Evaluation of clinical efficacy and safety of cervical trauma collars: differences in immobilization, effect on jugular venous pressure and patient comfort.
Cast your vote
You can rate an item by clicking the amount of stars they wish to award to this item.
When enough users have cast their vote on this item, the average rating will also be shown.
Your vote was cast
Thank you for your feedback
Thank you for your feedback
MetadataShow full item record
CitationScand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2014, 22:37
AbstractConcern has been raised that cervical collars may increase intracranial pressure in traumatic brain injury. The purpose of this study was to compare four types of cervical collars regarding efficacy of immobilizing the neck, effect on jugular venous pressure (JVP), as a surrogate for possible effect on intracranial pressure, and patient comfort in healthy volunteers.
The characteristics of four widely used cervical collars (Laerdal Stifneck(®) (SN), Vista(®) (VI), Miami J Advanced(®) (MJ), Philadelphia(®) (PH)) were studied in ten volunteers. Neck movement was measured with goniometry, JVP was measured directly through an endovascular catheter and participants graded the collars according to comfort on a scale 1-5.
The mean age of participants was 27 ± 5 yr and BMI 26 ± 5. The mean neck movement (53 ± 9°) decreased significantly with all the collars (p < 0.001) from 18 ± 7° to 25 ± 9° (SN < MJ < PH < VI). There was a significant increase in mean JVP (9.4 ± 1.4 mmHg) with three of the collars, but not with SN, from 10.5 ± 2.1 mmHg to 16.3 ± 3.3 mmHg (SN < MJ < VI < PH). The grade of comfort between collars varied from 4.2 ± 0.8 to 2.2 ± 0.8 (VI > MJ > SN > PH).
Stifneck and Miami J collars offered the most efficient immobilization of the neck with the least effect on JVP. Vista and Miami J were the most comfortable ones. The methodology used in this study may offer a new approach to evaluate clinical efficacy and safety of neck collars and aid their continued development.
DescriptionTo access publisher's full text version of this article, please click on the hyperlink in Additional Links field or click on the hyperlink at the top of the page marked Files. This article is open access.
- Prospective evaluation of craniofacial pressure in four different cervical orthoses.
- Authors: Plaisier B, Gabram SG, Schwartz RJ, Jacobs LM
- Issue date: 1994 Nov
- Comparison of Cervical Range-of-Motion Restriction and Craniofacial Tissue-Interface Pressure With 2 Adjustable and 2 Standard Cervical Collars.
- Authors: Tescher AN, Rindflesch AB, Youdas JW, Terman RW, Jacobson TM, Douglas LL, Miers AG, Austin CM, Delgado AM, Zins SM, Lahr BD, Pichelmann MA, Heller SF, Huddleston PM 3rd
- Issue date: 2016 Mar
- Do cervical collars and cervicothoracic orthoses effectively stabilize the injured cervical spine? A biomechanical investigation.
- Authors: Ivancic PC
- Issue date: 2013 Jun 1
- Extrication collars can result in abnormal separation between vertebrae in the presence of a dissociative injury.
- Authors: Ben-Galim P, Dreiangel N, Mattox KL, Reitman CA, Kalantar SB, Hipp JA
- Issue date: 2010 Aug
- Reduction in mouth opening with semi-rigid cervical collars.
- Authors: Goutcher CM, Lochhead V
- Issue date: 2005 Sep