Analysis of remaining motion using one innovative upper airway opening cervical collar and two traditional cervical collars

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the remaining motion of an immobilized cervical spine using an innovative cervical collar as well as two traditional cervical collars. The study was performed on eight fresh human cadavers. The cervical spine was immobilized with one innovative (Lubo Airway Collar) and two traditional cervical collars (Stifneck and Perfit ACE). The flexion and lateral bending of the cervical spine were measured using a wireless motion tracker (Xsens). With the Weinman Lubo Airway Collar attached, the mean remaining flexion was 20.0 ± 9.0°. The mean remaining flexion was lowest with the Laerdal Stifneck (13.1 ± 6.6°) or Ambu Perfit ACE (10.8 ± 5.8°) applied. Compared to that of the innovative Weinmann Lubo Airway Collar, the remaining cervical spine flexion was significantly decreased with the Ambu Perfit ACE. There was no significant difference in lateral bending between the three examined collars. The most effective immobilization of the cervical spine was achieved when traditional cervical collars were implemented. However, all tested cervical collars showed remaining motion of the cervical spine. Thus, alternative immobilization techniques should be considered.

Intubation during spinal motion restriction using the LuboTM cervical collar - a manikin simulation study

“…compared the Lubo TM to two traditional rigid collars, measuring cervical motion restriction. In this setting, although all collars showed some movement, the Lubo TM performed the poorest in limiting flexion [17] .…”

“…It was difficult to draw any conclusions about the significance of any forces transferred to the cervical spine when removing a semi-rigid cervical collar due to the paucity of evidence, with only small studies in cadaveric models [ 10 , 17 ]. Subsequent to the performance of our study, Jung et al.…”

“…A novel device, the Lubo TM (Inovytec Medical Solutions LTD., Raanana 4366507, Israel), is a semi-rigid cervical collar with a few salient features. In addition to providing cervical motion restriction [17] , it consists of an external jaw-thrust mechanism ( Figure 1 . C) aimed at improving airway patency.…”

A multicenter cohort study on the association between prehospital immobilization and functional outcome of patients following spinal injury in Asia

“…The tools used in prehospital immobilization at the scene may also influence the results. Different types of cervical collar and different shapes and angles of the mandible may influence the degree of neck motion 50 – 52 . The combinations of tools also affect the spine movement 53 – 55 .…”

Evaluation of external stabilization of type II odontoid fractures in geriatric patients—An experimental study on a newly developed cadaveric trauma model

“…The IMUs record all directions of motion (extension, flexion, rotation, and transverse flexion, Fig 3A) during passive movement of the cervical spine (flexion and lateral bending to the right, Fig 1A ). Motion measurement with these motion sensors has been tested in various studies [ 36 , 43 – 45 ] and guarantees exact measurement results [ 46 ]. One IMU were attached to the forehead and the other IMU to the sternum of the unfixed geriatric human cadaver ( Fig 1A ).…”