Neck collar used in treatment of victims of urban motorcycle accidents: over- or underprotection?

Background

Cervical collar brace protection of the cervical spine at the scene of the incident is the first priority for emergency medical technicians treating patients who have sustained trauma. However, there is still controversy between over- or underprotection. The objective of this study was to survey the cervical spine injury of lightweight motorcycle accident victims and further evaluate the neck collar protection policy.

Materials and Methods

We retrospectively reviewed patients who sustained lightweight motorcycle injuries, assumed to have been at a low velocity, with incidence of cervical spine damage, from a single medical center's trauma registration from 2008 to 2009. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those who were immobilized by cervical collar brace and those who were not.

Results

Of the 8633 motorcycle crash victims, 63 patients had cervical spine injury. The average of the injury severity score in these patients was 14.31 ± 8.25. There was no significant correlation of cervical spine injury between the patients who had had the neck collar applied and those who had not (χ², P = .896). The length of stay in intensive care unit was longer in the patients who had the neck collar applied, but the total hospital length of stay was not statistically different to the patients who did not have the neck collar applied.

Conclusion

The incidence of cervical spinal injuries in the urban area lightweight motorcyclists is very low. Prehospital protocol for application of a cervical collar brace to people who have sustained a lightweight motorcycle accident in the urban area should be revised to avoid unnecessary restraint and possible complications.     

New Immobilization Guidelines Change EMS Critical Thinking in Older Adults With Spine Trauma

Objective: The impact of immobilization techniques on older adult trauma patients with spinal injury has rarely been studied. Our advisory group implemented a change in the immobilization protocol used by emergency medical services (EMS) professionals across a region encompassing 9 trauma centers and 24 EMS agencies in a Rocky Mountain state using a decentralized process on July 1, 2014. We sought to determine whether implementing the protocol would alter immobilization methods and affect patient outcomes among adults ≥60 years with a cervical spine injury. Methods: This was a 4-year retrospective study of patients ≥60 years with a cervical spine injury (fracture or cord). Immobilization techniques used by EMS professionals, patient demographics, injury characteristics, and in-hospital outcomes were compared before (1/1/12–6/30/14) and after (7/1/14–12/31/15) implementation of the Spinal Precautions Protocol using bivariate and multivariate analyses. Results: Of 15,063 adult trauma patients admitted to nine trauma centers, 7,737 (51%) were ≥60 years. Of those, 237 patients had cervical spine injury and were included in the study; 123 (51.9%) and 114 (48.1%) were transported before and after protocol implementation, respectively. There was a significant shift in the immobilization methods used after protocol implementation, with less full immobilization (59.4% to 28.1%, p < 0.001) and an increase in the use of both a cervical collar only (8.9% to 27.2%, p < 0.001) and not using any immobilization device (15.5% to 31.6%, p = 0.003) after protocol implementation. While the proportion of patients who only received a cervical collar increased after implementing the Spinal Precautions Protocol, the overall proportion of patients who received a cervical collar alone or in combination with other immobilization techniques decreased (72.4% to 56.1%, p = 0.01). The presence of a neurological deficit (6.5% vs. 5.3, p = 0.69) was similar before and after protocol implementation; in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio = 0.56, 95% confidence interval: 0.24–1.30, p = 0.18) was similar post–protocol implementation after adjusting for injury severity. Conclusions: There were no differences in neurologic deficit or patient disposition in the older adult patient with cervical spine trauma despite changes in spinal restriction protocols and resulting differences in immobilization devices.     

Evaluation of the acute cervical spine: a management algorithm. (Department of Surgery, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY) J Trauma 2000;49:450–456.

A retrospective review was initiated of all trauma patients evaluated in a Level I trauma center the year before and after implementation of a new cervical spine protocol to determine the incidence of missed cervical injuries. An additional 6 months were reviewed to detect any missed injuries late in the study period. During the 2‐year study period, 4,460 patients presented to the emergency room with some form of cervical spine precautions. Blunt trauma comprised 90% of the study population. According to the protocol, approximately 45% required further cervical radiographs after presentation. In the preprotocol year, 77 of 2,217 (3.4%) patients were diagnosed with cervical spine injuries, 16 of 77 (21%) with multiple level injuries, and 25 of 77 (32%) with neurologic compromise. Three of 2,217 patient had missed cervical spine injuries on their initial evaluations. In the postprotocol year, 84 of 2,243 (3.4%) patients had cervical injuries, 25 of 84 (30%) with multiple levels of injuries and 28 of 84 (28%) with neurologic compromise. No patient evaluated during the protocol year was missed. All statistics between the two groups were not significant. Conclude the current protocol by risk stratifying patients on presentation is effective in assessing patients for cervical spine injuries. Comment by Gabor B. Racz, M.D. This is a retrospective review from a Level I trauma center a year before and after implantation of a cervical spine injury protocol. The comparison of outcomes before and after the protocol was rather similar in that the diagnosis of cervical spine injury in 77 of 2,217 patients, or 3.4% and 84 of 2,243 had cervical injuries again 3.4%. Prior to the initiation of the protocol, the first year had three cervical spine injuries missed, which were diagnosed later secondary to continued neck pain on reevaluation. There were no missed cases after the protocol. The evaluation and examination go hand in hand. More emphasis is placed on the clinical exam and plain multiple view x‐ray films and adherence to limiting the rigid collar to 6 h switching over to soft collar and developing more of a confidence in the clinical exam rather than to concentrate on the more expensive and time consuming radiological diagnostic procedures. The cervical algorithm does work and it is impressive that there were no missed injuries. It is recommended that physicians working in a Level I trauma center should go and review the algorithm in detail. The recommended practice is to rely on plain films first if there is persistent pain flexion and extension films and involvement of appropriate consultants in these patients who must be assumed to have cervical spine injury.     

Spinal immobilization in trauma patients: is it really necessary?

The acute management of potential spinal injuries in trauma patients is undergoing radical reassessment. Until recently, it was mandatory that nearly all trauma patients be immobilized with a back board, hard cervical collar, head restraints, and body strapping until the spine could be cleared radiologically. This practice is still recommended by many references. It is now clear that this policy subjects most patients to expensive, painful, and potentially harmful treatment for little, if any, benefit. Low-risk patients can be safely cleared clinically, even by individuals who are not physicians. Patients at high risk for spinal instability should be removed from the hard surface to avoid tissue ischemia. Understanding the rationale for these changes requires knowledge of mechanisms of injury, physiology, and biomechanics as they apply to spinal injuries.     

The usefulness of a modified adult protocol for the clearance of paediatric cervical spine injury in the emergency department

Objective: To determine if the use of a modified adult protocol that uses cervical spine imaging on presentation for the assessment of cervical spine injury in children improves clinical outcome. Methods: This is a case series study on all consecutive trauma patients presenting from April to July 2000 inclusive to the ED of a major paediatric trauma hospital. Children presenting to the ED with potential cervical spine injury (CSI) were identified using standard selection criteria. Patient demographics, mechanism of injury, method and time of presentation, associated injuries, radiological investigation and clinical outcome were recorded. The major outcome measures for this study were: time to clearance of the cervical spine, length of stay in the ED and admission to an in‐hospital bed. Data were analysed for compliance to the protocol, this being the standard assessment pathway of cervical spine clearance used by our trauma service. Results: The trauma registry identified 1721 trauma presentations during the 4‐month study period; 208 presentations representing 200 children with potential CSI were entered into the study. Males represented 72.5% of the study population, having a mean age of 8.32 years, although 29% were less than 5 years of age. The majority of presentations (69%) occurred outside of normal working hours. In 17.8% of cases the cervical spine was cleared based on clinical assessment alone, half less than 5 years of age. Compliance to the protocol occurred in 78% of presentations. However, when examined by age group, children 5 years of age or above were 1.5 times more likely to comply with the protocol as compared with younger children. Adequate plain imaging was not obtained in 18% of presentations, this group almost exclusively less than 5 years of age. There were no missed injuries and no short or long‐term neurological sequelae reported during this study. There were no differences in time to clearance, length of stay and admission rate between compliant and non‐compliant groups. Conclusions: Modified adult protocols for cervical spine clearance offer guidance in managing the majority of children suffering blunt trauma. However, we recommend caution in rigidly applying such protocols, especially to children of young age.     

Clinical Clearance of Cervical Spinal Injuries by Emergency Nurses

OBJECTIVES: To determine the interrater reliability between emergency nurses and emergency physicians on defined criteria for clinically clearing the cervical spine in blunt trauma patients. METHODS: Blunt trauma patients, 12 years or older, arriving with cervical spinal precautions were prospectively enrolled as a convenience sample. Each member of the emergency physician-nurse pair completed a questionnaire with regard to five criteria for clinically clearing the cervical spine for each patient. Interrater reliability was determined by calculating the kappa statistics for the individual and combined criteria. RESULTS: Physicians and nurses agreed on the presence or absence of the combined criteria in 175 of 211 patients (82.9%; kappa, 0.65). Agreements on individual criteria were as follows: 1) intoxication--203 patients (96.2%; kappa, 0.82); 2) altered consciousness--197 patients (93.4%; kappa, 0.60); 3) neck pain--185 patients (87.7%; kappa, 0.75); 4) distracting injury--160 patients (75.8%; kappa, 0.36); and 5) neurologic deficit--198 patients (93.8%; kappa, 0.45). If disagreements in which the physician would clinically clear the patient but the nurse would not were considered as agreements, then overall agreement would be 198 of 211 patients (93.8%; kappa, 0.88). On the assumption that nurses would assess patients prior to physicians, they would have cleared 35% of the patients before the physicians. However, they would have ordered 12% more radiographs and unsafely clinically cleared 5% of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: The interrater reliability for the combined cervical spinal injury criteria between emergency nurses and physicians was good to excellent. However, with the training given in this study, nurses would order more radiographs than physicians and would unsafely clinically clear cervical spines in some patients.     

Utility of flexion–extension radiography for the detection of ligamentous cervical spine injury and its current role in the clearance of the cervical spine

Detecting the presence of injuries to the cervical spine is an important component of the initial assessment of patients sustaining blunt trauma. A small proportion of cervical spine injuries consists of ligamentous disruption. Accurate detection of ligamentous injury is essential as it may result in sequelae including radiculopathy, quadriplegia and death. Flexion–extension (FE) radiography has traditionally been utilised for the detection of ligamentous injury in patients who have been cleared of bony injury. There are controversies surrounding the use of FE for alert patients with neck pain. There are studies that call into question the diagnostic accuracy of FE, the high proportion of inadequate FE images due to muscle spasm and the adverse effects of prolonged cervical collar immobilisation while awaiting FE. Other literature indicates that FE provides no additional diagnostic information following a multi‐detector helical computed tomography. This review evaluates the literature on the utility of FE for the detection of ligamentous injury and explores alternate strategies for clearing the cervical spine of ligamentous injury.     

Missed cervical spine fracture: chiropractic implications

OBJECTIVE: To discuss the case of a patient with an anterior compression fracture of the cervical spine, which had been overlooked on initial examination. CLINICAL FEATURES: A 36-year-old man was seen at a chiropractic clinic 1 month after diving into the ocean and hitting his head on the ocean floor. He chipped a tooth but denied loss of consciousness. Initial medical examination in the emergency department did not include radiography, but an anti-inflammatory medication was prescribed. Radiographs taken at the chiropractic clinic 1 month later revealed an anterior compression fracture of the C7 vertebra, with migration of the fragment noted on flexion and extension views. INTERVENTION AND OUTCOME: The patient was referred back to his medical doctor for further evaluation and management.He was instructed to wear a Philadelphia collar for 4 weeks. During this time period, he reported "shooting" pain and tingling from his neck into his arms. The patient reported resolution of his neck and arm symptoms at 2.5 months after injury. Follow-up radiographs at 6 months after injury revealed fusion of the fracture fragment with mild residual deformity. At that time, the patient began a course of chiropractic treatment. CONCLUSION: After head trauma, it is essential to obtain a radiograph of the cervical spine to rule out fracture. Chiropractors should proceed with caution, regardless of any prior medical or ancillary evaluation, before commencing cervical spine manipulation after head and neck trauma.     

Spinal trauma

The practice of spinal immobilization has existed since the 1960s under the premise that trauma victims with cervical spine injuries may suffer neurologic injury if moved without stabilization consisting of a rigid cervical collar and long spine board. Because of this assumption, it is of particular importance to assess for movement of the cervical spine with and without spinal immobilization. Over time, the on-field management of athletes with a mechanism consistent with spinal cord injury (SCI) has evolved and produced protocols that can be considered standard of care. Attempts to find evidencebased research to verify the necessity of a rigid collar and long spine board as the only option in athletic medicine for suspected SCI is difficult. As changes occur in the Emergency Medical Services standards, there will be opportunities to see how their processes relate to athletes and the rationale for immobilization on the field of play. Going forward, there could very well be a significant change in the approach to and management of the athlete down on the field of play with a suspected spinal cord injury.     

Assessment and management of a child with suspected acute neck injury

Any child presenting at an emergency department after trauma, such as road traffic accidents, falls, sports and head injuries, should be assessed for risk of injury to the cervical spine. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the assessment and nursing management of a child with a suspected cervical spine injury. Basic anatomy is covered along with neck injury assessment, how to measure a cervical collar correctly, safe immobilisation, and communication.     

Paramedic documentation of indicators for cervical spine injury

INTRODUCTION: Current paramedic training mandates complete immobilization of all patients, symptomatic or not, whose mechanism of injury typically is viewed as conducive to spinal trauma. It is common to observe confrontations between paramedics and walking, asymptomatic accident victims who fail to understand why they should "wear that collar and be strapped to that board." Immobilized, frustrated patients then may wait for hours in a busy emergency department until a physician declares them to be without spinal injury. Patients frequently refuse treatment and transport. HYPOTHESIS: Algorithms exist for physicians to "clear" the cervical spine (C-spine) without radiography. It was hypothesized that paramedics routinely assess and document these indicators in their patient evaluations. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted on 161 patients (Group 1) admitted to a regional medical center with a diagnosis of C-spine injury over a 52-month period. The charts of 225 motor vehicle accident (MVA) victims (Group 2) transported by ambulance to the emergency department over a five-month period then were studied. Indicators for C-spine injury documented by emergency medical service (EMS) personnel were abstracted. RESULTS: All patients underwent mental status assessment and full spinal immobilization (neck and back) by EMS crews prior to transport to the hospital. Two or more indicators of possible C-spine injury were documented on each prehospital care report (PCR). CONCLUSION: Paramedics already assess most, if not all, of the criteria standard to C-spine clearance algorithms, but are inconsistent in their documentation of the presence or absence of all of the relevant findings.     

Evaluation of pediatric cervical spine injuries.

To compare historical features, clinical examination findings, and radiographic results among pediatric patients with cervical spine injury (CSI), a retrospective review of patients who were diagnosed with CSI was undertaken. Two main groups were identified: radiographically evident cervical spine injury (RESCI), and spinal cord injury without radiographic abnormality (SCIWORA). Demographic, historical, clinical, and radiographic information was obtained from patients' charts and analyzed to determine factors associated with CSI and to determine the efficacy of the various radiographic views. Seventy-two children, ages from 1 month to 15 years (median age, 9 yrs), were included in the study. Sports-related injuries were the most common. Forty patients had RESCI and 32 had SCIWORA. Forty-nine (80%) of all the patients had abnormal findings on neck examination, and six (16%) of the RECSI group had abnormal neurological findings. Lateral radiographs had a sensitivity for CSI of 79%; a three-view radiographic series had a sensitivity of 94%. All patients with CSI who were clinically asymptomatic had both a high-risk injury mechanism and a distracting injury. CSI should be suspected in any child with abnormal findings on neck or neurological examination. A minimum of three radiographic cervical spine views should be obtained in the evaluation of CSI in children. Even in the face of a three-view series, CSI should be suspected in patients with an abnormal neck or neurological exam, high-risk mechanism of injury, or distracting injury.     

Cervical injury in head trauma

Criteria for excluding cervical spine injury in patients who have sustained blunt head or neck trauma were prospectively studied at four hospitals in the Chicago area. The authors attempted to define a subset of these adult patients who, based on clinical criteria, could reliably be excluded from cervical spine radiography, thus avoiding unnecessary radiation and saving considerable time and money in their evaluation. Patients fell into four groups: (1) patients who were awake, alert, and had no complaint of neck pain or tenderness on physical examination; (2) patients who were awake, alert, but had complaint of neck pain or tenderness on physical examination laterally over the trapezius muscle only; (3) patients who were awake, alert, but had complaint of central neck pain or tenderness on physical examination over the cervical spine or center of the neck; and (4) patients who were not fully awake or alert, were clinically intoxicated, had other painful or distracting injuries, or had focal neurologic findings. Patients in group 4 had significantly more fractures (21/387) when compared with all other patients (7/478). Patients with central neck pain or tenderness (group 3) had significantly more fractures (7/237) than patients without pain or tenderness or with these findings limited to the trapezius area (0/236). It is clear that patients who have altered mental status, abnormal examination findings, distracting injury, or pain or tenderness over the cervical spine must have cervical spine radiographs.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Predictors of dysphagia after spinal cord injury.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the incidence of swallowing deficits (dysphagia) and to identify factors that predict risk for dysphagia in the rehabilitation setting following acute traumatic spinal cord injury. DESIGN: Retrospective case-control study. SETTING: Freestanding rehabilitation hospital. PATIENTS: Data were collected on 187 patients with acute traumatic spinal cord injury admitted for rehabilitation over a 4-year period who underwent a swallowing screen, in which 42 underwent a videofluoroscopic swallowing study (VFSS). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: VFSS was performed on patients with suspected swallowing problems. Possible antecedents of dysphagia were recorded from the medical record including previous history of spine surgery, surgical approach and technique, tracheostomy and ventilator status, neurologic level of injury, ASIA Impairment Classification, orthosis, etiology of injury, age, and gender. RESULTS: On admission to rehabilitation 22.5% (n = 42) of spinal cord injury patients had symptoms suggesting dysphagia. In 73.8% (n = 31) of these cases, testing confirmed dysphagia (aspiration or requiring a modified diet), while VFSS ruled out dysphagia in 26.2% (n = 11) cases. Logistic regression and other analyses revealed three significant predictors of risk for dysphagia: age (p < .028), tracheostomy and mechanical ventilation (p < .001), and spinal surgery via an anterior cervical approach (p < .016). Other variables analyzed had no relation or at best a slight relation to dysphagia. Tracheostomy at admission was the strongest predictor of dysphagia. The combination of tracheostomy at rehabilitation admission and anterior surgical approach had an extremely high rate of dysphagia (48%). CONCLUSION: Swallowing abnormalities are present in a significant percentage of patients presenting to rehabilitation with acute traumatic cervical spinal cord injury. Patients with a tracheostomy appear to have a substantially increased risk of development of dysphagia, although other factors are also relevant. Risk of dysphagia should be evaluated to decrease the potential for morbidity related to swallowing abnormalities.     

Cervical spine injury and radiography in alert, high-risk patients

Controversy exists over the need for cervical spine radiographs in alert, nonintoxicated victims of blunt trauma. We identified 286 patients admitted to a Level II trauma center over a 14-month period who were alert (Glasgow Coma Scale [GCS] greater than 13) and considered at high risk for cervical spine injury by published criteria. All 5 (1.7%) fractures or ligament disruptions occurred in the group with neck pain or tenderness. Of the study group, 141 (49%) were asymptomatic for cervical injury and nonintoxicated (blood alcohol concentration (BAC) less than 100 mg/dL). Mandatory cervical spine radiography in this group would have resulted in an additional cost of $33,699. Routine cervical spine radiography in alert, nonintoxicated asymptomatic victims of blunt trauma is a costly practice that warrants further examination.     

Neurophysiological Identification of Position-Induced Neurologic Injury During Anterior Cervical Spine Surgery

This study was a retrospective review of 3,806 patients who underwent anterior cervical spine surgery with multi-modality neurophysiological monitoring consisting of transcranial electric motor evoked potentials, somatosensory evoked potentials and spontaneous electromyography between 1999–2003. The objectives of this study were twofold: (1) to evaluate the role of transcranial electric motor evoked potential tceMEP and ulnar nerve somatosensory evoked potential (SSEP) monitoring for identifying impending position-related stretch brachial plexopathy, peripheral nerve entrapment/compression or spinal cord compression and (2) to estimate the point-prevalence of impending neurologic injury secondary to surgical positioning effects. Sixty-nine of 3,806 patients (1.8% showed intraoperative evidence of impending neurologic injury secondary to positioning, prompting interventional repositioning of the patient. The brachial plexus was the site of evolving injury in 65% of these 69 cases. Impending brachial plexopathy was most commonly noted immediately following shoulder taping and the application of counter-traction. Brachial plexus stretch upon neck extension for optimal surgical access and visualization was second in frequency-of-occurrence. Evolving traction injury to the ulnar nerve attributed to tightly-wrapped or malpositioned arms was observed in 16% of alerted cases, whereas evolving spinal cord injury following neck extension accounted for an additional 19%. This study highlights the role of tceMEP and ulnar nerve SSEP monitoring for detecting emerging peripheral nerve injury secondary to positioning in preparation for and during anterior cervical spine surgery.     

Does the National Emergency X-ray Utilization Study make a difference?

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the introduction of the National Emergency X-ray Utilization Study guidelines in a UK emergency department reduced the number of patients having cervical spine radiographs and altered the accuracy of diagnosis of cervical spine injury. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study. The number of patients with recent neck injury who had cervical spine radiographs taken was assessed for 3 months before and three months after the introduction of the National Emergency X-ray Utilization Study guidelines to an urban emergency department in the UK. The number of injuries missed by emergency department doctors during the two 3-month periods was also recorded. RESULTS: Prior to using the guidelines, 252 of 715 patients (35%) were X-rayed and when using the guidelines, 268 of 706 patients (38%) were X-rayed. No significant difference was observed between the rates of X-ray in the two groups (P=0.288). No injuries were missed by emergency department doctors either before or after the introduction of the guidelines. CONCLUSION: Introduction of the National Emergency X-ray Utilization Study guidelines to a UK emergency department did not reduce the number of patients having cervical spine radiographs after neck trauma and had no effect on the pick-up rate for cervical spine injuries.     

Distracting Painful Injuries Associated with Cervical Spinal Injuries in Blunt Trauma

Distracting painful injuries (DPIs) may mask symptoms of spinal injury in blunt trauma victims and form an important element in a decision instrument used to identify individuals who require cervical spine radiography. OBJECTIVE: To identify the types and frequencies of injuries that actually act as DPIs among blunt trauma patients undergoing cervical spinal radiography. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of consecutive blunt trauma victims presenting to an urban Level 1 regional trauma center between April 1, 1998, and September 30, 1998. Prior to cervical spinal radiography, treating physicians evaluated each patient to determine whether a DPI was present or absent and, if present, what type of injury was sustained. Injuries were categorized as fractures, soft-tissue injuries and lacerations, burns, visceral injuries, crush injuries, or other injuries. RESULTS: Data were collected for 778 patients, between 1 month and 98 years old, of whom 264 (34%) were considered to have DPIs. Physicians were unable to determine the DPI status in 47 (6%) additional cases. Fractures accounted for a majority of DPIs (154, or 58%), 42 (16%) were soft-tissue injuries or lacerations, and 86 (34%) were due to a variety of other entities, including visceral, crush, burn, or other miscellaneous injuries. Among the 37 (5%) patients with an acute cervical spinal injury, 20 (54%) had a DPI, including three (8%) who had DPI as the only indication for cervical radiography. CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of blunt trauma patients are believed by clinicians to have DPIs that can possibly mask the presence of cervical spinal injury. Fractures and trauma to soft tissues are the most common types of DPI.     

Evaluation of efficacy and 3D kinematic characteristics of cervical orthoses

BACKGROUND: Cervical orthoses are often prescribed for both extrication stabilization of trauma patients and a treatment option of injuries to the cervical spine. The objective of this study was to compare effectiveness of two new and two established cervical orthoses in restricting 3D range of motion in the cervical spine. METHODS: Twenty healthy males and females (ten each) participated in the study. Two new cervical collars, C-Breeze and XTW and two established collars, Miami J and Aspen, were examined. A 3-camera Vicon system was used to collect 3D kinematic data. Subjects performed three trials in each of the 15 test conditions wearing no collar and the four cervical collars and performing three different head movements: flexion-extension, left-right lateral flexion, and left-right axial rotation. FINDINGS: The results comparing with the unbraced movements indicated that the Miami J and C-Breeze collars had significantly greater percent reduction on range of motion in flexion than the XTW collar. For both extension and lateral bending, all three collars showed greater percent reduction than the Miami J. The XTW also showed greater reduction than the C-Breeze and Aspen in extension. Finally, the C-Breeze collar showed a significantly more reduction in axial rotation than the Miami J collar. INTERPRETATION: The results suggested that C-Breeze and XTW along with the Miami J and Aspen collars are effective in restricting range of motion in the cervical spine. The two new cervical orthoses also performed either comparably as or better than the two established cervical orthoses.