and an Ammerman halo orthosis with and without a spine board.


METHODS
Photographic measurement of head and neck motion during maximal flexion-extension, lateral bending, and rotation. Radiologic measurement of maximal intervertebral flexion-extension.


RESULTS
Both cervical extrication collar and Ammerman halo orthosis significantly reduced motion in all planes (P less than .001) with the Ammerman halo orthosis reducing these motions significantly more (P less than .001). With the use of a spine board these motions were restricted even more (P less than .001). The Ammerman halo orthosis with a spine board provided the greatest immobilization, equivalent to that provided by an halo-vest.


CONCLUSIONS
A rigid cervical collar and a spine board provide significantly better immobilization than the collar alone. Further immobilization is provided by an Ammerman halo orthosis.
Chandler
D R
DR
Regional Spinal Cord Injury Care System of Southern California, Rancho Los Amigos Medical Center, Downey.
Nemejc
C
C
Adkins
R H
RH
Waters
R L
RL
D000328:Adult; D002574:Cervical Vertebrae / Q000293:injuries*; D004635:Emergency Medicine / Q000295:instrumentation*; D005069:Evaluation Studies as Topic; D006801:Humans; D007103:Immobilization; D008297:Male; D009989:Orthotic Devices; D016059:Range of Motion, Articular; D013119:Spinal Cord Injuries / Q000209:etiology / Q000628:therapy*; D016103:Spinal Fractures / Q000150:complications / Q000628:therapy*; D013165:Splints; D014187:Transportation of Patients