146 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34537462)
1. Comparison of cervical motion restriction and interface pressure between two cervical collars.
Araghi K; Jacofsky M; McCamley J
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2021 Oct; 89():105482. PubMed ID: 34537462
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. 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]
3. A bioengineering investigation of cervical collar design and fit: Implications on skin health.
Russell LJ; Dodd T; Kendall D; Lazenbury A; Leggett A; Payton-Haines S; Jiang L; Filingeri D; Worsley PR
Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon); 2024 Feb; 112():106178. PubMed ID: 38232471
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. 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]
5. Comparison of two new immobilization collars.
Rosen PB; McSwain NE; Arata M; Stahl S; Mercer D
Ann Emerg Med; 1992 Oct; 21(10):1189-95. PubMed ID: 1416295
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. 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]
7. Motion generated in the unstable cervical spine during the application and removal of cervical immobilization collars.
Prasarn ML; Conrad B; Del Rossi G; Horodyski M; Rechtine GR
J Trauma Acute Care Surg; 2012 Jun; 72(6):1609-13. PubMed ID: 22695429
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. 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]
9. Cervical immobilization in trauma patients: soft collars better than rigid collars? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Bäcker HC; Elias P; Braun KF; Johnson MA; Turner P; Cunningham J
Eur Spine J; 2022 Dec; 31(12):3378-3391. PubMed ID: 36181555
[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. 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]
12. 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]
13. Comparison of the Nebraska collar, a new prototype cervical immobilization collar, with three standard models.
Alberts LR; Mahoney CR; Neff JR
J Orthop Trauma; 1998 Aug; 12(6):425-30. PubMed ID: 9715451
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Improvised vs Standard Cervical Collar to Restrict Spine Movement in the Backcountry Environment.
Porter A; Difrancesca M; Slack S; Hudecek L; McIntosh SE
Wilderness Environ Med; 2019 Dec; 30(4):412-416. PubMed ID: 31706730
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. 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]
16. The Effect of Soft and Rigid Cervical Collars on Head and Neck Immobilization in Healthy Subjects.
Barati K; Arazpour M; Vameghi R; Abdoli A; Farmani F
Asian Spine J; 2017 Jun; 11(3):390-395. PubMed ID: 28670406
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. The effect of a soft collar, used as normally recommended or reversed, on three planes of cervical range of motion.
Carter VM; Fasen JA; Roman JM; Hayes KW; Petersen CM
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther; 1996 Mar; 23(3):209-15. PubMed ID: 8919400
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Analysis of remaining motion using one innovative upper airway opening cervical collar and two traditional cervical collars.
Jung MK; von Ehrlich-Treuenstätt GVR; Keil H; Grützner PA; Schneider NRE; Kreinest M
Sci Rep; 2021 Oct; 11(1):20619. PubMed ID: 34663847
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Cervical collars are insufficient for immobilizing an unstable cervical spine injury.
Horodyski M; DiPaola CP; Conrad BP; Rechtine GR
J Emerg Med; 2011 Nov; 41(5):513-9. PubMed ID: 21397431
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Prospective evaluation of craniofacial pressure in four different cervical orthoses.
Plaisier B; Gabram SG; Schwartz RJ; Jacobs LM
J Trauma; 1994 Nov; 37(5):714-20. PubMed ID: 7966467
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
