177 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 9201855)
1. 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]
2. 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]
3. 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]
4. 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]
5. 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]
6. 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]
7. 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]
8. 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]
9. 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]
10. 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]
11. 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]
12. 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]
13. 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]
14. 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]
15. The yale cervical orthosis: an evaluation of its effectiveness in restricting cervical motion in normal subjects and a comparison with other cervical orthoses.
Johnson RM; Hart DL; Owen JR; Lerner E; Chapin W; Zeleznik R
Phys Ther; 1978 Jul; 58(7):865-71. PubMed ID: 662928
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the Minerva cervicothoracic orthosis.
Sharpe KP; Rao S; Ziogas A
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 1995 Jul; 20(13):1475-9. PubMed ID: 8623066
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Comparison between sheep and human cervical spines: an anatomic, radiographic, bone mineral density, and biomechanical study.
Kandziora F; Pflugmacher R; Scholz M; Schnake K; Lucke M; Schröder R; Mittlmeier T
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2001 May; 26(9):1028-37. PubMed ID: 11337621
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Effect of 2 different thoracolumbar orthoses on the stability of the spine during various body movements.
Kienle A; Saidi S; Oberst M
Spine (Phila Pa 1976); 2013 Aug; 38(17):E1082-9. PubMed ID: 23644685
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Emergency cervical-spine immobilization.
Chandler DR; Nemejc C; Adkins RH; Waters RL
Ann Emerg Med; 1992 Oct; 21(10):1185-8. PubMed ID: 1416294
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. 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]
[Next] [New Search]
