title: Effectiveness of Adjustable Cervical Orthoses and Modular Cervical Thoracic Orthoses in Restricting Neck Motion: A Comparative In vivo Biomechanical Study.
abstract: METHODS
  In vivo biomechanical study.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To compare the effectiveness of adjustable cervical orthoses (COs) and modular cervical thoracic orthoses (CTOs) with standard devices in restricting neck motion in all 3 anatomical planes.
  
  
  BACKGROUND
  No literature is available regarding the effectiveness of adjustable COs and modular CTOs in restricting neck motion, and existing in vivo evaluation methodologies lack consistency and objectivity.
  
  
  METHODS
  The effectiveness of adjustable COs (Vista collar and Vista multipost collar) and modular CTOs (Vista TS, Vista TS with multipost, and Vista TS4 with multipost) in comparison with standard devices (Aspen collar [AC] and Aspen cervical thoracic orthosis) in restricting neck motion across 3 anatomical planes was studied in vivo in 27 healthy participants across prescribed loading levels ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 N·m. Neck range of motion allowed was compared between devices using Tukey post hoc test. The compliance of devices in restricting flexion and extension was obtained via a linear regression model.
  
  
  RESULTS
  When compared with modular CTOs, Aspen CTO was significantly more effective at motion restriction in both sagittal and frontal planes under loading level higher than 1.5 N·m. Modular CTOs outperformed adjustable COs in most of the cases but were fairly comparable with the standard CO (i.e., AC). Adjustable COs were just as effective as standard COs. The compliances of devices in restricting neck flexion ranked in ascending order were 0.83 (Aspen CTO), 1.53 (Vista TS with multipost), 1.60 (Vista TS4 with multipost), 1.77 (Vista multipost collar), 1.78 (AC), 1.99 (Vista TS), and 2.43 (Vista Collar) degrees per N·m.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Overall, modular CTOs had poorer performance in neck restriction than their standard counterpart (ACTO), whereas adjustable COs showed overall comparable performance to their standard counterpart (AC). The outcomes may assist clinicians in selecting appropriate devices.
  
  
  METHODS
  N/A.
authors.affiliation: From the UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX.
authors.forename: Fan
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Gao
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001696:Biomechanical Phenomena; D001915:Braces; D002574:Cervical Vertebrae / Q000502:physiology*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009068:Movement / Q000502:physiology*; D009333:Neck / Q000502:physiology*; D009983:Orthopedic Equipment; D009989:Orthotic Devices; D016059:Range of Motion, Articular / Q000502:physiology*; D055815:Young Adult