Abstract
Introduction
Cervical orthoses are commonly used to regulate the motion of cervical spines for conservative treatment of injuries and for post-operative immobilization. Previous studies have reported the efficacy of orthoses for 2D flex-extension or 3D motions of the entire cervical spine. However, the ability of cervical orthoses to reduce motion might be different at each intervertebral level and for different types of motion (flexion-extension, rotation, lateral bending). The effectiveness of immobilizing orthoses at each cervical intervertebral level for 3D motions has not been reported. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the Philadelphia collar to each level of cervical spines with 3D motion analysis under loading condition.
Patients & Methods
Patient Sample Four asymptomatic volunteer subjects were recruited and provided informed consent. Approval of the experimental design by the institutional review board was obtained. These 4 individuals were without any history of cervical diseases or procedures. The presence of any symptoms, spinal disorders and anatomical abnormalities in fluoroscopic images or CT was a criterion of exclusion from this study.
Outcome Measures To evaluate the efficacy of the Philadelphia collar, ANOVA was used to compare the range of motion with and without collar at the C3/4, C4/5, C5/6 and C6/7 intervertebral levels for each motion. The level of statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. When a statistical difference was detected, post hoc Tukey tests were performed.
Methods
Three-dimensional models of the C3–C7 vertebrae were developed from CT scans of each subject using commercial software (see Figure 1). Two fluoroscopy systems were positioned to acquire orthogonal images of the cervical spine. The subject was seated within the view of the dual fluoroscopic imaging system (see Figure 2). Pairs of images were taken in each of 7 positions: neutral posture, maximum flexion and extension, maximum left and right lateral bending, and maximum left and right rotation. The images and 3D vertebral models were imported into biplane 2D-3D registration software, where the vertebral models were projected onto the pair of digitized images and the 3D bone pose was adjusted to match its radiographic projection in each image (see Figure 3). Relative motions between each vertebral body were calculated from body-fixed coordinate systems using a flexion-lateral bending-axial rotation Cardan angle sequence.
Results
Flexion range was significantly reduced with the collar at each cervical level. Extension range was significantly reduced at the C3/4 level. Rotation and lateral bending were reduced for C3/4, C4/5, C5/6 levels with the collar.
Discussion/Conclusion
The Philadelphia Collar significantly reduces cervical motion at C3/4, C4/5 and C5/6 levels in almost all motions (except for extension). At the C6/7 level, this type of collar has limited effectiveness reducing cervical motion.
We used 3D radiographic measurements to quantify the effectiveness of the Philadelphia collar for reducing cervical motion. Bi-plane 2D-3D registration method is useful technique to evaluate 3D motion of cervical spines.
