한국인을 대상으로 실험한 두 종류의 경추보조기에 대한 효과비교 = A Comparison of Efficacy of Two Cervical Orthoses in Koreans

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

P u r p o s e: This study was performed to evaluate the difference
in effectiveness between two cervical orthoses, the
Philadelphia collar (Philadelphia Collar Co., Philadelphia,
PA) and the Stifneck (Laerdal, Armonk, NY), in their ability
to restrict cervical motion in flexion, extension, lateral tilt,
rotation, and intervertebral motion in Koreans.
M e t h o d s: Ten volunteers, young Korean men (26∼4 2
years of age), with clinically and radiographically normal
cervical spines were studied. The normal and unrestricted
ranges of active cervical motion in flexion, extension, and
lateral tilt were measured in each subject and compared
with the motion permitted in each of the two cervical
orthoses.
R e s u l t s: This study demonstrated the Stifneck collar’s
superiority over the Philadelphia collar in extension, rotation,
and lateral tilt, but not in flexion. The efficacies of the
two collars in restricting intervertebral movement are good
except between the 1st and the 2nd cervical vertebrae. The
reason is the cervical vertebrae do not move as one unit;
paradoxical motion, the phenomenon o“f sn a k i n g , ”oc c u r s .
Compared to the results for the cervical spines of a
Caucasian population, our results revealed that the combined
flexion-extension of the cervical spine was markedly
less restricted with both cervical orthoses.
C o n c l u s i o n: The first obvious implication of the “s n a k i n g
ph e n o m e n o n ”is that measurements o“f total overall”ce r v i -
cal spine motion may be misleading. The limited effectiveness
of restriction at maximum combined flexion-extension
suggests that the anatomy of the skull in Asians might differ
from that of Caucasians, leading us to believe that a new
type of orthosis based on Asian anatomy needs to be
developed, and produced.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 "a guide to their selection and use" 34-45, clinorthop1981;154

2 "Use of thePhiladelphia collar as an alternative to the Halo vest inpatients with C-2" 151-6, neurosurgery1986;18

3 "Theeffectiveness of various cervical orthoses" 21 : 1624-1629, 1196

4 "The rise of neurologic damage withfractures of the vertebrae" 126-33, jtrauma1977;17

5 "Prospective evaluationof craniofacial pressure in four different cervicalorthoses" 714-20, jtrauma1994;37

6 "Hyperextension injuries of the cervical spine The pathogenesis of damage to the spinal cord" 1655-62, jbonejointsurg1974;56

7 "Hyperextension injuries of the cervical spine" Lin CS 2814-5, jama1976;235

8 "How effective is the Newport/Aspen collar? Aprospective radiographic evaluation in healthy adult volunteers" 374-8, jtrauma1988;45

9 "Emergency care in the streets" 291-5,

10 "Efficacy of five cervical orthoses inrestricting cervical motion" 22 : 1193-1198, 1997

11 "Efficacy of cervical spineimmobilization method" 461-5, jtrauma1982;23

12 "Effects of the cervical collar oncerebrospinal fluid pressure" 437-9, anaesthesia1994;49

13 "Comparison of theNebraska collar, a new prototype cervical immobilizationcollar, with three standard models" 12 : 425-430, 1998

14 "Clinical procedures in emergencymedicine" Saunders 772-775, 1998

15 "Anatomic location of spinal cord injury-Relationship to the cause of injury" spine1986;11

16 "American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons Emergency care and transportation of the sick and injured" 169-370, menasha;1981

17 "A practicalradiographic comparison of short board technique andKendrick extrication device" 943-6,

18 "A comparison of methodsof cervical immobilization used in patient extricationand transport" 649-53, jtrauma1985;25