151 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 23288458)
1. A 3D motion analysis study comparing the effectiveness of cervical spine orthoses at restricting spinal motion through physiological ranges.
Evans NR; Hooper G; Edwards R; Whatling G; Sparkes V; Holt C; Ahuja S
Eur Spine J; 2013 Mar; 22 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):S10-5. PubMed ID: 23288458
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Effectiveness of Adjustable Cervical Orthoses and Modular Cervical Thoracic Orthoses in Restricting Neck Motion: A Comparative In vivo Biomechanical Study.
Gao F
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2015 Oct; 40(19):E1046-51. PubMed ID: 26076435
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Comparison of Cervical Range-of-Motion Restriction and Craniofacial Tissue-Interface Pressure With 2 Adjustable and 2 Standard Cervical Collars.
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
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2016 Mar; 41(6):E304-12. PubMed ID: 26536441
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Do cervical collars and cervicothoracic orthoses effectively stabilize the injured cervical spine? A biomechanical investigation.
Ivancic PC
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 Jun; 38(13):E767-74. PubMed ID: 23486409
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Evaluation of efficacy and 3D kinematic characteristics of cervical orthoses.
Zhang S; Wortley M; Clowers K; Krusenklaus JH
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2005 Mar; 20(3):264-9. PubMed ID: 15698698
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Efficacy of five cervical orthoses in restricting cervical motion. A comparison study.
Askins V; Eismont FJ
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1997 Jun; 22(11):1193-8. PubMed ID: 9201855
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Biomechanical analysis of cervical orthoses in flexion and extension: a comparison of cervical collars and cervical thoracic orthoses.
Gavin TM; Carandang G; Havey R; Flanagan P; Ghanayem A; Patwardhan AG
J Rehabil Res Dev; 2003; 40(6):527-37. PubMed ID: 15077665
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Soft and rigid collars provide similar restriction in cervical range of motion during fifteen activities of daily living.
Miller CP; Bible JE; Jegede KA; Whang PG; Grauer JN
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2010 Jun; 35(13):1271-8. PubMed ID: 20512025
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Range-of-motion restriction and craniofacial tissue-interface pressure from four cervical collars.
Tescher AN; Rindflesch AB; Youdas JW; Jacobson TM; Downer LL; Miers AG; Basford JR; Cullinane DC; Stevens SR; Pankratz VS; Decker PA
J Trauma; 2007 Nov; 63(5):1120-6. PubMed ID: 17993960
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Assessing range of motion to evaluate the adverse effects of ill-fitting cervical orthoses.
Bell KM; Frazier EC; Shively CM; Hartman RA; Ulibarri JC; Lee JY; Kang JD; Donaldson WF
Spine J; 2009 Mar; 9(3):225-31. PubMed ID: 18504164
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Effects of orthoses on three-dimensional load-displacement properties of the cervical spine.
Ivancic PC
Eur Spine J; 2013 Jan; 22(1):169-77. PubMed ID: 23090094
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. The Effects of Cervical Orthoses on Head and Intervertebral Range of Motion.
Oyekan AA; LeVasseur CM; Chen SR; Padmanabhan A; Makowicz N; Donaldson WF; Lee JY; Shaw JD; Anderst WJ
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2023 Nov; 48(22):1561-1567. PubMed ID: 37339257
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. The effectiveness of various cervical orthoses. An in vivo comparison of the mechanical stability provided by several widely used models.
Sandler AJ; Dvorak J; Humke T; Grob D; Daniels W
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1996 Jul; 21(14):1624-9. PubMed ID: 8839463
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Kinematic evaluation of 4 pediatric collars and distribution of cervical movement between primary and coupled angles.
Assi A; Yazbeck P; Massaad A; Skalli W; Ghanem I
J Pediatr Orthop; 2014; 34(5):496-502. PubMed ID: 24322631
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. The use of the Zebris motion analysis system for measuring cervical spine movements in vivo.
Quinlan JF; Mullett H; Stapleton R; FitzPatrick D; McCormack D
Proc Inst Mech Eng H; 2006 Nov; 220(8):889-96. PubMed ID: 17236522
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. The effectiveness of extrication collars tested during the execution of spine-board transfer techniques.
Del Rossi G; Heffernan TP; Horodyski M; Rechtine GR
Spine J; 2004; 4(6):619-23. PubMed ID: 15541692
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Cervical orthoses.
Beavis A
Prosthet Orthot Int; 1989 Apr; 13(1):6-13. PubMed ID: 2717386
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Cervical orthoses effect on cervical spine motion: roentgenographic and goniometric method of study.
Fisher SV; Bowar JF; Awad EA; Gullickson G
Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 1977 Mar; 58(3):109-15. PubMed ID: 843201
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Mastication causing segmental spinal motion in common cervical orthoses.
Chin KR; Auerbach JD; Adams SB; Sodl JF; Riew KD
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2006 Feb; 31(4):430-4. PubMed ID: 16481953
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. How effective is the Newport/Aspen collar? A prospective radiographic evaluation in healthy adult volunteers.
Hughes SJ
J Trauma; 1998 Aug; 45(2):374-8. PubMed ID: 9715199
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
