No abstract

No abstract

Study DesignWhiplash injury is a prevalent and often destructive injury of the cervical column, which can lead to serious neck pain. Many approaches have been suggested for the treatment of whiplash injury, including anti-inflammatory drugs, manipulation, supervised exercise, and cervical collars. Cervical collars are generally divided into two groups: soft and rigid collars.PurposeThe present study aimed to compare the effect of soft and rigid cervical collars on immobilizing head and neck motion.Overview of LiteratureMany studies have investigated the effect of collars on neck motion. Rigid collars have been shown to provide more immobilization in the sagittal and transverse planes compared with soft collars. However, according to some studies, soft and rigid collars provide the same range of motion in the frontal plane.MethodsTwenty-nine healthy subjects aged 18–26 participated in this study. Data were collected using a three-dimensional motion analysis system and six infrared cameras. Eight markers, weighing 4.4 g and thickened 2 cm2 were used to record kinematic data. According to the normality of the data, a paired t-test was used for statistical analyses. The level of significance was set at α=0.01.ResultsAll motion significantly decreased when subjects used soft collars (p<0.01). According to the obtained data, flexion and lateral rotation experienced the maximum (39%) and minimum (11%) immobilization in all six motions using soft collars. Rigid collars caused maximum immobilization in flexion (59%) and minimum immobilization in the lateral rotation (18%) and limited all motion much more than the soft collar.ConclusionsThis study showed that different cervical collars have different effects on neck motion. Rigid and soft cervical collars used in the present study limited the neck motion in both directions. Rigid collars contributed to significantly more immobilization in all directions.

No abstract

Osteoid osteoma affects the spine in only 10% of cases. More than 50% of the spinal cases involve the lumbar and cervical vertebrae. Involvement of C-1 and C-2 vertebrae has previously been reported only very rarely in the published literature. The authors report 4 cases of upper cervical osteoid osteoma, 1 involving C-1 and the other 3 C-2, and they discuss different aspects of management in similar cases. The patients were 14, 17, 35, and 46 years old, and all presented with neck pain and various degrees of painful limitation of head rotation not ameliorated by ordinary analgesics. Radionuclide isotope bone scans, CT scanning, and MR imaging were helpful preoperative diagnostic modalities. The first attempt at eradication of the lesions failed in 2 cases and the lesions could be excised totally at a second approach. Postoperatively, the patients all became pain free and gained full range of neck motion. There has been no tumor recurrence and no sign of instability in short- to medium-term follow-up. Among the several etiologies mentioned for neck pain and torticollis, osteoid osteoma of the first 2 cervical vertebrae should be considered as a possible but rare cause. Even though different kinds of management have been mentioned for osteoid osteoma, resection of the lesion remains the best option for achieving a cure.